# So exactly in what way is human cloning immoral? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 26, 2001, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-exactly-in-what-way-is-human-cloning-immoral/95370 "2001-11-26T21:37:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![JubilationTCornpone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee59a6/32.png) [@JubilationTCornpone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JubilationTCornpone)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2001, 7:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-exactly-in-what-way-is-human-cloning-immoral/95370/41 "2001-11-27T07:23:21Z")
One problem with cloning is that, as the process is explored, it is likely to produce numerous _unsuccessful_ clones before the process becomes reliable. This has obvious ethical implications, and is an argument that some have articulated against cloning. To be honest, I can’t blame them. ---
**Author:** ![texaspoet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/54ee81/32.png) [@texaspoet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/texaspoet)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2001, 7:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-exactly-in-what-way-is-human-cloning-immoral/95370/42 "2001-11-27T07:25:00Z")
> [@](#): > > \*\* > > No, there is a lot more to that: establishing connections, preferential treatment, and so on, solely on the basis that one is exactly like the original person. A person who is a not-clone can effectively be shut out permanently from access to the power elite because he just isn’t a clone of someone else of the power elite. In America, it is a matter of earning riches, working hard and the ability to win certain favors that are requisites of moving on up. With cloning, it could be the case that no matter how hard you work or how rich, or how high an EQ or IQ you have, if you are not a clone of a power elite, then you are out of the clique, forever. Scoff at it now, but I am not too confident of human nature transcending science in this matter. > > Mock that Sam Stone. \*\* No, allow me. Where are you living that this isn’t the case now? ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2001, 7:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-exactly-in-what-way-is-human-cloning-immoral/95370/43 "2001-11-27T07:48:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Of course \*no one person goes through the same environmental experiences. Let me be clear. For the purposes of discussing cloning, as a genetic science, the clone is identical, save for defects resulting from the cloning process. Compare me as an embryo 5 days old to my clone as an embryo 5 days old. Identical genetics. An “exact replica”. That is not naive genetic reductionism: it is fact. A clone would be genetically identical to the parent; but being genetically identical to a person does not make one an “exact replica” of that person. The point I was making when I first said clones would not be exactly like the original person is a philosophical and ethical point. A clone of a person is not a duplicate or a spare or an automaton; a clone of a person is a person–a _separate_ person from the original or parent person. ---
**Author:** ![SPOOFE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@SPOOFE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SPOOFE)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2001, 10:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-exactly-in-what-way-is-human-cloning-immoral/95370/44 "2001-11-27T10:39:33Z")
Here’s another clone-related dilemma: Parents. In normal childbirth, there are standards of “who takes care of the child”. If parents don’t take care of their kids, they are punished and the kids are given to new parents. However, with a clone, who would have the legal responsibility of the cloned person? As for deformations… yeah, the odds of making a “healthy” clone at the time being is slim, but I have no doubt that, eventually, the kinks will be worked out (hey, it might be five months, it might be fifty years). ---
**Author:** ![Dave\_Stewart](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e274bd/32.png) [@Dave\_Stewart](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dave_Stewart)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2001, 10:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-exactly-in-what-way-is-human-cloning-immoral/95370/45 "2001-11-27T10:50:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by MEBuckner \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Of course \*no one person goes through the same environmental experiences. Let me be clear. For the purposes of discussing cloning, as a genetic science, the clone is identical, save for defects resulting from the cloning process. Compare me as an embryo 5 days old to my clone as an embryo 5 days old. Identical genetics. An “exact replica”. That is not naive genetic reductionism: it is fact. > > A clone would be genetically identical to the parent; but being genetically identical to a person does not make one an “exact replica” of that person. > > The point I was making when I first said clones would not be exactly like the original person is a philosophical and ethical point. A clone of a person is not a duplicate or a spare or an automaton; a clone of a person is a person–a _separate_ person from the original or parent person. \*\* Genetically identical = exact replica, from a genetics perspective. Ethically/philosophically, a clone is an exact genetic replica, I personally think, until you the clone matures to the point that its reactions to its environment begins to make it a unique person. But that’s my own subjective opinion. So much of this is subjective. Some people will draw the line at creation, in a absolute denial that any embryo is not to be considered less than human because of the potential to become human: some people (including judges)will say not until third trimester or whatever. Because the line is impossible to draw and can only be subjectively drawn, people