Human Cloning and the Future Essay

In his work from 2002 â€Å"Religion and Human Cloning: An Exploratory Analysis of the First Available Opinion Data†, John Evans proudly states a few possible benefits, or advantages, of human ‘therapeutic’ cloning. While talking about embryonic stem cells, he states â€Å"these cells can eventually be used to treat diseases such as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, and kidney failure, to name but a few†¦Ã¢â‚¬ (748). These possibilities have mostly been confirmed since the publishing of Evans’ piece and other more incredible possibilities have come about. The benefits of both reproductive and therapeutic cloning are endless, yet many still disagree. They say that cloning is dangerous and that it would end human evolution and bring disaster to society as we know it (Mautner, 68). Do most people really think this is true? Or is modern society simply scared of the unknown and not ready for change? Many scientists and authors constantly debate the ethics and possibilities of human cloning, both for reproductive use and therapeutic use. A couple of possible risks would accompany the beginning of human cloning, however the benefits are legitimate, and we as a species should reconsider. It is common knowledge that mother and father love one another. And it’s the classic ideal for a family to begin, in the act of spousal love through sexual reproduction. Alix Magney, in his work â€Å"Cloning Me, Cloning You: Reflections on the Ethics of Cloning for Individuals, Families and Society†, argues that since human cloning would cause childbearing to lose its proper origins as an act of spousal love, it â€Å"†¦plainly poses a threat to the dignity and equality of women†¦Ã¢â‚¬  (25). I don’t think this is true at all, as adopting a child has been practiced for thousands of years and in vitro fertilization was invented in 1978. In vitro fertilization is where an egg is fertilized by sperm outside the female body and then inserted into the uterus for maturation only once the egg is fertilized. Sperm donors have been used for decades, completely negating any ‘spousal love’ from the equation that is reproduction. While people continue to fight over equality for women, which has been true since the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment to the Constitution in 1920, other people continue to debate greater concerns about cloning. I have always heard it said ‘You’re special’, or ‘Just be yourself’, and these are sayings of encouragement to develop your own identity, not to follow others when unnecessary, and to accept that everyone is different. Giovanni Berlucchi, in his work â€Å"The Myth of the Clonable Human Brain†, states that â€Å"†¦most human values are corollaries of the concept that each person is unique and identical to himself or herself through space and time. (160) and â€Å"†¦that this kind of genetic manipulation may interfere with psychological and biological diversity, and therefore with the distinctiveness and autonomy of the individual† (160). I do think that the overuse of a single genetic identity for reproductive cloning would cause a disruption in the common value of individuality, but only in that physical aspect of things. Th e benefits of reproductive cloning and the possibilities of advancing the individual through therapeutic cloning could greatly outweigh any disruptions. Berlucchi continues, â€Å"Nature has, of course, been producing genetically identical humans from time immemorial†¦ in trifling pairs of monozygotic twins, and even less frequently in batches of monozygotic triplets†¦Ã¢â‚¬  (160). Prenatal uterine environment differences, along with other environmental differences post-conception, can significantly affect the psychological outcome of the child and is a main reason for psychological differences between monozygotic twins. The concept of environmental determinism dispels the myth that cloning humans would eliminate the core value of individuality. The controversy over abortion is one of the biggest issues for politicians and the rest of society alike. The debate over whether or not an embryo is to be considered a human being with rights is a ‘hot topic’ among the public and continues to be an important argument for almost everyone. In his aforementioned piece â€Å"Religion and Human Cloning†¦Ã¢â‚¬ , John Evans says that the Roman Catholic Church has the most clear-cut position against cloning, simply based on the status they give to a human embryo. They believe embryos are equivalent to fully grown humans: â€Å"Embryos are to be treated the same as born persons and therefore cannot be used as means toward an end. Most obviously, they cannot be destroyed to benefit others† (748). The church also opposes cloning because it â€Å"†¦severs human reproduction from sexuality† (748). If a couple is attempting to have a kid with each other, by any means, they are more than likely sexually active with one another, and therefore cloning doesn’t remove the sexuality from the overall situation, even if it is not directly involved with the contraception. Also, new technology has been developed since the writing of this article, and it is now possible to extract stem cells from embryos without destroying the embryo. You can take a single stem cell, or blastomere, and coax it to become an endlessly proliferating stem cell. Although these cells can’t form embryos, they can form major types of human tissue just as any embryonic stem cells do. So, therapeutic cloning is possible without the destruction of embryos. Other people fear the end of what Charles Darwin so valiantly discovered and explained to us all over 150 years ago – human evolution. Michael Mautner, in his piece â€Å"Will Cloning End Human Evolution? †, argues that a result of human cloning would be the end of human evolution. He states â€Å"Cloning will, in contrast, reproduce the same genetic makeup of an existing individual. There is no room for new traits to arise†¦ The result: Human evolution is halted† (68). Only an insane situation where cloning was the only method for reproduction and the same genetic makeup was used over and over again would lead to the end of human evolution. This is an extreme situation and would almost definitely never happen. New science behind non-embryonic stem cell research has shown incredible potential for stem cells in general, as embryonic stem cells show significantly more potential than stem cells extracted from other parts of the human body, like the yellow bone marrow. Stem cells are beginning to be used to regrow hair, teeth and cartilage in damaged joints. Since the procedures and research are incredibly expensive, treatment is limited to those wealthy enough. Professional North-American athletes have led the way, being human guinea pigs for the non-invasive procedures in hopes of returning their bodies to their prime, pre-injury, form. Stem cell treatments are growing in popularity and legitimacy, and the use of embryonic stem cells shouldn’t be limited as it can only advance our species. Scientific tests and studies have proven limitless benefits to stem cell transplants, yet ethical concerns and moral-based laws are constraining what could be groundbreaking and life-saving science. There is possible potential for embryonic stem cells to be grown into whole, functional, organs or entire limbs of the human body. The uses could range from a ounded amputee war veteran in need of a new leg, or an elderly woman in need of a new kidney as hers is failing, and the possibilities are endless. Human fear of the unknown is instinctual, but as the realm of the previously impossible comes more into the lights of reality, we need to change our minds on the practicality and usefulness of cloning and embryonic stem cells. For our ailing parents, for our children, and our children’s children, we need to advance as a society, and take hold of the opportunities and benefits sitting right in front of us.