… it the police to help reduce the crime rate. Crime offenders would be deterred when they acknowledged that superhuman fighters are helping fight crime. When there is a war, superhuman fighters could be used in battle to intimidate the opposing side.
Pertaining to the superhuman workers, construction would be at a faster pace and there would be mass production, meaning that clones would be able to replace non-clones in very strenuous and tedious tasks, producing about five times the progress that the regular workers would have made. This would be a great benefit because it could be done for very reasonable prices compared to expensive machines and robotics. One would also be able to benefit from this due to unlimited labor availability. Someone could be cloned at any time, once the technology is available. Cloning would also provide a great scientific breakthrough for both men and women.
Single women would be able to clone children of their choices without men or the fear of sexually transmitted diseases. Infertile and sterile couples would be able to have children, which could actually look like them. With the help of surrogate mothers to carry babies, men would be able to produce their own offspring without the trouble of having to mate. Cloning has the power to cure infertility.
The current options for infertile couples are insufficient, painful, expensive, and heart breaking. Many couples run out of time and money without successfully having children. Cloning could make it possible for many infertile couples to have children by boosting efficiency through nuclear transfer. Individuals should be free to choose whatever methods are effective for enabling them to have children. Furthermore, could be used to save a species from extinction by cloning the dying members of the breed that is going extinct. For example, there might be a war between the human race, and almost everyone could be destroyed due to the atomic bomb.
Thus, one could salvage the remains of the population after the war through means of cloning. Ethicist’s might all have a very different viewpoint and think that one should not simply modify the evolutionary change imposed by nature. Contrary to this belief, one should believe that cloning should be used to save a species from going extinct. In contrast, people believe that cloning is extremely unethical, immoral, and, as the church feels, against God’s will.
There are a lot of negative effects of cloning. The major one is that it is observed as being a moral issue for a lot of people. If cloning were to come about, it might threaten moral and social values by encouraging a form of eugenics and objectification. God has created a universe in which every species has its place and character. Human beings are the only species with the knowledge and will to alter things in the world, and from past experiences with other scientific experiments, one has seen that arrogant altering can lead to great disaster. Human cloning would be useful as an infertility treatment, but there are several infertility treatments that are also ethically problematic.
Human cloning would just be one more form of technology that erases the lines between parentage, conception and birth. Human descent is not just a matter of DNA, but of family and ancestry. It was not meant to be a commodity. If cloning human beings begins, one will have changed the definition of what it means to be a human being and erased the stamp of God.
Also, anyone to be cloned is at high risk because human cloning is still in the experimental stage. The cloning of human beings would radically alter one’s definition of oneself by producing the world’s first human with a single genetic parent. This would simply undermine human dignity and individuality and encourage one to treat one’s children like commodities. The psychological risks taken by cloning could prove to be disastrous. No one knows what the effect would be on human identity and relationships of creating someone who is the twin of someone’s father or mother, but born in a different generation and environment. The clone might then feel that he was just a copy of someone who already existed and not really himself.
Over the years supporters have tried to come up with all kind of excuses and hypotheticals to sell the technique of cloning. These hypotheticals have only demonstrated that the risks of dehumanization and commodification are real. One might put forward the proposal that the parents of a dying child should be able to clone the child for replacement. But when a child is cloned, it is not the parents who are replicated, but the child. No one should have such dominion over a child as to be allowed to use his or her genes to create the child’s child. The other factor contributing negativity towards human cloning is that certain parts of the world are already overpopulated.
With human cloning implemented, the whole world would definitely be overpopulated, and without proper supervision, human cloning would be ridiculously abused. In conclusion, with both the positive and negative views closely examined, one would have to admit that the pros outweigh the cons when looking at the topic of human cloning. With every advancement comes risks, and this is no different. Several questions still exist, however. Experimentation should continue until these answers are as certain as possible. Until a real human is cloned and brought to the eyes of the world, all of the questions and answers will, however, remain a mystery.
Works Cited Annas, George, J, “Human Cloning.” ABA Journal 83. (1997) Academic Search Elite. Ebscohost. MSU, Mississippi State 26 February 2001. Arrest, Catherine.
“Human Cloning: Not When, But Why.” Business Week. 19 Feb. 2001: 68 71. Harris, Mark, “To Be or Not to Be? .” Vegetarian Times. 250. (1998) Health Source Plus.
Ebscohost. MSU, Mississippi State 26 February 2001. Mahendra n, Arun di, “Cloning: A Leap For Mankind or a Moral Abyss? .” Student BMJ. 7. (1998). Health Source Plus.
Ebscohost. MSU, Mississippi State 26 February 2001. Reed Business Information Ltd. 2 March 2002.
New Scientist.