No, human cloning should not be banned
< (2 of 2)
Human cloning is similar to IVF
Ethically, human cloning is no different to in vitro fertilization.
< (1 of 2) Next argument >
Essentially, all reproduction is now done with some sort of medical help, whether during delivery or before. Truly natural human reproduction would mean 50 percent infant mortality and make pregnancy-related death the primary killer of adult women. The cloning procedure is similar to in vitro fertilization (IVF), a medical procedure whereby an egg is fertilized by sperm in a test tube or elsewhere outside the body. The only difference is that the DNA of sperm and egg would be replaced by DNA from an adult cell. What law or principle (secular, humanist, or religious) says that one combination of genetic material in a tube is fine, but another is not? In 2018, it was reported that about “1.6 percent of all U.S. births used IVF." In the beginning IVF was very controversial, but through countless trials and errors, it became successful and frequently practiced all over the world. With enough funding and technology, who is to say cloning won’t be as successful and then widely accepted?
The cloning process might be similar to IVF, but the outcome is the major difference and it’s highly unethical. About 90 percent of clones fail and if they live past early childhood, they develop some sort of medical problem that proves to be fatal.
[P1] Cloning should be allowed because it’s similar to IVF, which is legal.
Rejecting the premises
[Rejecting P1] The process might be similar, but the DNA material is different, which can be seen as strange and unethical.