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...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document