Human cloning is not a controversial topic; the public regards it as inappropriate. However, other forms of genetic engineering are controversial. These other forms need special consideration. Human cloning is a form of genetic engineering and it is very similar to genetic engineering. In my opinion, some forms of human cloning should be allowed.
Human cloning means designer people with known pedigree. Human cloning is essentially making an exact replica of someone, using his or her genes as a blueprint. Cloning of human embryos has already been achieved. But cloning adults has not - yet. But it is only a matter of time, months or a few years. Scientists across the world are locked in a race to clone the first human, as a baby for TV cameras. Huge amounts of money are at stake. Teams have announced their aim, many people have come forward with eggs, their own adult cells and money - and the US still has no laws to prevent it happening, nor do most other countries of the world.
The huge media coverage cloning has received can be largely attributed to Dolly the sheep. Dolly the lamb; the first animal cloned from a cell taken from an adult. It was a feat that science was considered impossible. After Dolly many other different types of cloning experiments have been done and had successful outcome. Two genetically engineered lambs have been born with a specific gene to produce human serum albumin, needed to treat burns victims. This is not strictly cloning but it is on the way to cloning humans.
Tracy is a more advanced lamb clone. Where Dolly has faults, Tracy has advantages. Tracy produces a substance called AAT that can help in treating Emphysema. If such and advantages situation has come about genetic engineering and cloning, why shouldn't human cloning be looked at more closely.
In Australia, cloning guidelines are regulated by the National Health and Medical Research Council. Though cloning of humans is disallowed, Professor Colin Thompson of the Australian Institute of Health, Law and Ethics said the guidelines have an arguable legal status.
"If caught cloning in Australia, you may have your research funding cut off, for example. It is not so much a legal area of enforcement as a professional one," said Prof. Thompson.
There are many reason or advantages for cloning humans.
* Eugenics - an attempt to improve the human race.
* Megalomania - a desire to reproduce one's own qualities.
* Spare parts - using a cell from your own body to duplicate yourself.
* Take tissue e.g. bone marrow, then offer baby for adoption.
* Assisting medical research.
* Recover someone who was loved - a twin, a reminder. Infertility - rather than use donated sperm and eggs, why not use a cell of your own to give birth to "yourself", your own twin?
I am sure this school would love another ten Tim McKennaries, but what about the other side of it. Would the school love ten past students who have been expelled? All these advantages of human cloning are however "set off" by the disadvantages of human cloning.
Or for that matter how many of you would like your own Mini Me? Come on put your hand up if you would like your own Mini Me. I'm sure a lot of other people would like there's as well. However, there are many moral and ethical concerns surrounding cloning.
Ethics, concerning cloning, is a large area. The right to clone a human being is very debatable. Will we be able to clone humans, or for that fact do we really want to clone humans? The ethics and morality surronding this issue are endless. There is very little support for human cloning, however there are a lot of advantages for it.
The ethical issues of greatest importance in the cloning debate, however, do not involve possible failures of cloning technology, but rather the consequences of its success. Assuming that scientists were able to clone human beings what concerns might there be about the welfare of clones?
Some opponents of cloning believe that such individuals would be wronged in morally significant ways. Many of these wrongs involve the denial of what Joel Feinberg has called "the right to an open future." For example, a child might be constantly compared to the adult from he was cloned, and thereby burdened with oppressive expectations. Even worse, the parents might actually limit the child's opportunities for growth and development: a child cloned from a basketball player, for instance, might be denied any educational opportunities that were not in line with a career in basketball. Finally, regardless of his parents' conduct or attitudes, a child might be burdened by the thought that he is a copy and not an "original." The child's sense of self-worth or individuality or dignity, so some have argued, would thus be difficult to sustain.
A question must be asked then is the clone an offspring or a sibling? Does the clone have one biological parent or two? The moral significance of these ambiguities lies in the fact that in many societies, including our own, lineage identifies responsibilities. Typically, the parent, not the sibling, is responsible for the child. If there is no real parent, who is responsible for the clone? Insofar as social identity is based on biological ties, won't this identity be blurred or confounded?
People also claim that cloning does not respect the fact that humans have souls. They also consider cloning unnatural, and say we are taking the work of God into our own hands. There is also a debate as to the moral rights of clones. Some say their rights will be defied because clones are not granted the birth of newness. That we would not receive clones with such excitement as a child of a couple who conceived naturally. If natural reproduction were to occur, genetic variation would occur. They say cloning would deprive a person of uniqueness. They argue that identical twins are not unique from each other, but that they are new in genetic variation and unique from anything that came before them. People also wonder what mental and emotional problems would result if a clone were to find out that he or she was cloned.
President Clinton couldn't have put it any better when he said in response to the prospect of human cloning",Each human life is unique,born of a miracle that reaches beyond laboratory science."
Errors are occurring when scientists carry out cloning procedure. For instance, it took 277 tries to produce Dolly, and Roslin scientists produced many lambs with abnormalities. If we tried to clone endangered species we could possibly kill the last females integral to the survival of a species. This may be an area that the law can rule over to limit lose of life or mutation to animals.
Seeing how there is no real legal standing for human cloning except for the control from the genetic engineering board. There are a few guidelines that need to be put into place. These guidelines may seem hypocritical but are necessary in the event that a human is cloned. It is only a matter of time before a human is cloned and appropriate law needs to be in place when it does. Items that have to be addressed are; Who are it's legal guardians? The rights of the child, privacy, education etc. Discrimination law regarding the clone. The restictions on cloning (no. of clones per person).
Human cloning is outlawed, prohibited does not exist in Australia. However the advantages and ethics concerning human cloning should be scrutinized and considered whether or not human cloning can be advantages for the human race. If it is advantages, strict laws need to be put into place to ensure human cloning is not abused.