. Michael & LeRoy Arguments for human cloning debate, pro side: 1. There is no need to argue in favor of human cloning
because unless the case against human cloning is conclusive,
it should not be banned. Human cloning should not have to
prove its worth before it is allowed. We cannot foresee all
of the benefits that would come from cloning until we do
it. 2. The goal of science is to acquire knowledge. Cloning
humans would lead to scientific discoveries that we cannot
even imagine today. There are some experiments that can only
be done using human clones, for example, finally sorting out
the nature versus nuture debate. 3. The backlash against human cloning is a "gut
reaction." It is not something people are against because
they have carefully thought it out. Just because a majority
of people's reaction may be to say they don't want human
cloning to be allowed does not mean it should be banned.
There are numerous examples of things that the majority of
people don't like that should not be banned. Homosexual
lifestyles is one of these examples. Another example can be
found in in vitro fertilization. When IVF first came about,
people's reactions were similar to those people are now
having about human cloning. Now, IVF is seen by the majority
of people as a good thing. "If you look back to the way IVF was discussed in
1978, people were talking about human-animal hybrids,
monstrous babies, eugenics, and all kinds of scary
reproductive engineering. Eventually that whole
discussion calmed down." [3] 4. Rebuttal to the argument that human cloning is not
safe right now: Right now is not the issue. With enough
research, cloning humans will be safe. Science progresses
far more rapidly than we think it will in many cases. It is
not unrealistic to think that human cloning could be done
safely in the not too far distant future. Final rebuttal not allowed in class due to time
constraints: 5. Rebuttal to argument that clones would not be
individuals: There is no reason to believe that clones would
have any more or less of a sense of individuality than
anyone else. The fact that a person is a clone does not mean
that they are less of a person than anyone else. "Identical twins seem none the worse for the knowledge
that they are not genetically unique individuals. Claims
about challenges to what makes us "human" may be powerful
rhetorical devices, but they must be substantiated if
they are to be convincing." [5] "If tomorrow someone could prove that you were a
clone, would you think your life was worth less, that
your loves and experiences were devalued? You would be
the same person you always were. Nothing would be
different simply because you were born from a previously
experienced genome." [6] References: 1. MacDonald, Chris, Yes, Human Cloning should be
Permitted. 2. ibid. 3. Smith, Stephen A Revolutionary Birth; accessed
4/16/2003 4. MacDonald. 5. ibid. 6. Bailey, Ronald; accessed 4/16/2003 ..
"Reasons for permitting cloning are
"insufficiently compelling," so cloning should be
prohibited. The implication is that any new technology
should be forbidden unless and until enough justification
can be found for allowing its use." [1]
"It is presumably true that at one point,
roughly 90% of the public (the same proportion that Baird
says is against human cloning) was opposed to
homosexuality. Does (or did) thi justify action on the
part of the government to ban homosexual lifestyles?
Surely not." [2]
"A convincing case has yet to be made for the
claim that the physical and psychological risks to clones
are more severe than, or different from, those faced by
children produced in more traditional ways." [4]
http://rcpsc.medical.org/english/annals/vol33-7e/cloning.php3
July 17,2000.
http://news.mpr.org/features/199711/20_smiths_fertility/part7/section1.shtml.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/ethics/cloning/clonespro.shtml.
Updated 4/28/03 by thatcher@sonoma.edu