Human Cloning vs. Natural Child Birth:
Which would you prefer?
Patricia Oscategui
What is the true purpose of human cloning? According to the experts, cloning
will help find cures for life threatening diseases and create human organs to
save human life; however, this can only be achieved through human experimentation.
It took scientists 277 times before they were able to duplicate Dolly, the first
mammal clone. How many tries before they can accomplish cloning a human? Once
they succeed in this endeavor, can the scientists guarantee the health and safety
of the clone? When a woman gives birth, no one can guarantee the health or safety
of the baby either. The only person who can play an essential role in ensuring
her baby’s health is the child’s mother as opposed to a group of scientists
who play a huge part in creating a child with the high risk of genetic deformity.
Careless mothers do exist, but there is a difference between an individual’s
choice and government control over the artificial creation of human life. After
all the research read and studied, the only way human cloning can be somewhat
justified is by helping infertile couples become pregnant. Thus while human
cloning decreases the value of human life aesthetically and morally, natural
childbirth enhances it. Through examining the process of Adult DNA Cloning,
and by demonstrating the different views and opinions of those for it and against
it, one can make a fair conclusion of what would they would prefer: a natural
child or a human clone?
Adult DNA cloning involves removing the DNA from an embryo and replacing it
with the DNA from another animal. Every cell in the body houses the genetic
material needed in order to create an exact clone of the original body. Cells
are only limited to perform certain functions and most scientists believe that
these differentiated cells cannot reprogram themselves into acting like fertilized
eggs. Then how was it done with Dolly? The nucleus, hence the DNA, of a donor
egg is taken out and the egg is fused with a cell from the human being copied.
Then an electric current is passed through the cell, which allows it to begin
growing into a genetic duplicate. This is how Dr. Ian Wilmut, of the Roslin
Institute in Roslin, Scotland, cloned Dolly. The news of this achievement became
public on February 23, 1997. Since then, the idea of human cloning has become
so rampant. As a result of this heated debate so many groups of people have
taken action and a stance of either supporting this phenomenon or rejecting
it (Gibbs, 48, 50; Robinson, what is human Cloning?).
Most of its supporters are scientists from countries around the world who have
embraced the idea and have started research on it. On July 22, 1998, Dr. Ryzo
Yanagimachi from the University of Hawaii announced the cloning of mice. They
were able to reproduce seven mice, which were clones of clones. In Japan, researchers
from Kinki University cloned 8 calves from a single adult cow. On December 24,
1998, researchers at the Infertility Clinic in Korea at Kyeonghee University
announced they had successfully cloned a human. Scientist Kim Seung-bo and Lee
Boyeon took an ovum from a thirty-year old woman, removed its DNA, and inserted
a somatic cell from the same woman. They were able to confirm division up to
the fourth cell stage, but they decided to destroy it because their goal was
not to clone a human, but to clone organs for human transplant. The other supporters
are usually those who have lost loved ones or who are battling a fatal disease
and who like to be cloned after they are dead or they die. (Gibbs, 50; Robinson,
history).
President Clinton issued a national ban on the federal funding of human cloning
in the United States on March 4, 1997. Some other opponents are those who believe
the consequences of human cloning have a larger negative effect than a positive
one. The most ironic opponent of the issue is Ian Wilmut. He feels the risk
outweighs any justification that an infertile couple might have for experimenting
with human cloning. Glenn McGhee who wrote the book The Human Cloning Debate
based one of his arguments on Wilmut’s idea. McGee makes this argument
in "The Perfect Baby: A Pragmatic Approach to Genetics" by stating
As we have noted elsewhere, it is doubtful even in the long term that an individual
or
couple will present a rationale for the use of human cloning technologies that
is
compelling when balanced against the risks. (22)
It may be extremely devastating for couples in this situation; however, should
x number of babies die in the process of trying to clone one just so that couple’s
human need to have a child is satisfied? The negative repercussions are too
high in order for scientists to take those kinds of risks. The consensus of
most Americans is that they are against it. TIME/CNN took a recent poll which
recorded 90% of the American public thought cloning human beings was a bad idea.
Only 7% thought it was a good idea. Even when posed with difficult life altering
situations such as using cloning to save the life of the person being cloned
or helping infertile couples have children, an overwhelming number of Americans
still did not accept these circumstances as enough justification to support
human cloning. Now that the general consensus has been established, the social
and ethical ramifications must be analyzed (Gibbs, 55).
With human cloning, there are many more negative effects than positive ones.
The only positive one that can be considered would be for infertile couples
wanting to have a child; (the other reasons all involve human experimentation,
which for obvious reasons will not be considered.) One of the parents would
be cloned and so their human need to reproduce will be satisfied. Some ethical
questions posed would be: Who decides which of these couples will partake in
this experiment? Should they be screened just as if they were adopting a child?
What happens if the couple divorces? Does the mother still have the primary
right? But what if the father was the one cloned (Gibbs, 49)?
With natural birth, all of these questions, all of these problems would be eliminated;
not saying that they do not exist, but why bring about more social turmoil.
Horrendous custody battles now exist and have been for many years. The children
are the ones who suffer the most. If these couples who want these children really
thought about it instead of thinking about their own selfish needs, the few
percentile of this nation who is for it would probably be against it. Then there
are those who would like to bring back a baby who was still born or a mother
dying of cancer, but what would be the purpose of that? Just to satisfy one’s
selfish and narcissistic need to have a familiar face and body present. The
clone might be genetically identical but that clone will not have the same personality.
