Reproductive Cloning

Reproductive cloning can be described as the genetic production of the duplicate of an organism which offers a copy of the existing organism. Cloning is an area that has raised various controversies based on moral, legal, medical and religious opinions. In this regard, some of the people are in support of this kind of innovation while many others are equally opposed. Specifically, according to Havstad (71), medics state that this practice is not medically right because of the various safety concerns that are involved. Additionally, many others are opposed to it because of the illegalization of the same in 9 states of the United States. Notably, Human reproductive cloning has been prohibited is two states even for research purposes. However, in the view of Garcia-Gonzalez, and Antoni Margalida (1445) cloning can be used to research on several diseases such as diabetes. Religious denominations have the view that human beings are unique and cannot therefore be duplicated. In this regard, they invoke the various teachings of the bible that are against interference with the uniqueness of Gods creation. The fact that human beings have a soul makes religious organizations view cloning as immoral and hence unethical practice. People who agree to cloning are not privy to all the legal, medical, and religious laws against the same; moreover, they fail to understand the gravity of the damage that cloning can make to the world population.

If this sample essay on"Reproductive Cloning" doesn’t help,
our writers will!

Trust an expert

Legally, many countries have devised laws that prohibit cloning. This prohibition is based on the practicality of the practice as well as the beliefs of the citizens. Indeed, overwhelming majority of people who have been surveyed have rejected the practice. There are various international agreements that have formally prohibited cloning. Specifically, the International Convention against the Cloning of Human Beings outlaws the practice. However, not all countries who are member states of the United Nations have ratified this particular convention (Havstad, 72). As such, some of the countries continue to practice cloning. However, this treaty is categorical that human rights should be observed and that cloning amounts to an affront to the inherent dignity of people. As such, this practice is viewed as illegal in most of the countries around the world. Legal scholars argue that cloning is against the dignity of human beings that is protected under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

In the United States, nine states have banned cloning. Additionally, two of those states have even gone further to prohibit the use of the government funds in cloning. This has been the case despite the defeat of the Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2007. Specifically, the reproductive cloning has been argued to be illegal due to the issue of the rights of the clone who is not naturally born. In the case of human reproductive cloning, it is argued that humans have the right to be protected by states against any eminent dangers on their lives. However, there are those legal scholars who argue that cloning ought not to be regulated as human beings have free will and the freedom of conscience. As such, it is the argument of Havstad (74) that human beings should be allowed to make choices on things that concerns their lives. However, little do they know that legalizing cloning would set a bad practice that would see the inherent dignity of humans abused. As a result, their arguments do not hold sway as they fail to appreciate the various human rights breaches that are in place through cloning. Indeed, issues to do with the abuse of the clones and the respect for the non-clones would trigger human rights issues.

Medically, most of the several instances in which cloning has been done have not been entirely successful. In this regard, even when the clones make it, they encounter various complications which makes life very difficult for them. For instance, it took scientists over 100 attempts to clone dolly the sheep. This long time and many attempts makes the clones to be creatures who do not deserve what they go through. As such, it is only logical, and ethical that cloning is stopped. In most times, clones do not live long as other animals that are sexually reproduced (Garcia-Gonzalez, and Antoni Margalida, 1446). This is because of the facts that the genes that are used in the making of the clones have high chances of having gone previous mutations. This, therefore, makes the process unsafe. More importantly, the costs that will be incurred in trying to keep the clones alive can be saved for other important activities. Even the medical practitioners are at pain to ensure that the clones are well taken care of and that their health is kept safe. Indeed, this makes cloning medically unethical.

The other medical controversy against cloning is the provision of the pool of diversity that is existent in the robust human population. As a result, the inbreeding of animals in a more constant manner can likely lead to the variations and consequently the increased risks related to genetic defects (Mintrom, 442). There are various effects that will arise from these defects. In this regard, a hip dysplasia in dogs will tend to have more adaptable and healthier mutts. Additionally, it is a matter of public notoriety that cloned animals cannot be compared to those who have been naturally produced due to the various benefits that clones lack. As such, the clones are a bother and burden to medical practitioners who have to ensure their survival. It is ion the basis of these defects that medically cloning ought to be disallowed. Controversially, other people on medical grounds, state that cloning offers them an opportunity to make researchers and, therefore, make new innovations and developments. As such, it is their opinion that cloning is the only way that they can advance in this field of research (Mintrom, 445). However, these people are not aware of the adverse medical consequences of the same as well as the various defects that are likely to arise from the clones.

