Download Mother of Invention

Anonymous Student
English 1A-15
Seligo
Mother of Invention
Reproductive cloning; or the procedure of cloning a human for the sole purpose of giving
life to another being, in any situation, should remain banned as world wide as possible on the
grounds of a great many things, but at the least, for its utter lack of necessity.
Allowing the cloning of humans to produce a baby is outlawed in many countries
already, although research cloning and the cloning of animals are allowed. In “The Moral
Imperative for Human Cloning” Ian Wilmut states: “I remain implacably opposed to
reproductive cloning per se, I do envisage that producing cloned babies would be desirable under
certain circumstances, such as preventing genetic disease” (Wilmut 366). Though Wilmut’s
experience is in animal cloning (most noted for his work done on the first cloned sheep, Dolly)
and for his work in research cloning, his stand on the subject is important to consider when
looking at the ethics and morals involved in reproductive cloning.
The moral concerns revolving around reproductive cloning tend to be focused through
religious observations and really relate more to ethics involved with the research needed before
the creation of a viable human clone. These moral issues have to do with the amount of trials it
will take to create a healthy clone and what is done with the failed trials. What if they are not
healthy? How many times will they have to abort a child, or will a child be miscarried? There
were two-hundred seventy-seven trails before Dolly, and she wasn’t even truly perfect (at least to
the standard we would hope to apply to human clones). Do we want two-hundred seventy-seven
human lives on our hands, or more? And most importantly, do we have a truly selfless and
Anonymous Student
English 1A-15
Seligo
morally supported need to bring another child into this world when so many have no homes,
food, or family?
Many people feel that the human life starts at the moment of conception and even the
World Medical Association’s doctor’s oath states “I will maintain the utmost respect for human
life from the moment of conception” (Conley 348). What we focus on here is “the moment of
conception” or the moment the sperm fuses with the egg. Now, this stand is used by opponents
of banning human cloning as well as research cloning, and if we are to stick with the World
Medical Association’s assumption then the debate should end there. But those in favor of
research and reproductive cloning tend to question the facts revolving around when a human is
considered a human. Advocates for reproductive and research cloning look at the abortion debate
for grounds on claiming a human is only a human after certain fetal development, and a simple
cellular fusion between two regularly disposed of cells should not be considered human. But
whether the destruction or manipulation of a two-celled organism has ethical issues surrounding
it or not, the concern of mine is one of a multi-trillion celled being that is a little more familiar to
us – and identically ‘familiar’ to someone; and whether it is ethical to bring an unneeded being
of this caliber into the world. It is not the morality of destroying or manipulating or aborting a
cloned child, it is the morality of creating, ‘screening’ and birthing one.
Ian Wilmut claims that “cloning promises such great benefits that it would be immoral
not to do it” (Wilmut 366). Though his stand relates more to the benefits of research cloning,
Wilmut is a strong supporter of gene-replacement therapy, a practice that would involve creating
a clone of an embryo that has an inherited gene replaced with a healthy one so that the resulting
product would be a human child that did not have the genetically inborn trait, though in fact not
the originally conceived child. This to me seems too closely related to reproductive cloning, and
Anonymous Student
English 1A-15
Seligo
almost builds a well lubricated slide for us on the already slippery slope that is cloning. What
genes would be okay to replace? What if sexual orientation is linked to genes? Parents and
children already fight over this issue, how ethical is it to allow one side to dictate the life of
another? Wilmut’s words are well chosen though, he believe it is “immoral not to [clone]” and
looking back at a different part of the World Medical Association’s doctor’s oath; “the utmost
respect for human life” can easily cross the moral-immoral debate line. My concern is for the
respect for those who are living – for the health and livelihood of the human race – it is in our
lives’ “utmost respect” to ban reproductive cloning in a world that is already grotesquely overpopulated and under-resourced.
John J. Conley argues that “cloning undermines the integrity of human love” and goes on
to say that the “role once reserved to God and parent had now passed to the scientist in the white
coat” (Conley 349). Though I find Conley’s argument’s compelling and do agree reproductive
cloning should be banned, he does not make the most obvious of points; that the actual necessity
for human cloning is non-existent. And unfortunately his non-secular argument was outwitted by
a friend of mine who is for reproductive cloning who claimed “If God made Man in his selfimage, why would Man not try to do the same?” Hubris, it seems, may have been an inherited
trait to the human race.
