Karen, I definitely agree on the first reason. In addition, I really think we need more knowledge on the effects of cloning on lifespan, tendency to disease (e.g., is there increased risk of cancer etc?), and similar possible aspects. This is mainly where adult cellular material is used, however.
On your second objection, however, I'm not so sure. In-vitro fertilisation is routine now... the first occurrences were world-wide news. Cloning from embryonic cells is barely more remarkable - basically it's a created twin. I think it would have as few repercussions on the child.
I suspect even adult cloning would - unless stressed by adults - be no more remarkable than having a much older sibling, or a twin... arguably the two would be one.
My real ethical issue is if a clone is 'bred' to serve as tissue parts only, as a permanent source of spare organs etc. Quite apart from the likely limitation of this to those rich enough to afford such a private donor, the thought of a full separate body being grown purely for harvesting is repellent even to my broad sensibilities. This applies to therapeutic cloning, also. I guess I don't have such a problem if the growth is stopped at stem cell differentiation, so there's nothing human yet produced.
Other than that, I can't see why anyone would want reproductive cloning. Oh, I suppose there's an extension to fertility treatment, for a few; I can see a tiny niche for people with more money than sense who really, really want twins... but why would anyone else want to clone an embryo?
I now comprehend the equation of cloning with abortion, thanks... I do see certain glaring illogicalities in it should the religious be inclined to ponder their position, but I also see little point in looking for logic there anyhow... |
