argument top image

Should human cloning be banned? Show more Show less
Back to question

Cloning is the creation of a genetic copy of a sequence of DNA or of the entire genome of an organism. In the cloning debate, the term ‘cloning’ typically refers to a technique called somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT). SCNT involves transferring the nucleus of a somatic cell into an oocyte form, where most of the DNA has been removed. The manipulated oocyte is then treated with an electric current in order to stimulate cell division, resulting in the formation of an embryo. The embryo is (virtually) genetically identical to, and thus a clone of the somatic cell donor. The debate revolves around human integrity, power, and social order.

Yes, human cloning should be banned Show more Show less

Human cloning endangers social order and human life/integrity.
(1 of 2) Next position >

Human cloning is medically unsafe and unethical

Technology has only gone so far with animal cloning, which has proved to have slim chances of success and can be seen as unethical. Science and medicine are not advanced enough to clone humans. Going a step further with humans would prove dangerous to the human being cloned.
< (2 of 2) Next argument >

The Argument

When it comes to cloning animals, it has been proven that "only a small percentage of attempts are successful” and “many of the clones die during gestation, even in late stages.”[1] It’s also reported that “newborn clones are often abnormal; and that the procedures may carry serious risks for the mother." Nearly 90 percent of clones fail to develop into liveborn animals.[1] Among those that are born into the world alive, a huge number have serious or fatal medical problems. The famous cloning case of the sheep, Dolly, proved to be the most successful cloning. Dolly was born from cloning and lived until she was six years old. Unfortunately, she developed a lung disease and severe arthritis and had to be euthanized.[2] A typical life expectancy of a sheep is 10-12 years.[3] While Dolly lived longer than anyone expected, she was still subjected to a fatal disease that left her suffering and being euthanized all in the name of science. Subjecting a human to a similar fate while knowing the risk and outcomes is unethical. Cloning does not guarantee the survival and safety of the individual.

Counter arguments

In the end, cloning was proved successful through the creation of Dolly. Dolly lived longer than any scientist expected and even successfully had offspring of her own, where they lived into adulthood.[2]

Premises

[P1] Human cloning has not proved to be successful. [P2] It’s unethical to subject any human, or animal, to a life of suffering just for scientific purposes.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Through trial and error, cloning could prove to be successful and a futuristic way to start a family.

References

  1. https://www.wired.com/2002/01/ban-human-cloning-panel-urges
  2. https://www.nms.ac.uk/explore-our-collections/stories/natural-world/dolly-the-sheep
  3. http://www.sheep101.info/sheepbasics.html
This page was last edited on Sunday, 13 Sep 2020 at 16:42 UTC

Explore related arguments