will inevitably medically exploit cloned embryos. ---
**Author:** ![JDM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/90db22/32.png) [@JDM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JDM)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2001, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-exactly-in-what-way-is-human-cloning-immoral/95370/46 "2001-11-27T19:45:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dave Stewart \* > \*\*\*Of course \*no one person goes through the same environmental experiences. Let me be clear. For the purposes of discussing cloning, as a genetic science, the clone is identical, save for defects resulting from the cloning process. Compare me as an embryo 5 days old to my clone as an embryo 5 days old. Identical genetics. An “exact replica”. That is not naive genetic reductionism: it is fact. \*\* Except, of course, for mitochondrial DNA. If your clone does not also have your mother as its mother, it is not an “exact replica” the way an identical twin is. True, mitochondrial DNA might not have much to do with anything on an individual level but it does mean that the genetics are not identical. Re: mitochondrial DNA,here: [http://www.ri.bbsrc.ac.uk/library/research/cloning/sindyq&a.html](http://www.ri.bbsrc.ac.uk/library/research/cloning/sindyq&a.html) is an interview about some of these ideas on a page I found while I was trying to make sure I was spelling “mitochondrial” right. I don’t agree with the social issues he raises, but I am concerned about the premature aging and other problems that might arise. JDM ---
**Author:** ![Max\_the\_Immortal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/6de8d8/32.png) [@Max\_the\_Immortal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_the_Immortal)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2001, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-exactly-in-what-way-is-human-cloning-immoral/95370/47 "2001-11-28T00:56:26Z")
I was just thinking of the heading of this thread. Has anyone given an example of how cloning is immoral? I can’t think of one. ---
**Author:** ![Dave\_Stewart](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e274bd/32.png) [@Dave\_Stewart](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dave_Stewart)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2001, 7:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-exactly-in-what-way-is-human-cloning-immoral/95370/48 "2001-11-28T07:46:00Z")
I am waiting for the “soul” argument. The Vatican has a policy paper on this, which I might try looking for, if only to add fuel to this debate. ---
**Author:** ![SPOOFE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@SPOOFE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SPOOFE)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2001, 10:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-exactly-in-what-way-is-human-cloning-immoral/95370/49 "2001-11-28T10:59:59Z")
> [@](#): > > I was just thinking of the heading of this thread. Has anyone given an example of how cloning is immoral? I can’t think of one. Cloning (combined with mental transference devices) would allow people - rich people especially - to live forever. With the exception of Emperor Palpatine, who didn’t need a MTD. ---
**Author:** ![ashtayk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e68b1a/32.png) [@ashtayk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ashtayk)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2001, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-exactly-in-what-way-is-human-cloning-immoral/95370/50 "2001-11-28T17:55:01Z")
I think that the issue of cloning is well beyond ethical. To me its a question of making the human race even more vulnerable. Consider this argument that I read perhaps in these boards (or maybe somewhere else I don’t recall)… We have already played a huge part in perpetuating a large number of diseases by…finding a cure for it. So now that people can lead fairly normal lives with say diabetes and beget children, the disease gets transmitted to the next generation without any filters. In other words the weaker specimens of the species are being allowed to procreate, whereas if natural selection was allowed, then the weaker specimens ability to procreate will be diminished. Now this may sound extremely fascist or whatever, and I for one do NOT advocate any stoppage in research for new cures. We have merely followed our self preservation instinct. And that I think is fine. Now, cloning will raise this issue a couple of notches, With a single individual causing another individual to be created the chances of inherited diseases being passed on to a child increases many many times. I think that we have caused enough damage to the human gene pool and we should let nature take its course. I think that we should not allow cloning to become a race to be won by a corporation just to get their jollies. cheers ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2001, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-exactly-in-what-way-is-human-cloning-immoral/95370/51 "2001-11-28T18:34:10Z")
Let’s put it this way: Does anyone think any of the arguments against human cloning advanced so far are strong enough to warrant [sending someone to Federal prison for ten years](http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.R.1644:)? NOTE: I actually think the House’s #2 “finding” is a sufficiently strong argument to warrant a ban on full-scale cloning of humans _for the time being_, until and unless more reliable techniques for cloning humans can be developed. I also think their finding #5 probably ought to be the subject of separate legislation if reliable techniques for cloning people are ever developed; you shouldn’t be able to clone someone without their consent. _Some_ of the issues from finding #4 might require new laws to make clear who has parental responsibility for cloned children. Much of finding #4 is just more of the same tired rhetoric reminiscent of that used to bash gays and lesbians. Finding #3 is just plain silly. Clones would still