Cloning Debate

     Cloning is a process that has been debated for decades, and all the arguments
are now coming to a head. The thought of cloning has been around since the turn
of the century, but was not given much publication until the genre of science
fiction pursued it in novels, comics, magazines and television shows in the
mid-1950ís. When Dolly, a sheep, was cloned, many people, including
scientists, religious leaders, politicians, and common people, were held in
fascination as the cloning process was explained to them on every major network
television channel. People watched as the theory was put to use in certain
stages of sheep and frogs being cloned. Many people also came to the realization
that cloning is a scientific blight upon humanity, which should not be pursued
any further. Cloning will, for the most part, degrade the ethics and civility of
humanity until the population is either: a) no longer recognizably human, or b)
subjected to various forms of barbarianism including slavery, mass production of"spare" humans, and the coercement of the gene pool. Cloning, if stopped,
will leave many resources free for other scientific pursuits that could better
humanity, or raise the overall standard of living. The freed manpower could also
be put to more useful scientific tasks, such as food manipulation, or ecology
control. If the research of cloning is not stopped, the end result could well be
a eugenics war, or the inevitable death of the most powerful species on the
planet...humanity. Large majorities of people still presume that cloning will
better society, and that the level of technological improvement gained in the
short term justifies the few "minor" adjustments that would accommodate the"new & improved" society. These same people propagate the use of cloning
to harvest the extra bodies for needed body parts, as opposed to people donating
parts, and having people who need the organs sign a waiting list. Another
argument for cloning is that individuals with desirable characteristics could be
cloned as substitutes; e.g., a strong man could be cloned for construction
workers, a smart person could be cloned for scientific R&D, a man with
musical ability could be cloned to help an orchestra. None of the above-stated
arguments are compelling enough to merit cloning as an ethical line of research.

The flaws included within each pro-cloning statement are innumerable, but, due
to space constraints, only a few will be mentioned. Harvesting bodies for organs
is one of the most primitive and savage ideas ever put forth by human society,
especially considering that we are eclipsing the twenty-first century. To waste
time and manpower on an obviously immoral cause is despicable. To create a human
is to care for and nourish it until it is ready to face the world on itís own.

If a clone wants to donate an organ it is entirely up to the clone, not the
creator. It is similar to becoming impregnated and then selling the baby to
science for dissection. Cloning people for various tasks originally relegated to
the clonee is not unlike slavery in that the clone is given no consideration as
to what itís wants and desires are. As a society, people should fell ashamed
to have put forth the proposition of creating slaves; how is a cloneís rights
and privileges any different from the original personís? Clones should not be
considered to be of a lower standard than naturally conceived humans are.

Having, hopefully, successfully refuted the pro-cloning stance, it is time to
support the reasons for stopping cloning research and implementation. To start,
the topics of clone/original discrimination will be pursued, followed by the
topic of eugenics. When a clone is created, the world will gaze in wonder, as
the marvel of technological science is an exact replica of a human being, down
to the last strand of hair. When the planet is teeming with clones, the world
will whimper in fear as they see "unoriginal" humans taking what precious
resources we have left. This will, in all likelihood, lead to a new sort of
discrimination, in which clones are the ostracized group, and humans are the"superiors." It will be reminiscent of former times when Blacks and Indians
were treated with contempt and suffered ridicule. This is all on the premise
that there will be more humans than clones, of course. If the planet ends up
with more clones than humans, well, we originals are out of luck. Thereís no
other possibility. Every human being has in their genes the desire to live, even
if it means at the expense of others. This want will encompass both species
until one is wiped from the face of the Earth, or is kept under such tight
control as to be considered objects. Eugenics is, in a nutshell, attempting to
manipulate offspring by examining the genes of itís parents. As an example,
when a woman goes to the sperm bank for a donor, she is given the statistics of
each donorís abilities, including standardized intelligence, strength,
mechanical comprehension, and what job they held when they donated. If a woman
wants her child to be smart, she merely has to (hypothetically) choose a donor
that is exceptionally intelligent, and hope that his DNA takes effect in the
growing fetus. When applied to cloning, it is already known tat we can clone,
and that we can splice DNA. It is a small step from those being individual
sciences to using them in a combined effort to create a "super-human." In
effect, as it has already been hypothesized, many world leaders will probably
create an entire race of identical super-humans in an attempt to better their
armies and instill fear in the rest of humanity. A prophesized eugenics war
could take place in the near future, maybe 10-50 years from now, in which no
humans will be involved, except as prisoners or hostages. To recap, cloningís
benefits by no means justify the grave risks associated by the pursuit of this
science, as it will likely end humanityís term of ruling this planet. Cloning
does have a few good possibilities, like cloning individual organs for donation,
and cloning food for the hungry, but cloning humans should be avoided like the
plague. Would you feel comfortable knowing that, when you give a urine sample to
the doctor, they could likely be giving the government the ability to clone you?

How would cloning affect peopleís personal morality? Likely, peopleís
epistemology would change from a deontological form to a consequential form.

Would you wish this affliction upon humanity?