paperEarly in 1997, Scottish scientist Dr. Ian Wilmot revealed to the world that he had successfully cloned an adult sheep, Dolly. With this invention, the world made a collective gasp at the realization that cloning was no longer a pipe dream or an element of a Science Fiction movie. Since then, human cloning has become one of the most debated topics in the world. From the schoolhouse to the White House, discussions began regarding the ethical implications of human cloning. In several recent polls by TIME magazine (The Ethics of Cloning, 1998 ), it was shown that 75 percent of the responding population thought that cloning wasn’t a good thing. Furthermore, 74 percent of the respondents believed that cloning was against God’s will, and when asked if they would clone themselves, if presented with the opportunity, 91 percent responded with a “no”. However, when asked to define human cloning, an estimated 95 percent of them couldn’t describe it correctly. As a matter of fact, in a personal interview with Miss. Weber, T.A. (personal interview, November 7,1998) when asked, “What do you think about human cloning?” responded, “I don’t know a lot about it, but I know it’s scary”. Opponents of human cloning argue that it is immoral and unethical to clone human beings for both religious and humanitarian reasons. Moreover, other opponents describe human cloning as a luxury for wealthy people or as a tool for organ market development. Conversely, I believe that human cloning can have many benefits for the human race in terms of helping infertile couples and people with genetic problems. In addition, it can be really helpful for a person with diseases such as kidney and liver defects or cancer.
First of all, it seems logical that one needs to know what the process of cloning involves. It is not enough to simply say that it is the creation of another person, which is what many uneducated people think. Although, there have been many proposed methods for cloning, only one of them has been successful so far. Put simply, cloning is the process in which the DNA of a female egg cell is replaced with different DNA from another cell. This technique is also called “Nuclear Transfer” or “Nuclear Substitution.” In the operation, the nucleus, which is the part of a cell and contains the DNA molecules from an unfertilized female egg cell, is carefully removed and then replaced with the nucleus from a cell of another person. Then, “the cell is manipulated into believing that it has been fertilized and is then implanted into the womb of the mother, just as is done in the process of in-vitro fertilization. Afterwards, the embryo develops into a fetus and is born after nine months, just like any other baby” (Shapiro, H. 1997. pp.14-17). What this means is that the cloned baby only differs from other babies in that they share the same exact DNA with another person, just like identical twins, only the clone is much younger than its twin. The child will grow up to be no more like their twin than natural identical twins are alike. Therefore, some peoples’ beliefs that human cloning is a complicated process, which involves techniques found in the movie Frankenstein, is unfounded.

It is true that science fiction novels and movies have given people the impression that human clones would be mindless zombies, Frankenstein monsters, or “doubles”. One can see that this is nonsense after reading about the actual process. Human clones would be regular people, not zombies. They would be carried and delivered after nine months by a human mother and raised in a family, just like everyone else. Consequently, a clone-twin will usually be much younger than the original person, and will not share a common memory. Thus, there is no danger of people confusing a clone-twin with the original person.

Another fear that some people have about this process is that evil dictators might abuse it. There are fears that unscrupulous dictators such as a modern day Adolph Hitler, or Saddam Hussein might try to perpetuate their power by creating a clone of themselves, and transferring power to the double when they die. Or maybe they believe that such people might try to create a super army of thousands of clones of Arnold Schwarzenegger, etc. Researchers understand that “A clone will not carry any of the memories of the original person. Because of these differences, the new double would have the same legal rights and responsibilities as any other human being” (Shapiro, H. 1997, p.74). Therefore, fears based on irrational ideas about cloning include the so called “10,000 Hitlers” scenario, or the idea that immoral dictators could use this process to create an army of clones of themselves to take over the world, are simply an unjustified fear. “First of all, to create 10,000 evil dictators you would need 10,000 women who are willing to carry an evil clone for nine months. Even then, it would take years for the babies to be raised to maturity”(Hume, 1997). Moreover, it could be argued that being “evil” is probably a learned behavior. Each of the ten thousand clones would be a product of their environment, which would not be the same environment in which Hitler (or whoever) was raised.

Other arguments against human cloning involve organ transplants and slavery. Sometimes people who oppose this scientific miracle think that millionaires might clone themselves to obtain organs for transplant. Or, there is a fear that the doubles would be used as slaves for organ banks, to be chopped up whenever a part is needed. This is one of the most ridiculous of all claims against cloning. For decades in China, prisoners have unwillingly had organs removed for sale on the black market. They were humans, not clones. However, a human clone is a human being. In a free society, you cannot force another human being to give you one of their internal organs. You certainly cannot kill another human being to obtain one of their organs. Existing laws already prevent such abuses. Note also that if your clone-twin is injured in an accident, society may want to intervene and declare that the act of organ transplant is prohibited. In fact, the removal of an organ from anyone, clone or not, for transplant into another person is a very questionable practice which must be stringently regulated. Moreover, cloning is not needed for there to be slaves- it was already an institution for hundreds of years in a clone-free America. Therefore, claims against cloning based on organ transplants and slavery are unfounded.