the Cloning Blog

Tuesday, October 31, 2006

The Question

In this blog, I shall discuss the controversy surrounding the subject of human cloning and its implications. At the heart of the matter is the question of whether human cloning should be leagally permitted. But to answer that we must analyse both sides of the debate.

Here are some things to ponder about:
1) Would genetically identical offsprings be socially accepted in the society?
2) Would he feel too ‘burdened by the excessively close resemblance to one parent’ or ‘overwhelmed by the burden of knowing too much about their bio-logical destiny'?
3) Couples have the right to reproduce, but do they have the right to technological aid in the process? What if the reproduction is not in the child’s best interests?
4) What if one day, we become so advanced in cloning perfect individuals that sexually produced children seem incompetent in comparison?

2 Comments:

  • 1) We already have people in our society who are genetic matches to someone else: identical twins, triplets, and the like. I don't think there would be a stigma directed at those that are genetically identical to someone. (It would be even less physically obvious than with twins if a child was identical to a parent because of the age difference.) I think the unease would come from people knowing that the clone is in some way "unnatural."
    2) I'm unsure where the sense of a burden would come from, especially related to parental resemblance. With regard to the "biological destiny," isn't the clone in your situation made genetically identical to one parent to avoid any inheritable disease the other parent has? That seems to improve their biological standing from what it would have been otherwise. The cloned person might have a better idea of what they are likely to be afflicted by, but it wouldn't be perfect--the environment has some effect. Car wrecks, virus infections, emotional health, are not things entirely wired in the genome.
    3) I think a couple would turn to a different reproductive technology before cloning (donor eggs or sperm, adoption). Are you asking if reproduction is in the unborn child's best interests? I don't understand how that deals with cloning...
    4) Children from sexual-reproduction would only be physically inferior, though. And that might not even be true (recall Steffi Graf had a child by Andre Aggasi--both were the best tennis players in the world at some point in their careers). As long as there's no educational discrimination, each type of child would have the same chance to be the best mentally.

    By Blogger Matt, at 1:07 PM  

  • i think that your point about cloning being "unnatural" is correct. it would an unideal lifestyle to be formed in a laboratory. knowing that someone was brought up in a way that is not natural, you would feel different in ways. also people would treat a person differently knowing they are not natural.
    KM 4th hour english

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:42 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home