The memories gathered over the years cannot be reprogrammed into the clones
mind and even so having knowledge of something is not the same as experiencing
it first hand. Some might argue that having a child is a narcissistic act; however,
it is not because there is no guarantee which parent the child will physically
resemble or behave as. It is a combination of two individuals, not just one
like it is with cloning. (Gibbs, 52; Steinbock, 33).
Human childbirth gives a couple or an individual the freedom to bring a child
into the world without having to worry about all of the factors mentioned above.
Infertile couples have the option of adopting any of the children in this world
who cannot be taken care of by the biological parents. The woman may not experience
giving birth but raising and loving a child establishes an emotional and spiritual
attachment just as if they had given birth themselves. The adoptive parent will
realize and praise the child individuality. Humans value their individuality.
They value diversity and freedom. How free will a human clone really be? Through
natural childbirth, this diversity and freedom is reached. Even identical twins
have very different personalities. They each have their likes and dislikes.
Cloning would take that away. The clone would be living in another person shadow,
trying to fill that person’s shoes.
The need for a loving heterosexual relationship is not required because as described
above only one individual’s genetic material is needed for the cloning
to be complete. Women will continue to experience child bearing, but a man is
not required. When a woman experiences natural as opposed to artificial pregnancy,
the child inside of her is a combination of two individuals. Most partners choose
who they want to be with and regardless of the reasons, they choose to give
birth to a unique individual. Childbirth is extremely essential to the value
of human life because of all the tough work that goes into having this child.
Finding a mate, settling down, sacrificing by choice are all tough difficult
situations to deal with. Falling in love or even deciding to have a child which
didn’t require all of that (e.g.: one-night stand, short-term relationship)
still requires the person to struggle. Then the amount of work put into raising
a child is priceless. You value something more when you have to work hard for
it. For example when a person is working really hard on a research paper and
it takes that person weeks to gather the research and all of the leg work and
late sleepless nights that go into this paper, it means so much more than if
someone else wrote the paper for that person. If that individual’s computer
froze and all the work was lost it would not be a big deal if someone else wrote
the paper. It would cause a lot of crying, cursing and foul behavior if that
person actually wrote the paper. This concept works the same for any action
one is involved in. The harder it is to accomplish, the more value is attached
(Howard, 50).
Human cloning will not eliminate the human desire to mate with another human;
however, the generation, which is born into a society as such, will definitely
be affected by it negatively. Eventually, it will become so passé that
having a child will not be as special as it used to be. Scientists will find
ways to nurture the embryo outside of the mother’s womb. Women wouldn’t
lose their hourglass figures and the pain and suffering brought on by natural
child bearing would be eliminated. In addition, the emotional and spiritual
attachment a mother has for her child will lessen because unlike the past, humans
will be able to be replaced.
There really is no need for human cloning. Natural childbirth has worked fine
for human and animals for millions and millions of years. Why disrupt the natural
order of life? If there is a way to create human organs without disrupting the
standard of living that promotes human life, there would be more followers of
human cloning and less opponents. However until then, through the respect humans
have given each other by learning how to live with one another, this same respect
must be given to those who have a right and freedom to live.
Statistics on Child Births
Birth rates have been steadily declining in the US since the early 1990s. Consider
these statistics from the National Center for Health Statistics, part of the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC):
ð The year 1997 marked a record low in births in the US: 14.5 births per 1,000
population.
ð In 1997, 3,880,894 babies were born in the US.
ð The peak age for childbearing years remains in the 20s.
ð There is a slow increase in births to older mothers in their 30s.
ð More women than ever are receiving prenatal care in the US -- about 82.5 percent.
ð Fewer women are smoking during pregnancy -- about 13.2 percent in 1997.
ð Preterm birth rates (less than 37 weeks in the womb) increased dramatically
to 11.4 percent (437,000 babies) in 1997, and the number of low birthweight
babies (less than 5.5 pounds) increased to 7.5 percent (291,000 babies). The
rise in both preterm births and low birthweight babies can be partly attributed
to the rise in multiple births.
ð More pregnancies are resulting in multiple births. In fact, in 1997, twin
births increased 3 percent to 104,137, and triplet births increased 16 percent
to 6,148.
Works Cited
Brannigan, Michael C. Ethical Issues in Human Cloning: Cross Disciplinary Perspectives.
New York: Chatham House, 2001.
Gibbs, Nancy. "Baby It’s You! And You and You…." Time 19
Feb. 2001: 49-57.
Howard, Ted, and Jeremy Rifkin. Who Should Play God? The Artificial Creation
of Life and
What it means for the Future of the Human Race. New York: Delacorte Press, 1977.
McGee, Glenn. The Perfect Baby : A Pragmatic Approach to Genetics. Lanham: Rowman
&
Littlefield Publishers, 1997.
Steinbock, Bonnie. "Respect for Human Embryos". Cloning and the Future
of Human Embryo
Research. Ed. Paul Lauritzen. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001.
Internet Sources:
Human Cloning: Introduction. Bruce A. Robinson. 26 March 2001. Ontario Consultants
on Religious Tolerance <http://www.religioustolerance.org>.