I’ve always been a fence sitter with the issue of cloning. The idea has never bothered me too much. I know with any arising technology there is generally some opposition, some crazy Luddites. But now I think I’m against it.
In my philosophy lecture series class at BYU, Dr. Someone (I can’t recall his name) presented a very persuasive argument against human cloning.
Now, this isn’t the type of cloning where we grow essential organs from stem cells; that is another debate. This is full-blown human copies.
He presented several pro and con arguments, but it all came down to this:
Does an unborn child have the right to unique genetics?
Hypothetical situation: You are a clone of your dad, not a child (children are NOT genetically identical to their parents), but you are, essentially, your dad!
Now, many people say, “Genetics don’t play that big of a role.” Maybe that’s true, but everyone knows they are a part of the game, and in this case, whatever part that is, it’s the EXACT SAME part as your father. Wouldn’t that bother you? Wouldn’t you say your right to unique genetics was violated? Even if your father was Albert Einstein, the fact your genetics are the same as his would assume you should have some semblance of greatness. Big shoes to fill.
Some say, “What about identical twins.”
The dude in class explained that twins are (with the rare exception of fertility drugs [there are always exceptions!]) selected by nature to have identical genes. “Nature” does not violate rights. He used the example of someone being pushed off a cliff, and someone else being blown off a cliff by nature. The first’s ‘right’ to life was violated by the individual who shoved him, but nature did not ‘violate’ any rights in the latter scenario. Nature does not violate rights, and therefore genetically identical twins do not think, “my right to unique genetics was violated.”
I told this to some guys at work and pretty much everyone had differing opinions. Let’s hear yours.