Cloning undermining the “integrity of human love” may happen if allowed, but what is
the “integrity of human love?” Now Conley speaks of the love between two people needed to
create a child; however, this neglects single parents, homosexual couples, and In Vitro
Fertilization clients, so a new definition will be given. Merriam-Webster defines love as: “strong
affection for another arising out of kinship or personal ties.” Though there may be debate over
whether a clone is technically human, proponents for human reproductive cloning will
Anonymous Student
English 1A-15
Seligo
undoubtedly say that the “strong affection for another” would be no less apparent in a parentclone relationship than in a parent-child one, like Lee M. Silver suggests in “Jennifer and
Rachel” where Jennifer will love Rachel (her clone and child) “just like all the other new-born
babies [the nurses and doctors] have seen in their lives” (Silver 342).
So whether Conley’s statement is geared toward the love between parents or the love
between a parent and a child, the oppositions stand would state: we can “love” a person despite
their sex, their marital status, or even if they are conceived through In Vitro Fertilization, then
why not a clone? I ask then, why not adoption? Cloning a human being to create another human
being is not a necessary action it is not, how Conley argues, a violation of love – it is a violation
of necessity. Our world is plagued with orphans and children who can’t be cared for; so as for
the parents who have “tried everything” they have not. Before we start fabricating
narcissistically-fueled cloned-humans why not give homes to the ones who are already here and,
above anything, need love?
We are surrounded by truly useful yet unnecessary inventions. Necessity by MerriamWebster is defined as: “pressure of circumstance, physical or moral compulsion, or something
that is required.” The cloning debate has been compared to the work done in the nuclear industry,
automotive technology, and new forms of media transferring (phone, internet, TV), all with
advantages and disadvantages, and all deemed to be useful, but obviously are not things we
require for existence. For the human race to survive we unlikely need iPhones, TiVo, GMC
Yukon XLs, or the weaponized use of uranium (let alone any other products with improperly
used capitals) for their existence. Though these are compared to cloning, in terms of reproductive
cloning they are obsolete arguments. The telephone has definitely helped people, globally and
individually helping us to communicate. The car also, though we have pollution we have
Anonymous Student
English 1A-15
Seligo
transported goods, emergency vehicles, and personal independence. Even nuclear power has
been harnessed for energy use. Reproductive cloning will only benefit those who cannot
conceive any other way, a much smaller number than those with a phone to their ear, drive a car,
or have nuclear powered electricity. For these few, it is not a necessity to have a child of their
own blood; it is a want, a desire, a wish. It is a wish that won’t be fulfilled, something every
human must deal with in their lives, whether it is an eight year old for a new bike, or even an
eight year old for a new heart. Life deals unfair hands, and it is a natural part of being human to
play the hand given, bet and bluff accordingly and hope to win the jackpot. Those for human
reproductive cloning are trying to not pay their ante and still hoping to win big.
If the human race finds a way in which this technology will either help a great many
people, or our morals truly compel us to develop it, I may welcome it with a more open set of
arms. However, if the mother of all invention is necessity, it makes sense that an unnecessary
invention won’t have a mother.
Anonymous Student
English 1A-15
Seligo
Works Cited
Andrews, Lori., and Dorothy Nelkin. “Business of Bodies” Kennedy and Kennedy. 359-65.
Conley, John J. “Narcissus Cloned.” Kennedy and Kennedy. 347-50.
Krauthammer, Charles. “Crossing Lines: A Secular Argument Against Research Cloning”
Kennedy and Kennedy. 351-58.
Kennedy, Mary Lynch., and William J. Kennedy. Writing in the Disciplines: A Reader and
Rhetoric for Academic Writers. 6th ed. New Jersey: Pearson-Prentice Hall, 2008. Print.
Merriam-Webster Online. “Love” Merriam-Webster, Inc 2009. 10/12/2009 <http://www.
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/love>
Merriam-Webster Online. “Necessity” Merriam-Webster, Inc 2009. 10/12/2009 <http://www.
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/necessity>
Silver, Lee. “Jennifer and Rachel.” Kennedy and Kennedy. 340-46.
Wilmut, Ian. “The Moral Imperative for Human Cloning” Kennedy and Kennedy. 366-369.