Cloning's Future
Cloning Pros & Cons
Regulation
Nuclear Transfer

Web Link:
Cloning FAQ

A clone would not be a normal human:

Whatever the methods of production are, a clone would be as "human" as an identical twin. Both are derived from a single fertilized egg.

Cloning is "playing God":

Cloning does not create life, as this stigma implies. Cloning merely produces life from existing life. Cloning can be thought of as an extension of procedures like in-vitro fertilization.

Cloning is not a natural process:

Cloning utilizes elements that already exist in the natural reproduction process. Embryo cloning pulls apart a zygote at the two-cell stage and creates two one-celled organisms. Although some might say that cloning is not an intended form of reproduction, the same might be said of in-vitro fertilization, and the use of fertility drugs.

A clone will not have a soul:

This implies that the soul is a quantifiable physical element of someone’s genetic makeup that can be altered or taken away. In this case, cloning does not present more of a religious problem than identical twins. Despite them being identical, it is agreed that both twins have souls.

A clone will have the same feelings and emotions as its genetic parent:

An overused example of this idea is a Hitler clone starting a new Holocaust. While genes and genetic structure can give certain characteristics and possibly basic emotional tendencies, environment and upbringing play a much larger role in shaping someone’s emotions and outlook. A Hitler clone that had been raised in the United States and had lived in a period of stability and prosperity would not act the same way as a Hitler raised in Germany living amongst post-war devastation and hatred.

Someone could own a clone:

Although cloning is being considered as a future infertility remedy, and essentially, a clone would be "made" for the parents, no one could own a clone. Ownership of a clone would be no different than slavery. People that predict a massive working underclass produced from cloning forget that despite the methods of their birth, clones would carry the same rights as a person produced through normal reproduction.

An unconscious clone could be produced to supply organs:

Despite being morally questionable, producing a clone with no self-awareness requires a deeper knowledge of where the consciousness resides. Consciousness is not a certain trait that can be erased through genetics, and there is no isolated DNA that determines its existence. Furthermore, just proving that a clone is not self-aware would be difficult. People with debilitating neurological disorders may appear mentally incapacitated but retain full consciousness. However, researchers have theorized the possibility of cloning only certain organs to use as replacements for an individual in dire need of a transplant. Scientists believe that if the cells of an organ have the same genetic make up as those of the host organism, the organ would be much less likely to be rejected after a transplant.

Great individuals of the past could be re-born:

All current techniques to clone an adult cell use the method of nuclear transfer, which requires the donor cell to be alive. In this process a LIVE adult adult cell it fused with an egg cell or it's nucleus is extracted and inserted into the egg. At this time, and most likely far into the future, clones of dead organisms can not be created. Also, even if such an individual is cloned, the development of the person is largely dependent upon its upbringing and childhood surroundings. Just as a theoretical Hitler clone would most likely not grow up to start a new Holocaust, an Einstein clone would probably not become a world renowned physicist.

[ Home ] [ The Details ] [ Reactions ] [ Interactions ] [ About Site ] [ Bibliography ]