Arguments for and Against Cloning

Arguments For and Against Cloning

The end of the twentieth century was the information age. Now, at the beginning of the twenty-first century, we are entering a new age which people believe will be driven by medicine. As a result, topics like healthcare and euthanasia have become more prominently debated, especially with people living longer and medical advances getting better. However, one of the most hotly debated topics is cloning. With the birth of Dolly on July 5, 1996, the first animal to be cloned swept in a new age of ethical discussion. As is with similar discussions, like that on euthanasia or even cryogenics, it becomes more complex than just whether the good outweighs the bad. Should scientists be allowed to clone humans? Are some situations more appropriate than others? In this paper, I will take a look at both sides of the argument on whether cloning should be made available to humans.

Most people think of cloning as taking a human and making a genetically identical one. This is called reproductive cloning and most arguments center around this. There is also a second type of cloning called therapeutic cloning, in which embryonic stem cells are used to treat patients, such as those with spinal cord injuries. When we hear the words stem cell research, this refers to this type of cloning. As of now, the applications of therapeutic cloning are limited but it is believed that eventually it can be used to create a new arm, leg, or organs.

First, let us look at how cloning can be beneficial. Reproductive cloning allows infertile or same-sex couples to have biologically-related children. Some may claim that the ability to have a child and pass on a “bloodline” is a right. With reproductive cloning, reproduction becomes more accessible and is no longer restricted to between a man and woman. Additionally, reproductive cloning can be used by a couple to replace a child who may have died prematurely, using DNA from the deceased child to create a...