To Be, or Be Two
     Imagine walking down the street, or seeing someone on the television and think they look just like you, or someone you know.  As much as they may look like you, you pretty much know there is no relationship between you and the look-alike.  However, in today's day and age, it is nearly possible that the look-alike is really a clone of you.  Now of course, it is not this simple, but the point is, with science today, cells, and eventually people, are being cloned.  These actions of cloning are for both human and therapeutic purposes.  Cells are being cloned for the sake of fertility reasons, and to grow cells for new organs.  Is this right?  I personally disagree with the fact of cloning human embryos for the purpose of creating new people.  I feel it is morally wrong, as well as a disadvantage for the clone of the person.  Supporting my argument is research from Gary McCuens' Cloning: Science and Society, and an article from The Ithaca Journal, "Stem Cells Grow from Clones, Controversial Reports Show."
     While reading Gary McCuens' Cloning: Science and Society, I came across points both for and against cloning human embryos.  No matter how hard I tried to read his points with an open mind, I was not able to bring myself to terms with the reasons for cloning human embryos.  A major reason some people feel it is acceptable to clone human embryos is for the benefits of infertile couples (13).  These embryos would be transported through the process of in vitro fertilization, but they would not be like typical in vitro fertilization processes.  Since many in vitro births do not succeed, researchers have found that it may be possible to clone the in vitro embryos and allow the couple to have more chances at a successful birth. "Research indicates that if more than one embryo is transferred to the uterus per treatment cycle, the chance that at least one will implant and lead to a live birth, increases...However, some patients...undergoing IVF, have a limited number of embryos for transfer and implantation...Researchers have suggested that those patients could benefit from having their embryos cloned" (13).  What does all this suggest?  The possible solution here is that couples decide to clone embryonic cells from the embryo in case it does not survive, in which case, the couple can try again.  To me, this sounds a bit like a safety net.  It almost predicts an expectation of failure in the survival of the fetus.  When I read this, all I could think was the parents having an attitude kind of like, "Well, this one didn't make it, but have no fear, we have back up cells to create this again."  I know it seems harsh to say, but that is the impression I got as a reader.  Why can't the parents try again, without the same cells from that embryo?  Let that fetus grow up to be its own person, not someone who was supposed to be born but wasn't.  It is almost like the parents want this baby to be the same one they did not have.  Which brings me to my next argument against cloning human embryos.
     Those for cloning suggest that these cloned embryos would be good matches for those family members who may have problems with certain organs and such.  "The most powerful reasons for cloning are to enable embryos to be genetically typed and to provide compatible tissues and organs for medical purposes" (44).  However, a stronger, more ethical argument I see here is that this is like creating a child for the sake of helping another person.  It seems to me that this child would not be here if this other person in the family was not in need of some sort of transplant.  Are there not other people to get the same organs from?  Transplants have been done for many years without creating new life just to help other people.  I am aware that there is more risk of rejection if organs come from another person, not genetically matched however, why give birth to a child just to take it away?  The article mentioned earlier has a strong argument for cloning cells for the purpose of creating new organs for people.  "Scientists want to use this type of cell, for example, to grow new pancreas cells for diabetics" (Neus).  This article discusses the possibilities of cloning cells to create these organs, but the argument against the cloning of cells is supporting the claim it would lead to the cloning of human embryos.  This article refers to scientists who feel it is acceptable to clone cells for therapeutic use, but "draw a clear line between it and ‘reproductive cloning'" (Neus).   The only result I see coming from the cloning of human cells for therapeutic reasons is the increase in curiosity to clone human embryos as well.  I feel the media would put such an emphasis on cloning, that people would be eager to continue on and move to the next step.  Cloning human embryos for the purpose of "creating human babies" (Neus) is filling the "world with replicas, or hundreds of thousands of mindless individuals created by mad scientists to perform various tasks" (McCuen 44).  The world would house so many people similar one another, that one's individuality would be mistaken for the norm; one's own identity would be lost, and the human race would be devalued (13).  I feel people would be robbed of their own identity, perhaps be expected to be like the child that didn't live (47).  Society sees it now.  Brothers and sisters are often expected to be like the older sibling.  "Why can't you be more like your brother?"  This happens in today's society.  However, if parents were to clone their embryo and that child died, the fact the new embryo has the same cells and genetic make-up is going to automatically make the parents treat that child like the other.  Let the child have its own genetic make-up, its own identity, and its own personality.  Children are already pushed to grow up like those before, for the most part, but to have the same genetic makeup as well seems too much.  It is almost lie they are seen as "replacements" (46).  Parents see the first child did not make it, so they keep trying, like mentioned earlier.  I feel parents think it is all a game, and they see if their child did not live then they could still keep trying.  Though genes are not all that create a child, they do have some effect on the child's identity (56).  I feel it is morally wrong to give this child someone else's genetic make-up because they are their own individual person, everything about them is and should be their own.
     I feel human embryonic cloning is immoral because of the loss of identity and individuality.  McCuen suggests that a child would feel like they were in the "shadow" (75) of a life that has already been lived by someone else (75).  This all goes back to the point I made about being expected to be like someone that has been replaced.  This child will be expected to do the same things the other one did; or think the same way, act the same way, and live the same way the other child did.  "...that one's choices would not really be free or one's own, but limitations of the person who lived before" (75).  So much is already expected of a child, and so many times a child is told to be their own person, break away from the crowd.  How would a child be able to break away if he or she was expected to be a certain way?  This undermines the true meaning of being a human being.  Children will be seen as "objects and things," rather than people who can really do their own thing.  If this child is not the next Albert Einstein, or the next Neil Armstrong, it is okay.  Or, perhaps this child has the potential to do great things, but by making them someone they aren't they are denied the chance to become what they can become.  Those people have lived their lives, it is time for this child to live his or hers.  I also feel, as a future parent, I would not want to be "reminded" of a child of mine who died.  I am in no way saying to forget about the child, but I am not sure I would want a living child to bring back all the memories of the child of mine who died.
     In conclusion, I strongly feel cloning human embryos will have no benefit to anyone.  I feel it leads to a child feeling like they are not good enough because they are not who they are expected to be.  I also feel it leads to guilt within the child, and a feeling of failure.  The child is always going to feel like they were not able to live up to the standards predetermined by society.  A child has the right to be their own person.  I feel cloning the human embryo is not necessary because society has managed to survive thus far without it, why not continue that way?  I feel every child has the right to be who they want to be, they should not have to duplicate the life of someone who already lived it.
 
 


Works Cited

McCuen, Gary E.  Cloning: Science and Society.  Wisconsin: Gary McCuen Publications, 1998.

Neus, Elizabeth.  "Stem Cells Grow From Clones, Controversial Report Shows."  The Ithaca   Journal 27 April 2001.
 

to "My Best Work" Menu
to Journal Entry for November 5th, 2001

to Professional Menu