On all ethical and practical aspects, I would like to argue through these shadows of rising anti-human cloning nemesis that we have no good reasons ethically speaking for which  the banning of both reproductive and therapeutic cloning could be justified. This in itself can for the moment raise controversy like any other change that is thought to violate ‘human dignity’. We will discuss this further to conclusively grasp the ethical and practical aspects of therapeutic human cloning and also  why the reproductive cloning of humans should not be banned.

“Cloning, even so-called therapeutic or experimental cloning, creates a new life without a father, and reduces a mother to the provider of an almost emptied egg. Nonetheless, it is a new human life and the determination to destroy it and limit its use to scientific research for therapeutic ends compound further the moral issues rather than protect mankind. As such, cloning embryonic human life under any circumstance crosses an ethical line, takes an irrevocable step, from which science can never turn back.”(Daniel Reilly, “Statement on human cloning,” The Diocese of Worcester, (Roman Catholic), 2001-NOV-26, at: http://www.worcesterdiocese.org/) – this is one of the statements in the likes of  many other conservative statements that are against therapeutic cloning. But, in view of the above statement I would like to generate a argument positively in favor of therapeutic cloning. Therapeutic cloning can be used for therapy related to the motive that a person might be in need of an organ transplant. The ultimate goal of this kind of cloning is to produce a better or healthy copy of a patient’s tissue or organ for transplant. This would mean that the tissue or organ would bear the patient’s original DNA which is quite significant since it does not lead to any organ rejection. This further eliminates the need for organ transplants from other people. But what has this got to do with ethics? Well like the above conservative statement , ethics become relevant when the source of the stem cells used for cloning is considered. These sources are Human Embryos which appear to be the only source of stem cells that can used for effective therapeutic cloning. Practically, the human embryos from which the stem cells are collected are destroyed at times which raises a social consensus that otherwise reflects most of the ethical issues related to Human cloning. Some conservative people believe that these embryos are human beings and therapeutic cloning results in murdering the same. Another high ethical perspective of these people is to prove that these embryos are indeed human beings; they argue stating that if the embryos are implanted into a women’s uterus , there is a high degree of possibility that the embryo will develop into a fetus and that in turn into a new born baby. They believe that a therapeutic lab would be like an ethical similarity to that of a Hitler’s death camp. Also, in some sense they believe it is immoral or totally unjust to kill ‘someone’ for saving a life of another.

“Therapeutic cloning will in time allow scientists to create organs that are a perfect match for those in need of a transplant. The cloned organ would be based on the recipient’s genetic material and would not require the use of debilitating immunosuppressive therapies. There would also be no chance of rejection, which is fatal. Therapeutic cloning represents the ideal in organ transplantation, as it would provide an unlimited source of organs to anyone who needs them. The need for these organs is dire.” (Justin Durivage, “Therapeutic cloning raises new questions concerning morality,” The Student File, 2001-DEC-07, at: http://www.tsl.pomona.edu/) -considering the statement as above , it does reflect my contentionary opinion that there are no adverse harms attached to this form of cloning but infact an array of benefits. Most liberal people may justify the statement by argueing that the embryo used for such therapeutic cloning is a pre-embryo which is not allowed to develop into an embryonic stage. Also some argue that the embryo is morally irrelevant and deserves no particular attention in view of seeing it as a group of cells containg DNA. This is infact much like the group of cells thats in our skin. When you shed your skin millions of times a day , theres no question of any ethics? Hello. Well such is the case with the arguments of people who are favorable to therapeutic cloning. Embryo is not human, and hence no murder is the fiercest weapon that could otherwise tally against any opponents.

Reproductive cloning on the other hand has its own set of arguments against it that practically sheds out the living daylights of ethical framework that surrounds it. Reproductive cloning involves the removal of DNA from an embryo and then replacing it with the DNA of another animal. In case of Dolly the sheep as i mentioned earlier in this essay, a mammary cell was taken from a old sheep and fused with a sheep egg with no DNA.  Since then , several species of mammals have been cloned including mice, cows, rhesus monkeys, sheep, goats, pigs, and rats. So what about humans? Why not humans? Considering these questions, I will first take you through a journey of arguments that more of less aren’t very convincing to prohibit or ban human cloning.

They say Reproductive cloning violates human dignity. Now what does human dignity mean? Any rational thought considering the fact what human dignity actually infers is beyond cloning. But still, they say, it cloning violates ‘human dignity’. Leaving this aside, how about people who like to clone themselves? The kinds that are self centered fans of themselves and would go to any lengths to clone themselves like a spare parts factory. This sounds a bit funny but does raise ethical issues of a time when some might take these clones and use them to transplant organs in non clones. What’s the purpose when this in itself defeats the ethical principle of equality? All clones and non-clones are equal. Also, another view against cloning is that some people for instance might like to think that cloning could as well lead to a future so horrific that a science fiction movie like the one depicting cloned humans that attack the world could turn out real. Well, might sound or look neat but trully impossible to even subject it to realization.

As I have discussed above, the therapeutic and reproductive cloning have many benefits in general that can without a shadow of a doubt potentially outweigh the problems that effect today practically. These problems could be from all the genetic defects to the ethical conservative statements.  There are in itself no serious harms associated with these forms of cloning. Much more, reproductive cloning can be morally acceptable when considering therapeutic cloning alongside.  I would like to conclude by saying that there are many benefits than harm. All these technologies are a part of the change that could well do mankind a whole lot good. The cloning techniques as discussed above can be ethically and practically well understood when they are promoted rather than prevented. This promotion should arise in a better form of regulatory and legislatory changes that at present act both as barriers and open gates in different countries around the world.