Why Cloning Should Not Be Allowed

A real, live mammoth is walking towards you, and extinct species are now once again popping up around the planet. Stem cells are more available, and as a result, scientists are saving several lives, including those close to you. This seemingly perfect world can be achieved through cloning. In stem cell research, cloning is an easy, sufficient way to retrieve stem cells, or cells that can be programed to do any function. This results in scientists developing human embryos for gathering specific cells. The cloning process is also capable of reproducing any kind of species. These accomplishments can be done through several different processes, but the most common and successful is somatic cell nuclear transfer, the taking of a cell’s DNA and transferring it onto an egg. Cloning can easily improve stem cell research by leaps and bounds. Cloning is also of capable to reintroducing important species into ecosystems. However, should this be done? Cloning can easily change the world for the better, but there are many reasons to go against this. There are several facts that prevent cloning from improving. Cloning should not be allowed because it is unethical, has no purpose, and is hazardous for both the donor and embryo.

Cloning should not be permitted because it is completely meaningless because the goals that we have with cloning can be done without it. For instance, in The Chronicle of Higher Education, the Shapiro informs about bringing back extinct species, . . . where do we draw the line when the effects of de-extinction are not lethal. Life gets harder when more species are competing for the same resources, but is that an unacceptable consequence. . . it may not be possible to measure the costs and benefits without performing the experiment. It is possible to also use another species that gives the same ecological effect. For example, the Morro Bay kangaroo rat a keystone species would be a good candidate to revive but Shapiro goes on to say. . . we could skip all of that hard work and simply introduce a different species of kangaroo rat to Morro Bay, with what would probably be the same ecological result.

This demonstrates that cloning is unnecessary because there is pointless to clone species if we can simply get the same desired result with another species. In addition, In The Right to Life’s New’s June 2008 magazine, their committee refers to Minnesota’s governor who is against the use of clones, ¨. . . Pawlenty suggests the use of adult stem cells. 'This creates ample opportunity to work towards lifesaving cures. . . two 2007 studies which demonstrated that adult skin cells can be reprogrammed into stem cells. . . that are essentially indistinguishable from embryonic stem cells. ” This accentuates that cloning is pointless because Pawlenty proclaims that it is possible to end up with similar results using adult stem cells instead of human eggs and embryos. This way, stem cell research can advance without taking away human life. To summarize, cloning is pointless because we can achieve the exact same outcome of what we want to achieve.

Besides from the fact that cloning has no purpose it is also extremely unsafe. For example, in vol. 4 no. 4 of The Winston Quarterly, on p. 80+, the author states, ¨A stitched-together genome (since no intact ones exist) would likely be full of errors, and to make it, scientists would have to take several samples, destroying rare bones in the process. Nuclear transfer tends to produce many sickly organisms that often die. Perfecting the process would 'require a horrifying period of trial and error¨. This proves that cloning is dangerous because the chances that a cloned species will survive is low. Additionally, cloning will also destroy many valuable preserved species and artifacts that might be worth large amounts of money. Even if you use SCNT (somatic cell nuclear transfer), which has a greater success rate than others, the survival rate will still be low. The only possible way it could work is if many species are reproduced, discover why they were unable to survive, and then editing the process to bring them into our world. However, in this case, we do not know how many organisms will die due to our experiments. Additionally, Smith wrote in the May 27, 2013 The Weekly Standard, '. . . human eggs for use in research are in short supply. So the biotech industry is seeking legal authorization to pay women for their eggs. The harvesting of eggs, however, can result in infection, loss of fertility, stroke, and in rare cases death”. This highlights the fact that cloning is unsafe because since scientists are using women’s eggs, this results in harming a woman’s biological function that may result deadly. To sum up, Cloning is dangerous because it could result in many deaths with the organisms involved in it. Human clones also end up becoming destroyed, hence “clone and kill”. This process is also against many moral, so this leads to another reason.

One may argue that cloning can greatly improve stem cell research; however, the immorality of retrieving the cells is one reason why cloning should be completely restricted. For example, Paul Stark explains on page 7 of National Right to Life News´s November 2015 edition, ¨. . . all human beings. . . have intrinsic value and deserve respect. . . Cloning is the deliberate manufacturing of human beings solely in order to exploit and destroy them. It is a total commodification of human life¨. This exemplifies that cloning is unethical because all humans have the same rights; however, cloning takes away the rights an embryo deserves. Cloning takes the process of harvesting cells from the embryo and then destroying, so this act is basically treating human life as crops and then murdering our own species. Moreover, in National Right to Life New’s May 2009 article, an author explains, “. . . the bill will promote human cloning, and then try to punish anyone who allows a human clone to survive…this will be labeled as a 'ban on human cloning' but which will actually define 'human cloning' in a manner that allows the mass creation of human embryos by cloning'. This passage explains that the only purpose that the clone is created is to kill them. Even if they 'ban' cloning, several people will just redefine cloning, killing hundreds of life. To recap, cloning is extremely unethical because it denies the rights all living beings deserve.

In conclusion, because of its unnecessity, danger, and immorality, cloning should be prohibited. There are several ways cloning can be replaced. It is also incredibly unreliable, which may lead to problematic issues when it comes to ethics. Therefore, it is evident that though cloning is able to greatly improve our lives, it is better for it to be banned due to the numerous facts standing up against cloning.