require nine months of gestation, in a womb or reasonable facsimile–and there are no reasonable facsimiles of a womb right now, we aren’t very close to such, and if there were, it would be a major medical advance and quite beneficial to humankind in general and womankind in particular, cloning or no cloning–in short, cloning can no more “mass-produce” children than sex can. And Congress hasn’t made fertility treatments which result in large multiple births a Federal felony; instead, those parents are frequently treated as heroes. Despite the verbiage in finding #7, findings #6 and 7 strike me as an attempt to legislate pro-life law through the back door, and the hardest-line pro-life law at that–the contention that embryoes which are only a few days old should be legally protected as “human life”. Since I don’t _want_ a permanent ban on cloning, I find finding #8 to be possibly true but irrelevant. Finding #10 merely shows that the Council of Europe is as capable as the U.S. House of Representatives of giving in to high-minded-sounding but vague fears about technology. Finding #9 is pretty irrelevant; and finding #11 looks like Constitutionally-required boilerplate to justify Congressional action (cloning will “affect interstate commerce”). ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2001, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-exactly-in-what-way-is-human-cloning-immoral/95370/52 "2001-11-28T18:48:45Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Max the Immortal \* > \*\*I was just thinking of the heading of this thread. Has anyone given an example of how cloning is immoral? I can’t think of one. \*\* JTC did. In order to make cloning reliable, we are bound to produce a lot of unsuccessful clones. It is ethical to create clones, knowing that in the process, we are bound to produce a lot of human who are seriously deformed and/or have no hope of survival? ---
**Author:** ![dierson](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7feea3/32.png) [@dierson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dierson)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2001, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-exactly-in-what-way-is-human-cloning-immoral/95370/53 "2001-11-28T19:08:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by DMAAN \* > \*\* > You can’t grow a spare body because that body will have a mind. who won’t want to just give it up. > > \*\* It might be possible to borne out an **anencephalous** clone for use as spare parts. No brain; no mind. ---
**Author:** ![dierson](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7feea3/32.png) [@dierson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dierson)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2001, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-exactly-in-what-way-is-human-cloning-immoral/95370/54 "2001-11-28T23:19:37Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by JThunder \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by Max the Immortal \* > > \*\*I was just thinking of the heading of this thread. Has anyone given an example of how cloning is immoral? I can’t think of one. \*\* > > JTC did. In order to make cloning reliable, we are bound to produce a lot of unsuccessful clones. It is ethical to create clones, knowing that in the process, we are bound to produce a lot of human who are seriously deformed and/or have no hope of survival? \*\* this is kinda funny because there are lots of humans formed by conventional sex that are seriously disformed and/or have no hope of survival. Using this criteria; conventional sex is immoral too. ---
**Author:** ![Menocchio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de053/32.png) [@Menocchio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Menocchio)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2001, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-exactly-in-what-way-is-human-cloning-immoral/95370/55 "2001-11-28T23:27:18Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by dierson \* > \*\* > > It might be possible to borne out an **anencephalous** clone for use as spare parts. No brain; no mind. \*\* That’s an entirely different situation than cloning in general. Why do people have such a hard time imagining that we could allow cloning of embryos, even of whole persons, while still taking steps against unlikely and unfeasiable situations like the above (vat organs, one of the possible benefits of cloned stem cell research, would much better source of organs; you’d have to grow your vegitable clone to maturity and feed it until you needed to harvest, take a vital organ and the rest goes to waste). Ditto for clone armies, slave drones, and full body replacement. These are seperate issues, and a clone is only step one of many that we’d need to take before they become at all pertinent. I’d also agree that cloning is currently unethical b/c of the failure rate and possible health effects. While a cloned child and it’s parent(s)/guardians would face some special social and moral issues, many of these are already being faced by in vitro fertilization and surrogate motherhood. Others would be more difficult, but not jusitifiable for the government to outlaw the procedure. ---
**Author:** ![gazpacho](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6f9a4e/32.png) [@gazpacho](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gazpacho)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2001, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-exactly-in-what-way-is-human-cloning-immoral/95370/56 "2001-11-28T23:42:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SPOOFE \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > I was just thinking of the heading of this thread. Has anyone given an example of how cloning is immoral? I can’t think of one. > > Cloning (combined with mental transference devices) would allow people - rich people especially - to live forever. With the exception of Emperor Palpatine, who didn’t need a MTD. \*\* I am not sure why it is immoral for people to not die. Would you care to expand on this a little. Or is the immoral part the destroying of the clone’s mind and replacing it with another what is immoral? ---
**Author:** ![Max\_the\_Immortal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/6de8d8/32.png) [@Max\_the\_Immortal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_the_Immortal)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2001, 7:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-exactly-in-what-way-is-human-cloning-immoral/95370/57 "2001-11-29T07:08:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SPOOFE \* > Cloning (combined with mental transference devices) would allow people - rich people especially - to live forever. With the exception of Emperor Palpatine, who didn’t need a MTD. \*\* That’s not a cloning issue. That’s about stealing the body of one’s child, cloned or uncloned. