English Literature

    Science has emerged in many ways that may have the power to promote or undermine human well-being. Advancements in technologies are profound and indeed, multiplying. One that struck my interest are varied issues and opinions relating to reproductive cloning. Reproductive  cloning is a type of cloning which is performed for the purpose of creating a duplicate copy of another organism. It is accomplished using a process called somatic cell nuclear transfer (Smith).  I chose this topic to help me relate myself to other individuals who are still in rage and very much against this innovation though I am not disregarding the fact that many others are patronizing the idea of it. A number of religious groups, ethical societies and moralists are still implying that this technology should not be legalized and performed. My goal in this paper is to cite issues on these people who are in favor and against this technology and to bring about a verdict to whether reproductive cloning should be advanced to mankind.

    Insights of people on reproductive cloning are still debatable. A great majority of people have intuitive sense that human beings should not be cloned. Some are hopeful that cloning is the only solution to their dilemmas. Many couples who are infertile resort to this technology and find it very helpful and satisfying. Also, lesbians and gay men can use this as a method of asexual reproduction, of course through a surrogate who will carry the pregnancy.  But research shows that cloning is accompanied by many risks.
 Clones appear to have shorter lifespan, leading to concerns about the disadvantages of     reproductive cloning. There is also the risk of losing genetic diversity as a result of using cloning, especially in the agricultural industry, where the temptation to use standardized animals is understandably tempting (Smith). 

Considering that, children who were a product of cloning may tend to live in the shadow of their nuclear donor and their psychological and social development may be seriously compromised though this can be evaded if we embrace them as part of human diversity and creativity.

    Some people still strongly disagree to reproductive cloning because of its infringements towards self-determination. According to different national and international documents human reproductive cloning possibly violates human dignity.

 Whose human dignity does (reproductive) cloning actually violate Three objects of violation are possible firstly, the clone, that is, the copy secondly, the cloned, that is, the original and, lastly, a more collective object of violation, which could roughly be paraphrased as the society or the legal community(Voneky  Wolfrum 78).

As technologies proliferated, reproductive cloning remained as one of the processes that individuals opt to choose. Arguments sporadically arise whether it is really a moral or an immoral act. In 1997, the NBAC issued its report on Cloning Human Beings. At this time it is morally unacceptable for anyone in the public or private sector, whether in a research or clinical setting, to attempt to create a child using somatic cell nuclear transfer cloning (Kass  Wilson xvi). In my assertion, I second this notion that cloning breaches the moral rights of the human cloned and being cloned so it should not anymore be negotiable in court thus, be banned.
    Presently, a law in Israel prohibiting the practice of cloning is passed. Though it wasnt permitted to be permanent, it was extended for seven more years. Israels government has a firm hold on this matter. The government asked for a five-year extension, but the committee decided to lengthen it to seven years... Sheetrit said cloning for the purpose of making new people was not ethical or moral, even if it became safe in the future (Siegel-Itzkovich). The time has come for states to adopt legislation restricting the practice of human cloning.

    Comparatively, in the story Frankenstein by Mary Shelley, the character of Frankenstein, in his determination and pursuit to create another perfect human life, it turned into a monster which later killed his loved ones. He beheld those he loved spend vain sorrow upon the graves of William and Justine, the first hapless victims to his unhallowed arts (Shelley 73). The story is quite similar to cloning which is also directed in creating a new human. The story reflects bitterness of Mary Shelleys frustrated ambitions and her struggle to defeat people around her. It is somehow reflected in one of the letters included in her book. I have no friend, Margaret when I am glowing with the enthusiasm of success, there will be none to participate my joy if I am assailed by disappointment, no one will endeavour to sustain me in dejection (Shelley 4). I disagree with Mary Shelleys principle because her obsession can lead to selfishness and demoralization of others. Likewise, in human cloning, it may have arise because of peoples competitiveness and willingness to prove something not considering that it may have a double effect in which the effect would be a greater evil.