Cloning

[sobrique]

I heard on the radio this morning, that there's been the first request for human embryo cloning.

The research project is to try and develop cloned insulin producing cells.

I'm still a little confused as to what the big arguments against cloning are. I mean, as far as I can tell, the ability to re-grow organs, tissues etc. would make an awfully big difference to quality of life around the world.
No more people permanantly blinded.
Heart disease becomes fixable.
Lung cancer repairable.

I can see there's sort of arguments that 'things man wasn't meant to know' but I really don't think there's many places where that line could or should be drawn.

I've heard vague fears of people cloning themselves. And I don't see the problem with that either. I mean, it's not like you can grow a clone and do a brain transplant. That just doesn't work AFAIK. So what you've _effectively_ got is a x year younger identical twin.

It's certainly settle the 'nature vs. nurture' argument.

So would anyone care to enlighten me? Why would be cloning be 'wrong'?

Comments

A few arguments

[feanelwa.livejournal.com]

One source of stem cells could be aborted foetuses and this may be seen by some pro-life groups as a possible motivation for more women to consider abortion as an option if they find that they are pregnant, because they could donate the tissue so that somebody could have a less uncomfortable life and thus pay off some of the guilt that we are apparently all supposed to feel if we were to have an abortion, and some proportion of women in that situation do feel. It may or may not be argued that the possibility of this also vindicates their political opponents' points of view (better to have fewer people with better lives than more people) and thus may make them look silly.

However that is by far not the only source of stem cells: other sources include umbilical cords, and although an organ grown from stem cells from the umbilical cord of another person who is a good tissue match will not be as likely to be accepted as an organ that is genetically identical to the organ that was taken out, it's a possibility. It's also possible that in the future everybody's umbilical cord could be frozen at birth and stored in case an organ requires replacement in their future life.

Another point would be that if a full clone is created, taking say its heart out to treat the patient would kill the clone, and this would be murdering your twin brother. In the case of a tissue such as Islets of Langerhans or bone marrow this would not result in the death of the clone but it can be argued that if the clone was created purely to be operated on, the clone may not have the option to refuse surgery that is unnecessary for its own survival, i.e. it would be operated o nwithout its consent. This irritates me for the same reason that a parent who has a child with a congenital defect and wants to have another child that's a possible tissue donor irritates me - donating bone marrow can be incredibly painful and forcing a two year old child to go through that without their consent seems to me very very wrong. Having said that there are many ways to make it less painful at the time and if it makes one very ill human plus one healthy human into two healthy humans then it's an option that is very difficult not to consider.

It is however probable that in the future we will find ways to grow just an organ by recreating the environment in the body well enough that it is no longer necessary to grow the body as well. This would be very good indeed. It is unknown as yet what would be required to eventually arrive at this state of affairs.

To summarise: a clone is also a human being (although if it's an embryo it's not as much a human being as a child or adult of course) and its treatment and rights must at least be considered.

Note that I'm in favour of stem cell research but not in favour of creating a new viable human being (i.e. one of full born human status) to live its life as only a tissue donor. I make the analogy of the Death Dealer character that appeared in an episode of Babylon 5 who had the means to live forever if you killed one other human being every year, well, it doesn't quite hold as an analogy but it's the same sort of wrong thing.