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2001, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-exactly-in-what-way-is-human-cloning-immoral/95370/58 "2001-11-29T18:49:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by dierson \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by JThunder \* > > [BJTC did. In order to make cloning reliable, we are bound to produce a lot of unsuccessful clones. It is ethical to create clones, knowing that in the process, we are bound to produce a lot of human who are seriously deformed and/or have no hope of survival? \*\* > > this is kinda funny because there are lots of humans formed by conventional sex that are seriously disformed and/or have no hope of survival. Using this criteria; conventional sex is immoral too. \*\* I don’t think so. For one thing, I think we should distinguish between accidents of nature and man-made accidents. It’s one thing for a _natural_ abnormality or fatality to occur; it’s another thing to cause it more-or-less deliberately. Besides, without natural procreation, the human race would be doomed to extinction. So while some fatalities and abnormalities may ensue, it’s the price to pay for ensuring human survival. Additionally, the number of abnormal or unviable births are fairly small, and can often be attributed to disease and poor nutrition. Experimental cloning, on the other hand, is likely to produce a large number of such births, with no guarantee that the process will ever be perfected. ---
**Author:** ![dierson](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7feea3/32.png) [@dierson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dierson)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2001, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-exactly-in-what-way-is-human-cloning-immoral/95370/59 "2001-11-29T20:42:35Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by JThunder \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by dierson \* > > \*\* > > > > > [@](#): > > > > > > \*Originally posted by JThunder \* > > > [BJTC did. In order to make cloning reliable, we are bound to produce a lot of unsuccessful clones. It is ethical to create clones, knowing that in the process, we are bound to produce a lot of human who are seriously deformed and/or have no hope of survival? \*\* > > > > this is kinda funny because there are lots of humans formed by conventional sex that are seriously disformed and/or have no hope of survival. Using this criteria; conventional sex is immoral too. \*\* > > I don’t think so. For one thing, I think we should distinguish between accidents of nature and man-made accidents. It’s one thing for a _natural_ abnormality or fatality to occur; it’s another thing to cause it more-or-less deliberately. > > Besides, without natural procreation, the human race would be doomed to extinction. So while some fatalities and abnormalities may ensue, it’s the price to pay for ensuring human survival. > > Additionally, the number of abnormal or unviable births are fairly small, and can often be attributed to disease and poor nutrition. Experimental cloning, on the other hand, is likely to produce a large number of such births, with no guarantee that the process will ever be perfected. \*\* -----you seem to assume massive errors. Granted that is the case at the moment. Suppose that a scientist stumbles on a sure-shot technique that has LESS error than conventional sex, in other words cloning is SAFER than conventional sexual reproduction. Then it would seem that it would be MORE moral to clone than not. Then what? ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2001, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-exactly-in-what-way-is-human-cloning-immoral/95370/60 "2001-11-29T21:47:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by dierson \* > \*\*Suppose that a scientist stumbles on a sure-shot technique that has LESS error than conventional sex, in other words cloning is SAFER than conventional sexual reproduction. Then it would seem that it would be MORE moral to clone than not. > Then what? \*\* If so, then this PARTICULAR moral objection would be lifted. (As in, it doesn’t automatically follow that cloning becomes more moral, since we should consider all other aspects as well.) However, the question remains. How is a scientist supposed to determine that this technique has a lower failure rate that conventional reproduction? The only way to determine this is try it out. The scientist wouldn’t _know_ ahead of time that his technique is more reliable, and so the moral problems still remain. Additionally, how would this scientist “stumble upon” that technique without any _prior_ experimentation? Is it possible that he’d discover a more reliable method without conducting any previous tests on humans? I find this notion to be a bit farfetched. Of course at present, it’s all a moot point, since nobody has stumbled upon a safer technique, and there’s no reason to expect any such breakthrough anytime soon. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-exactly-in-what-way-is-human-cloning-immoral/95370.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-exactly-in-what-way-is-human-cloning-immoral/95370.md?page=4)