Utilitarian argument

In response to the utilitarian argument, there is much to be said. First, to address the slippery slope, it needs to be realized that process of human living is a slippery slope of choices, risks and mistakes. We do the best we can to make the best choices, accurately assess and minimize the risks, and avoid the mistakes. “…any slippery slope argument depends on actual or highly probable empirical results that may or may not be realized. Arguably, safeguards could be put in place to protect clones from such outcomes, and such safeguards would address the objection.”(Heller, 170). Throughout the entire objection sequence, it has never once been questioned whether or not clones would be considered fully human. Indeed, most of the objection arguments are founded on the assumption that every clone is a fully dignified human being with rights that can be violated. If this is the case, and I do believe that it is, then that means that clones are also subject to the entire spectrum of human experience, including being subjected to use by other humans. If a particular act cannot be perpetrated upon someone with “natural” parentage, why on Earth would we allow it to be perpetrated on a clone? We do not freeze the second born twin to have spare parts for the first; the thought of calibans brings to mind just this image. With respect to the argument by Mr. Byers, that clones are created to fulfill the will of another being, this argument could be expressed with no loss of parallel to the discussion of planned children of any kind, including those conceived in the natural way. As for the objection that cloning would perpetrate a process of attempting to create specific personality traits or inclinations, or the assertion of power, we cannot prevent that process, even in the rearing of “natural” children. According to Michael Tooley of the University of Colorado at Boulder, “The upshot is that, if cloning that aimed at producing people who would be more likely to possess various personality traits or traits of character, or who would be more likely to have certain interests, was wrong because it was a case of interfering with personal autonomy, then the childrearing practices of almost all parents would stand condemned on precisely the same grounds.”(97).

Risk/Benefit argument

Although the opposition states that there is no benefit that outweighs the risks associated with human cloning, I think that this is an extremely subjective argument. There is no way that attendant risks to the process of “natural” procreation can realistically be assessed except on a case by case basis. For instance, if a couple both have the gene for sickle cell anemia, though neither has expressed the disease, there is a twenty-five percent chance for each child that they have that that child will express the genetic disease of sickle cell anemia. Compared to the risks currently estimated for cloning, the couple would be subjecting their child to less potential for suffering if they underwent the RNT procedure than if they conceived in the old fashioned way. Human cloning can also be an answer for infertile couples. The process of IVF was really only intended for treatment of blocked fallopian tubes, a fairly simple mechanical defect. “Today, however, in the absence of effective treatments for many other types of infertility, IVF is the only treatment available for large numbers of patients for whom the chance of success is small. The result is that according to the federal government’s annual report of IVF clinic success rates, four out of every five attempts at IVF, GIFT, and ZIFT end in failure.”(Human Cloning Foundation, 2 of 7) It is possible, through cloning of embryos to provide for the possibility of multiple attempts at pregnancy without the attendant risks associated with IVF. According to the Human Embryo Research Panel, “[Embryo cloning]…has the advantage of not inducing superovulation in women, with all its attendant risks, in order to extract a sufficient number of eggs.”(p. 45)

Kinship and Families argument

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, one of the principal definitions of a parent is “a person who holds the position or functions of a parent. A protector and guardian; sometimes applied to a father- or mother-in-law.” This definition of familial bond is one of the most liberal, but also one, with which I can find no one who will disagree. It is counterintuitive to most people to think that the person who engaged in one’s childrearing is not the parent, so why is the issue of cloning so different? In a world of single parent families, the process of cloning is a natural extension of the process already undertaken to a great degree. In households of two parents, the genetic lineage of a beloved child is not as important as whether or not the child is raised in a loving environment. If you disagree, perhaps you should ask an adopted child whom he or she considers his or her parents. Rarely will it be anyone but the parents of rearing. Addressing the issue that cloned children are made, not begot, “… the distinction between making and begetting may not bear moral weight because it would rule out other reproductive techniques that are commonly viewed as morally permissible.”(Heller, 171).

Uniqueness argument

“Human clones have always existed, however, brought about by the natural process of the birth of identical twins…. However similar such twins may be in appearance and some other traits, there is absolutely no doubt that they are two separate individuals whose lives and personalities may develop in markedly different ways.”(Polkinghorne, 37). There is nothing that we can do at this time to compromise the uniqueness of any individual, and that includes clones. In fact, due to the mitochondrial distinction issue, clones actually have less in common with their donors, if conceived with the RNT technique, than identical twins do with each other. With respect to the fear that clones will be treated as just a batch of genetic code, with no uniqueness and dignity of their own, “Kids are not commercial property – slavery was abolished some time ago.”(Bailey, 75). Though there may be a number of people who may try to replicate an inspired genius or a successful sports star, they are likely to be unsuccessful. Human individuation has survived for thousands of years in the face of Little League Dads and Stage Mothers. “…a ban on cloning would not abolish pushy parents.”(Bailey, 76). In the meantime, it is important to remember that, regardless of whether or not cloning humans gets a green light, we need to seriously look at the way we already treat our children. “We need to construct visions of just what it means to treat children with dignity when they are the product –that is, when they are the gift –of advanced reproductive technology.”(Peters, 24).

Conclusion

The processes of human ambition may try to erase the individual from humanity’s ranks, but this is not a problem inherent in cloning; it is a problem inherent in humans. The issue of cloning simply throws the entire mess into stark relief. If we enact a ban on cloning now, we will be doing ourselves a disservice for a number of reasons. We will lose the benefits that can be garnered from the technology to alleviate a number of kinds of suffering, but we will also lose the benefits of the moral discussions about the value of human dignity and what it means to be unique (or not). Continue...