Reproductive cloning has been proved to be medically unsafe. In this regard, according to Terec-Vlad and Daniel Terec-Vlad (921), more than 90% of the mammalian cloning experiments have resulted in miscarriages, life threatening anomalies, as well as cases of stillbirths. Experts in the medical field are unanimous that clones cannot be said to be entirely healthy. As such, the legality of cloning will be put into question medically as these experts have given the red light for those planning cloning. In this case, humans will put the lives of the clones as well as their mothers at grave risks. Notably, it has been argued that cloning will lead to the other dangerous applications of genetic engineering technology and hence cause more dangers to lives (Terec-Vlad and Daniel Terec-Vlad, 920). However, there are arguments to the effect that cloning is one way of providing alternatives to those who cannot give birth naturally. However, this argument can be rebutted by the risks that are involved in the practice.

There exists no consensus on the religious views on cloning. However, Christians especially the Roman Catholics and other more conservative religious groups are very much opposed to the practise of cloning. In this regard, it is their belief that life begins at conception. As a result, life should only get into the body through this act (Terec-Vlad, Loredana, and Daniel Terec-Vlad, 1448). Additionally, it is the view of a majority of Christians that cloning is playing the role of God. As such, it amounts to a sin that is not in accordance with the Bible teachings. Specifically, Christians believe that God is mortal and above all. As such, nobody can replicate the role of God. This can be seen in the various sentiments that were encored by various religious leaders. Pope John Paul II once stated that cloning techniques, insofar as they involve the manipulation and destruction of human embryos, are not morally acceptable, even when their proposed goal is good in itself." (Garcia-Gonzalez, Ricardo, and Antoni Margalida., 1450). Other religious leaders are opposed to cloning on moral grounds. In this regard, a Jesuit priest and who doubles as a professor of Christian ethics, Richard McCormick, stated that "I cant think of a morally acceptable reason to clone a human being." (Havstad, 71). These sentiments were strong opposing arguments towards cloning.

According to Christian religious views, cloning is acting the role of God which was at one time dealt with in the bible. Specifically, in Genesis 11 on the babel tower, human beings sought to build a tower that would go all the way to heaven. However, God did not approve. On the contrary God said if as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other. (Genesis 11:6) This confusion was to ensure that human beings did not go on with their mission which was only bequeathed to God. Another passage in the bible that disallows assuming the role of God is when Adam and eve assumes the role of God by disobeying His commands through the acquisition of knowledge that only God had. In this case, they were thrown out of the Garden of Eden. Apart from the Christians, Islam does not entirely outlaw cloning of some parts of the body but rather disallows the cloning of the whole body (Ghaly, 10). However, for the purpose of treatment, cloning is allowed. These religious arguments require cloning to be disallowed as it is a usurpation of the role of the Supreme Being.

To conclude, various arguments have been made for and against cloning. Supporters of the practise state that it is a means innovation and development. However, majority of the people oppose the practise on legal, medical and religious grounds. Those who accept this practise have no idea on the consequences of the practise and its effect on the health of the clones. Medically, cloning is unhealthy due to the various risks that are realised. Additionally, most cloning cases are unsuccessful and hence cannot be trusted. Legally, the Convention against the Cloning of Human Beings outlaws the practise. Christians and Muslims are against cloning of the whole body. Specifically, Christians are opposed to the practise as it involves the usurping of the role of God which is against the biblical teaching. As such, cloning should be disallowed.

Works cited

"CGS : Reproductive Cloning Arguments Pro And Con". Geneticsandsociety.org. N.p., 2016. Web. 18 July 2016. http://www.geneticsandsociety.org/article.php?id=282"International Convention Against The Cloning Of Human Beings".

Vatican.va. N.p., 2016. Web. 18 July 2016. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/secretariat_state/2003/documents/rc_seg-st_20031021_migliore-cloning_en.htmlGarcia-Gonzalez, Ricardo, and Antoni Margalida. "The Arguments against Cloning the Pyrenean Wild Goat." Conservation Biology 28.6 (2014): 1445-1446.

Ghaly, Mohammed. "Human cloning through the eyes of Muslim scholars: The new phenomenon of the Islamic international religioscientific institutions." Zygon 45.1 (2010): 7-35.

Havstad, Joyce C. "Human reproductive cloning: A conflict of liberties." Bioethics 24.2 (2010): 71-77.

Mintrom, Michael. "Policy entrepreneurs and controversial science: governing human embryonic stem cell research." Journal of European Public Policy 20.3 (2013): 442-457.

Terec-Vlad, Loredana, and Daniel Terec-Vlad. "Ethical aspects within human cloning." Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 92 (2013): 920-924.