Despite ethical and religious controversy, human cloning offers many benefits, including cures for terminal illnesses. We cover why human cloning should be allowed and the controversies surrounding it.
Introduction
When you hear the phrase human cloning, some people may feel a twinge of revulsion. The idea of artificially creating human beings for any purpose is not easily reconciled with religious or ethical beliefs. Gregory E. Pence’s book What’s Wrong with Human Cloning, which I recently read, emphasizes the injustice of human cloning and raises ethical issues. However, I believe that the benefits of human cloning outweigh the problems, and I would like to argue against this and counter this book. In other words, I would argue that human cloning is a technology with benefits that are worth pursuing, even if there are some problems.
The argument
Before I begin my argument, I’d like to identify and rebut some of the problems with human cloning that have been pointed out by opponents of human cloning (“naysayers”) in many popular books, including What’s Wrong with Human Cloning. First, opponents question the fundamental rights of cloned humans, or clones, that are “produced” through cloning. From a genetic engineering perspective, the steps of cloning are as follows
1. the nucleus is taken from the somatic cell of the organism to be cloned.
2. the nucleus is replaced with the nucleus of a fertilized egg taken from the uterus of an organism of the same species.
3. The resulting clone is 100% genetically identical to the original organism, with all of its organs being fully compatible with the original organism.
In fact, the idea of human cloning was originally conceived to solve terminal diseases, and the clones are used to treat the original. In the end, many people find the paradigm of creating and sacrificing another life for their own survival repulsive. But even if it’s a bit cruel, we need to think twice about it. Because behind every activity that we actually do to breathe and live is the sacrifice of another life. We don’t take seriously the basic rights of the cows, pigs, and chickens we raise for food. Nor do we have a problem with vegetarians chewing tomatoes, carrots, and lettuce in their mouths for a single meal. Why do we have such a problem with human sacrifice? The answer is because of our long-standing religious and ethical values. Laws built on this paradigm guarantee individual freedom as long as it doesn’t harm others. It’s worth noting that “others” is defined as any member of the species Homo sapiens sapiens, i.e., humans, except for me. In fact, it’s hard to explain why we should only respect our own species when we sacrifice others in our lives for our own growth or survival. The point I’m trying to make here is that we are selfish beings who continue our lives at the expense of others. If we accept this premise, then we would choose to use a clone for treatment as a last resort, i.e., to survive at all costs, rather than to accept the death of “me” in violation of our ethics or religion in a situation where we are terminally ill and awaiting death.
Here’s a more accessible version of the above logic. For reference, I’ve taken the idea of the selfish gene from Richard Dawkins.
1. if the purpose of existence is to survive (reproduce), then a being is selfish, and selfish beings can sometimes act selfishly to fulfill their purpose.
2. Humans have a purpose to survive (reproduce). This purpose has been imprinted in the genes of humans for many generations. Therefore, humans are selfish.
3. Humans are selfish, so they may sometimes act selfishly to fulfill their purpose.
Human cloning is a selfish act of sacrificing other beings to cure an incurable disease.
5. human beings are selfish and can use human cloning, which is a selfish act of sacrificing other beings for the purpose of survival.
In the context of human cloning for the treatment of terminal illness, we should not criticize the other side by invoking ethical and religious circumstances and rationales outside of the perspective of survival itself. Rather than considering the ethics of extreme situations, if we take the example of self-defense, where an act of aggression against another person is legally permissible in order to save one’s own life, as most would agree, albeit to varying degrees, when all therapeutic measures available under ethical concepts have been exhausted and have failed, then treatment with human cloning should be considered justified. It’s a matter of education, time, and a paradigm shift that will make this logic naturally acceptable. The original, or fundamental right to existence, should be prioritized over the being created to fulfill a purpose.
The second objection is the “fatalism” of religion. Many religious theists argue that we, as human beings, are born according to a divinely ordained providence and must end up where we are destined to end up. There are too many conflicting views on the issue of human cloning to be understood simply in terms of respecting religious freedom. First of all, I would like to point out that fatalism is a poorly grounded theological concept. The existence of a vague God and the absoluteness of this God’s influence on our lives, which is not even minimally scientifically convincing, cannot be used as a basis for debate on flimsy grounds. Such a viewpoint can be a guide for personal beliefs and choices, but it falls far short of being used as a means of persuading and sanctioning others. To borrow a few words from G.E. Pence’s Who’s Afraid of Human Cloning.
“…This issue is important because so many of the criticisms of human cloning are not based on rational arguments. Most of them consist of elements that appeal to people’s disgust or appeal ‘vaguely’ to the ethical incompatibility of human cloning with the value of human dignity. If we leave everything to such vague appeals, the actual ethical conflict will not be seriously considered, and we will be left with an abstract view of emotional repugnance… (emphasis added) …We will now consider the arguments against human cloning from two main perspectives. One is defeatism and the other is fatalism. The fatalistic view is that we should just accept whatever lethal gene sweeps through our family and kills us, and continue to live moderately as we have been doing. The other is that if we take a more assertive attitude toward the future of humanity, we might start to answer new questions that we’ve never asked before… (interruption) …But we don’t embrace fatalism yet. We are always striving to be better human beings.”
Based on our experience to date, we know we’ve come a long way when we challenge fatalism and make something of it, rather than just accepting it. Now, let’s talk about the benefits and value of human cloning. Since the purpose of human cloning in this article is solely for medical treatment, the value and benefits of this technology are also geared towards medical treatment. According to Dr. Moo-Shin Moon, a professor at Seoul National University School of Medicine, embryonic stem cells can be cultured outside of the body to observe how cells differentiate, for example, blood-forming cells, nerve-forming cells, and cartilage-forming cells. If we can unlock the mysteries of cell differentiation, stem cell research could help us understand human aging and uncover the mechanisms of cancer, a modern intractable disease. In addition, cloning human embryos will allow us to use stem cells for cell transplantation, which can be used as a treatment tool for blood cancers and incurable diseases.
The bottom line
The benefits of human cloning research are obvious and the vision is clear. Never before has research been so effective in fulfilling the purpose of our existence. To abandon it would limit our ability to fulfill our purpose, even if it would assuage our vague aversion to it. Therefore, we should allow human cloning at the point where we believe we can find solutions to the mysteries of life and cure diseases. The ethical, abuse, and religious issues that arise can be resolved by sticking to the original purpose of medical treatment and monitoring the research to ensure that it is not abused or misused.
