# 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:** 8\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![sqweels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2001, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-exactly-in-what-way-is-human-cloning-immoral/95370/61 "2001-11-29T22:42:19Z")
> [@](#): > > 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. Don’t medical researchers test new drugs and surgical techniques on animals before _experimenting_ with them on humans? If they could consistently clone chimpanzees that are healthier than sexually reproduced ones, wouldn’t that fill the bill? ---
**Author:** ![dierson](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7feea3/32.png) [@dierson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dierson)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2001, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-exactly-in-what-way-is-human-cloning-immoral/95370/62 "2001-11-30T02:19:18Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by JThunder \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*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. \*\* Epiphany… Archemides, Newton, Einstein…it happens. But I would allow technical practice on chimpanzees. Would you? ---
**Author:** ![dierson](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7feea3/32.png) [@dierson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dierson)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2001, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-exactly-in-what-way-is-human-cloning-immoral/95370/63 "2001-11-30T02:26:47Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by sqweels \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > 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. > > Don’t medical researchers test new drugs and surgical techniques on animals before _experimenting_ with them on humans? If they could consistently clone chimpanzees that are healthier than sexually reproduced ones, wouldn’t that fill the bill? \*\* I want my MONKEY-MAN! ---
**Author:** ![JubilationTCornpone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee59a6/32.png) [@JubilationTCornpone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JubilationTCornpone)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2001, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-exactly-in-what-way-is-human-cloning-immoral/95370/64 "2001-11-30T03:56:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by sqweels \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > 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. > > Don’t medical researchers test new drugs and surgical techniques on animals before _experimenting_ with them on humans? If they could consistently clone chimpanzees that are healthier than sexually reproduced ones, wouldn’t that fill the bill? \*\* In my opinion, no. Success on chimpanzees is no guarantee of success on humans. At best, it would just be a rough indication of success. Medical researches often do test drugs and surgical techniques on animals first, but they must ultimately be tested on humans as well. Animal testing may reduce the amount of human experimentation required, but it would never eliminate it. ---
**Author:** ![JubilationTCornpone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee59a6/32.png) [@JubilationTCornpone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JubilationTCornpone)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2001, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-exactly-in-what-way-is-human-cloning-immoral/95370/65 "2001-11-30T04:07:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by dierson \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by JThunder \* > > \*\* > > 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. \*\* > > Epiphany… Archemides, Newton, Einstein…it happens. \*\* Ephiphany will only get you so far. Cloning techniques must **still** be tested on humans in order to evaluate their validity. Besides, the revolutionary ideas of Newton, Einstein and Archimedes were mostly mathematical in nature. They were also based on plausible thought experiments – and of course, they still required experimental validation. In contrast, no amount of thought experimentation would guarantee a reliable cloning technique. Any biologist who said, “Aha! I thought of a near-perfect cloning technique! I haven’t conducted any experiments whatsoever, but we may as well proceed. I already know it’ll work!” would not be considered a credible scientist. ---
**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 30, 2001, 4:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-exactly-in-what-way-is-human-cloning-immoral/95370/66 "2001-11-30T04:39:21Z")
Well, all new medical techniques pose some risk. Generally, new techniques are tested on non-human animals; if the technique works on non-human animals, that’s evidence that it will work on humans, but not totally conclusive. Test-tube babies or fertility drugs were presumably also tested out on laboratory animals first, yet the time came when those techniques were used on humans for the first time. ---
**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 30, 2001, 8:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-exactly-in-what-way-is-human-cloning-immoral/95370/67 "2001-11-30T08:31:57Z")
Of course, any cloned fetuses that would be deformed could simply be aborted… Then the question becomes about abortion (with which I and many other people have no problem with). ---
**Author:** ![capybara](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/capybara/32/202_2.png) [@capybara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/capybara)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2001, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-exactly-in-what-way-is-human-cloning-immoral/95370/68 "2001-12-01T03:47:38Z")
Damnit, I’m a clone, apparently ( [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=101480](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=101480) ), and some of this annoys me-- especially the hackneyed “Boys from Brazil” “10,000 Hitlers” sort of idea. As an identical twin perhaps I have peculiar notions concerning nature versus nurture, but statements along the lines of “People who want to clone themselves will tend to try their damn best to have the clones maintain what power they originally have in perpetuity” strike me as patently ludicrous. The clone is an individual. We don’t assume what a child will be like on account of his father, and we don’t lock up the twin of a felon for safety’ sake. (This, of course, is a different issue than the problem of stem-cell research, which makes me feel a bit uncomfortable, although I am not sure why yet. I guess I don’t know enough about the process yet to know how to feel about it.) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-exactly-in-what-way-is-human-cloning-immoral/95370.md?page=3)