In my opinion, cloning for therapeutic purposes is bad.

First of all, there's a question on whether the clone should be treated as a human being or just an object. If one were to say that they're just objects, they look like humans, behave like humans, feel like humans. What makes them any less human than us? One the other hand, they are not special individuals, unlike all of us. Even one of a twin, the closest you can get to a clone, is special. However, clones are genetically identical to the person from whom they were cloned. For religionists who believe in the spiritual aspect of individuals, these clones are not created by God, but by humans are therefore are different. Would these clones have rights? Can they marry and have children? If they commit a crime are they bound by law? If they fall sick, can they get medical treatment?

Secondly, to have clones is to use more resources. Even if you'd want to grow these clones, you would need to feed them, house them and process their wastes. As it is now, humans are running short of naturals resources. If we have clones, we will need to use more resources. What will happen if due to these clones, our resources deplete faster? It would then be the survival of the fittest. If they're fitter than humans, considering the fact that they might be abused by humans (probable difference of upbringing would lead to different lifestyle), they would replace humans.

Thirdly, there could be the issue of identity theft. If you see a photo of a person doing something, can you tell whether that is the original person or his clone? How would the media and news reporting be affected by the rise of clones? How do you differentiate the real person from the clone since they have the same fingerprints, genetic fingerprints etc. In the event of a crime, who do you prosecute? Can the clone replace the person if the real person dies? If the clone had no rights previously, would he have rights when he replaces the original person?

Fourthly, by creating clones for therapeutic purposes, we're pushing the allowance of bad genes further. As it is now, with modern medical facilities, we as humans have already done everything we can to avoid the pressure from natural selection. When we are sick, we see the doctor, get the cure and we continue to live. In nature, an animal that suffers from a disease (and if it's antibody does cannot fight away the disease) will die and thus those genes that cannot tolerate that disease would not be passed on to the next generation. We, on the other hand, defy natural selection and continue to past those bad genes to the next generation. I'm not saying that we shouldn't do what we are doing. We as humans, are different from animals, because we are (or are supposed to be) morally higher than animals, and therefore, out of compassion, we save our fellow human being from death. But would it be right to go to that extent to avoid death? Should we do it until we risk overpopulation?

This post has been edited by Thinkingfox: Jun 27 2009, 03:16 PM

What you say makes some sense. Yes, the rich are, in a way, the best in acquiring wealth. But then again it's hard to say that the rich have the best genes. Maybe it's intelligence, which is in inherited. But so many other things have to be taken into consideration. Upbringing also plays a part in determining one's future. And I wouldn't say that children born in the richest families have the best upbringing. For example, some people are born into riches but die in poverty because they do not know how to manage their riches.

Furthermore, a person can be rich by winning a lottery, or through a stroke of luck, become rich. For example, if you happen to inherit a piece of cheap land from your parents and keep it, and 30 years down the road, the government plans to build something big there, and is willing to compensate you with many zeros on a cheque. Well, then you've just hit the jackpot. Although it's rare, it happens. But this doesn't mean the person is in anyway, genetically superior to another.

Besides, the trend shows that the human population has been increasing exponentially in the last century. Why the last century? It coincides with the improvement of medical knowledge and techniques to an extent such that the number of births can exceed the number of deaths in the human population by a large ratio. If cloning were to be allowed, these people would make the human population increase even further than without cloning, because at any one time, those who are cloned will continue to live way beyond their years and when birth rate stays the same (if we assume that cloning has no effect on the present birth rate), the total number of humans will increase. And if the therapeutic cloning and organ transplant procedure becomes more affordable over time (say due to breakthroughs or the discovery of new medical methods), the rate of increase will also increase.

Ultimately, when overpopulation occurs, and if we don't find a solution (to overpopulation) by then, we would have to face the full force of natural selection, because it would then be a competition for inadequate resources. Therefore, I think it would be wise to postpone (if stopping is not an option) the usage of therapeutic cloning until we find a solution to overpopulation.

This post has been edited by Thinkingfox: Jun 28 2009, 02:02 AM

It depends on the situation. In times of peace, it may be wealth. In times of war, it may be it's ideology. When overpopulation occurs, it might be something different. So, I think it would be wise to avoid accelerating overpopulation through cloning.