Human Cloning

When God created a human being through the natural process, he individually creates a living soul. In case of twins, triplets or more, he created that number of souls. God can do what a man cannot. When human cloning is used the wrong way, we are creating a human being without a soul. Imagine how that human being is going to turn out? It is technically a human being without conscience and no capacity to determine moral values. We have been tendered the option to either create an empty shell that is going to die in the beginning or we can create organs to preserve a life that is already here.

The ethical arguments of maximum significance in the cloning issue, conversely, do not include possible breakdowns of cloning technology, but rather the end results of its accomplishment. Presupposing that scientists were able to clone people without experiencing the risks, what apprehensions might there be about the interests of clones?

As a single entity and human being, we are brought up with family values. We learn about the importance of marriage, parenthood and honor. Cloning might adopt the downfall of those principles. With the present technology and cultural multiplicity in America, these principles that we have imbibed are quickly disappearing. Alterations in the wider culture make it now greatly more complicated to articulate universal and deferential comprehension of sexuality, procreation, embryonic life, family, and the essence of parenthood and the connections between the generations.

Advocates of cloning think that parents who desire to clone a baby, either to supplement transplant for a dying kid or to trade that of a lost one, should obtain this right. Little do they know that the sacrificial advantage to the maker is by far brutality and malevolence. This is an infringement of an individual holiness of life. We, as human being, have the ability to think logically. Why can’t we understand the illness that we might let loose and not be able to regulate? Infertile people may look at cloning as an answer to incompleteness. Does anyone even stop to think the child’s welfare? Even with a life threatening ailment, can we substantiate the moral obligations that are the consequence of cloning? For instance, a kid might be always compared to the adult from whom he was cloned, and in that way loaded with cruel judgment. Even more awful, the parents might in fact regulate the kid’s prospects for maturity and progression: a kid cloned from a football player, for example, might be shorn of any educational chances that were not in line with a career in basketball. Lastly, in spite of his parents' behavior or outlooks, a kid might be weighed down by the idea that he is just a reproduction and not the "real thing." The kid's sense of self-respect or uniqueness or pride, so some have disagreed, would hence be hard to maintain.

We are aware that the reasons people have for producing a child do not essentially establish the way in which they bring him up. Even when parents initially are narcissists, the skill of bringing up a child will on occasion change their original desires, making them compassionate, deferential, and even self-forgoing. Seeing their kids grow and mature, they understand that she is not just an extension of them. Consequentially, some parents never learn this; others, having done so, never absolve their kids for it. The speed and degree of moral progression among parents (no less than among kids) is considerably changeable. Even now, we are rationalized in saying that those who gets involved in cloning will not, by virtue of this truth, be impervious to the transformative consequences of parenthood -- although it is the case (and it won't at all times be) that they start with more challenging reasons than those of parents who gets involved in the "genetic lottery."

To reap people for their organs, exclusively for personal profit is atrocious. Should we consider that it is right to bear a child solely for its organs? The desolation of his or her psychological state would be injurious. For all he knows, he is a person that was conceived plainly used as a commodity like cattle. The big question is if the world will deal with the cloned person with the same deference? Fictional fascination with cloning has rarely focused on scientific fact but usually on issues of identity and how the sanctity of life will be challenged when 'ditto machines' of one kind or another create 'cookie cutter humans.' This obsession has led to endless confusion about what is possible and what is not. (Scientific American, 2006)

According to the Dr. James F. Drane (2002), a professor from University of Pennsylvania, medical science and genetic technology now force all of us to face the basic questions: What is human life? What is a child? Who is a parent? What is a family? What is the purpose of having children?