Cloning: Ethically and Morally Wrong

The cloning of any species, whether it be human or non-human, is ethically and morally wrong. Scientists and ethicists have debated the implications of human and non-human cloning extensively since 1997 when scientists at the Roslin Institute in Scotland produced a cloned sheep named Dolly. No direct conclusions have been made, but strong arguments state that cloning of both human and non-human species results in harmful physical and psychological effects on both groups. I will address the issue of cloning and its ethical and moral implications. Cloning of human beings results in severe psychological effects in the cloned child. Cloning is morally and ethically wrong, thus, this type of research should not be continued.
The possible physical damage that could be done if human cloning became a reality is obvious when one looks at the sheer loss of life that occurred before the birth of Dolly. Less than ten percent of the initial transfers survive to be healthy creatures. There were 277 trial implants. Nineteen of the 277 were deemed healthy; the others were discarded. Five of those nineteen survived, but four of them died within ten days of birth because of sever abnormalities. Dolly was the only one to survive to adulthood (Adler). If those nuclei were human, "the cellular body count would look like sheer carnage" (Kluger). Even Ian Wilmut, one of the scientists accredited with the cloning phenomenon at the Roslin Institute agrees, "The more you interfere with reproduction, the more danger there is of things going wrong".

The psychological effects of cloning are less obvious, but still very real. In addition to physical problems, there are worries about the psychological effects on a cloned human. One of those effects is the loss of identity, or the lost sense of uniqueness and individuality. Many people argue that cloning creates serious issues of identity and individuality and forces humans to consider the definition of self. Gilbert Meilaender commented on the importance of genetic uniqueness not only to the child but to the parent as well when he spoke in front of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission on March 13, 1997. He stated, "Children begin with a kind of genetic independence of [the parent]. They replicate neither their father nor their mother. That is a reminder of the independence that [the parent] must eventually grant them...To lose even in principle this sense of the child as a gift will not be good for the children".
I could not begin to imagine what it would feel like to not be unique. Even if born healthy and free of deformities a cloned human being would always feel inferior to normal people. To be an exact replica of another person would be an utter nightmare.
The effects on the parents would also be devastating when one considers the emotional and monetary costs of losing child after child until one comes out healthy. Since humans are so much more complex genetically then sheep, the casualty rate would be even greater then that of the Dolly experiment.
Human cloning is obviously damaging to both the family and the cloned child. It is harder to convince that non-human cloning is wrong and unethical, but it is just the same. The cloning of a non-human species subjects them to unethical treatment purely for human needs (Price). Animals have been seen as non-feeling and savage beasts since time began. Humans in general have no problem with seeing animals as objects to be used whenever it is necessary. But, what would happen if humans started to use animals for growing human organs? Where is the line drawn between human and non human? If a primate was cloned so that it grew human lungs, liver, kidneys, and heart, what would it then be? What if we figured out how to clone functioning brains and have them grow inside of chimps? Would non-human primates, such as a chimpanzee, who carried one or more human genes be defined as a chimp, a human, a subhuman, or something else? If it is a human, would we have to give it rights of citizenship? And if some humans carried non-human genes, would that change our definitions and treatment of them (Kluger)? Also, if the technology enabled scientists to transfer human genes into animals and vice-versa, that would heighten the danger of developing zoonoses, diseases that are transmitted from animals to humans, such as mad cow disease.
In conclusion, the ethical and moral implications of cloning make it wrong for the human race to attempt. The sheer loss of life in both humans and non-humans is enough to prove that cloning is a foolish endeavor. Works Cited
• "Before There was Dolly, There Were Disasters: Scientists failed to disclose abnormalities." The Washington Times. March 11, 1997.

• "Bill Would Ban Cloning for Reproduction, Research." [Online] Available http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010426/hl/cloning_2.html, April 26, 2001

• "The Cloning Controversy." [Online] Available http://www.sican.com/explorations. September 23, 1999.

• "Ethics on Cloning: The issue at hand." [Online] Available http://www.time.com/cloning. September 24, 1998.

• Kluger, Jeffery. "Will we Follow the Sheep?" Time Magazine. March 10, 1997 Vol. 149 No.10

• National Bioethics Advisory Commission. "Cloning Human Beings." [Online] Available http://bioethics.gov/pubs.html. September 24, 2000. Price, Joyce.

• Encarta 99. "Clone" article by: Clark, Brian C.