Human Reproductive Cloning Part 1

Over the years technology has evolved and paved roads for new and ever-inspiring innovations and challenges. Scientists have embraced some of these challenges and have succeeded for the most part with creating an environment that appeals to the many essentials and desires of human nature. Nevertheless, there are still many problems that arise from new scientific advances, both technilogically and morally. One indispensable debate that continues to weigh on many scholarly minds is the concept of human reproductive cloning. Moralists have constantly argued amongst themselves on whether or not human reproductive cloning should be permissible: whether or not it undermines and degrades human beings. There are many reasons, both rational and irrational, that explain the pros and cons of the issue at hand. However, for Leon Kass’s sake, this paper will focus on the arguments against human reproductive cloning.

Human reproductive cloning is the process by which an individual is created using a pre-existing genetic template. To clone an organism, scientists take a mature but unfertilized egg and switch the nucleus of that egg with the nucleus of a somatic cell of the desired adult to be cloned. Therefore, the clone will have the same exact genotype as the individual being cloned; and thus theoretically, should have the same phenotypes as the cloned individual. Hence, the clone is not being born into the world as a unique human being but as a replica.

Leon Kass’s adamancy against human reproductive cloning is indisputably evident when he calls process “inherently despotic.” At first glance, these two words may seem juxtaposed incoherently. However, when the two adjectives are defined separately and then configured together, the final meaning appears plausible. By definition, inherent is an attribute that is permanent or inseparable. A despotic person or action in this case is defined as being autocratic and/or tyrannical. Therefore, by a literal sense, Kass believes that human reproductive cloning is equivalent to an unequivocal dictatorship. In other words, human reproductive cloning predetermines too much of a person’s fate and future that should ultimately be controlled by one’s own self. There is no more anticipation in the cloned child’s life. The clone is being dictated and groomed from birth to become the child in which it was genetically designed. Kass believes that human reproductive cloning destroys the cloned child’s sense of anticipation and adventure in which human beings should have the pride and privilege of living out themselves.
According to Leon Kass, human reproductive cloning is “inherently despotic” due to the tendency of the parent’s desire to create a child using another person’s genetic blueprint. By “creating” a child in the image of another already existing being, the parents are casting the child to fulfill their own parental wishes and prayers. The parents are genetically controlling the child in a way that borders tyranny and autocracy. However, instead of exerting coercion on a population like the stereotypic tyrant, the parents are bullying the innate order of genetics.

They are inconsiderately allowing their own goals or past successes and failures to dictate the natural order of human life, a natural order that should be filled with anticipation and suspense with every step. Instead, when parents artificially produce a clone, the cloned child has innate aspirations that he or she is expected and even destined to achieve. These expectations are considerably unjust to the cloned child because it takes away part of the eagerness of life itself. Also, consider the amount of pressure put on the cloned child to fulfill these expectations. What would happen if the child did not achieve those expectations? Would the parents disown him or her? Would the parents condemn and quite possibly sue the company that cloned the child because the child had not turned out as expected? Thus far, these questions are hypothetical. However, if human reproductive cloning does actually materialize, those questions will lead to unquenchable debate and unpredictable chaos.

Unquestionably, human reproductive cloning has the potential to benefit the society. If and when the process retains a high success rate, human cloning could become a centerpiece in the evolution of technology. From a scientific and technological standpoint, the accomplishment of human reproductive cloning could possibly be the turning point in human life. However, from an ethical or conscientious perspective, human reproductive cloning could have dire effects. More problems will arise and more questions will be asked. Human reproductive cloning is too sensitive a topic and might actually create more problems than it is suppose to solve.

Human reproductive cloning should once and for all be banned and deemed illegal. It is “inherently despotic”, as Kass puts it, in every aspect of the definition. Cloning a human being is recreating a pre-existing human being. It is allowing and empowering the parent or parents to choose what they want in a child. It is giving the parents too much authority and too much liberty. It is artificially manufacturing a child and not naturally producing him or her. Although, the process could bring an end to certain long-longstanding diseases or generate the “perfect” human being, it will undoubtedly amplify the amount of debate and obstacles. First of all, cloning in general, namely in animals, is not yet a safe process and may very well never be. There have been complications in not only the actual cloning process, but also in the life of the clone. This is evident with many of the animals that have been cloned as test subjects. Some have had evident physical abnormalities, while others have been diagnosed with severe internal injuries.
Giving the parents of the future clone the power to take the risk of a possible life is unjust not only for the cloned child but for human society as a whole. For example, the child may have acute illnesses or physical traumas that cannot be mended. This leads the other questions that are hypothetical and cannot be based on a few individuals. These hypothetical questions are based on personal whim and principles. Therefore, the answers will vary from person to person. Hence, there is no grading rubric or guideline that can be followed to purse whether or not the parents are deemed worthy of buying a clone. Such questions revolve around whether or not the parents have to keep the clone no matter what infirmities the clone is born with. The parents obviously want the cloned child to be perfect in their eyes or else they would not have cloned a child in the first place. Thus, if the cloned child does not exhibit the traits that he was made to display, are the parents legally allowed to kill the child or put him up for adoption. If a plethora of these “defective” clones are created, and the parents put these clones up for adoption, then these adoption agencies would become overcrowded and infected. In addition, if these clones are known to be defective, then there would be no one willing to adopt them. These clones would “rot” so to speak in adoption agencies. Even if laws were passed to illegalize the adoption process, then what is stopping the parents from killing the cloned children themselves or paying others to do it. These hypothetical questions are only a small taste of the debates and issues that will undoubtedly arise.

If the reproductive cloning process is in fact perfected, the cloned children will theoretically exhibit more desirable traits both genetically and physically than naturally conceived children. This gives the parents who have the resources to clone a child an unjust advantage over the lesser fortunate parents; and thus gives the cloned child of the parents more of an advantage over a naturally born child. By law this is permissible, but ethically this would seem to be borderline tyrannical. The richer get richer theory comes into play. From conception, each child should be given an equal chance of becoming successful and professional. There are bound to be diseases and other infirmities that hinder the capabilities, whether academically or physically, of a child. However, as human beings, people should allow the natural order of equality work as intended. Nobody should be allowed to buy a genetically advanced clone to replace something that should be conceived naturally. Cloning a child is the very basis of humans trying to create their own domain.

Human reproductive cloning is inherently despotic, as Leon Kass dubs it. In a way, cloning another person can be compared to the Holocaust, except in a person. The parents who want the clone are like Adolf Hitler in this instance. As Hitler weeded out the Jews and other minority groups that basically did not fit his physical preference, the parents too are weeding out the faulty traits and replacing them with traits that they themselves want. Although comparing the parents with Hitler may be too extreme and harsh, the concept is there. Giving parents too much power to determine a child’s genotype and phenotype is not justify nor is it fair to human society as a whole and should therefore be banned once and for all.