This question shakes us all to our very souls. For humans to consider the cloning of one another, forces everyone of us to question the very concepts of right and wrong that makes us all human. The cloning of any species, whether they be human or non-human, is ethically and morally wrong. Scientists and ethicists alike have debated the dangerous 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 drawn, but compelling arguments state that cloning of both human and non-human species results in harmful physical and psychological effects on both groups. The following issues dealing with cloning and its ethical and moral implications will be addressed: cloning of human beings would result in severe psychological effects in the cloned child, and that the cloning of non-human species such as animals subjects them to unethical or moral treatment for human needs.
The amount of 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 of nuclei. Nineteen of those 277 were deemed healthy while the others were discarded. Five of those nineteen survived, but four of them died within ten days of birth of severe abnormalities. Dolly was the only one to survive (Fact: Adler 1996). If those nuclei were human, "the cellular body count would look like sheer carnage"
(Kluger vol 149). 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" (NBAC online).
The psychological effects of cloning are less obvious, but none the less, very plausible. In addition to physical harms, there are...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document