Cloning And The Human Family: Theology After Dolly Summary

Imagine a world where there are clones who look exactly like a specific person. A world with many famous figures of the past, such as George Washington, Mother Teresa, and so many more. With cloning, that world may be possible, concluded “Cloning and the Human Family: Theology After Dolly” by Allen Verhey. A clone is a genetic copy of an individual. Scientifically, animals and other species can be cloned by “transferring DNA from a single cell of an animal into an egg cell and creating a relatively exact copy of that animal,” according to “Genetic Defects Found in Cloned Animals” by Steve Mitchell (Mitchell). It is stated in “Cloning and the Human Family: Theology After Dolly” by Allen Verhey that the society may be able to “clone a sick
child to provide that child a twin who could supply materials for transplant” (Verhey). But even though there advantages, many people don't support cloning and believe that cloning humans and animals should be banned. Individuals believe that cloning should be declared illegal because is has a low success rate, many problems such as infections and deformities arise during the development of the clone, it challenges the worth of an individual, and is similar to playing God.

To begin with, cloning is believed to be inefficient because of the low success rate and the high failure rate.
It is stated in the article “What is the Future of Animal Biotechnology?” by Alison L. Van Eenennaam that the “cloning procedure is currently inefficient, with only 1% to 3% of the nucleated egg cells developing into live offsprings” (Van Eenennaam). This statistic helps the audience infer that the cloning procedure must be very expensive. With such a low percentage of success, the audience can also infer that many embryos may’ve been wasted each time. In additional example is stated in “Dolly’s Death Resurrects Debate on Cloning Ethics” by Rosie Mestel: “to get Dolly, it took 277 tries” (Mestel). This statistic helps prove that the inference was correct. A lot of embryos were wasted each time the cloning procedure was done. At least 277 embryos were made and 276 embryos were killed. This fact may seem important to some people because they may feel as if 276 lives were sacrificed in order to clone 1 sheep, and this does express the inefficiency of
cloning.

Another view of the people who are against cloning is that it causes problems such as infections, malformations, and deformities during later development of the clone. For example, in the article “The Limits of Cloning” by Nathan Gardels, a statement that a “significant proportion of animals produced by cloning die soon after birth [and] many fetuses never make it to the full term of pregnancy” is presented (Gardels). This statement might make the reader to think that cloning is a process in which embryos are wasted. This fact compels the audience to degrade cloning, making it seem similar to murdering. Another example is acknowledged in “Genetic Defects Found In Cloned Animals” by Steve Mitchell when it is mentioned that cloning “impacts the animal’s development and causes all kinds of malformations... and it probably explains why many clones die early, are obese, or have other problems” (Mitchell). This example further supports the comparison between cloning and murdering. Some readers may think that if the cloning procedure is successful, the clone is only subjected to a life of pain and suffering to death. This tugs at the emotions of the reader, viewing cloning as an act of punishment for the innocent animals until they die.

Furthermore, some people oppose cloning because they believe that it decreases the value of life and an individual.
For instance, in the article “Should Human Cloning Be Banned?” by Albert Moraczewki and Arlene Judith Klotzko, it is claimed that “every human embryo is priceless because it is already a human being... the cloning of human beings would lead to confusion of personal identity and worth” (Klotzko and Moraczewki). In the future, if cloning gets easier, the worth of humans might decrease. It is similar to mass production. Every new object’s price is very high to begin with but dramatically decreases when it is mass produced in a factory. If human clones are also mass produced, their value will decrease, that is what worried many people. Moreover, Albert Moraczewki and Arlene Judith Klotzko add that “the result is that each child born has a unique set of genes, which is a reflection of the child’s unique soul” (Klotzko and Moraczewki). Individualism is valued by many in the United States of America. According to this claim, the “unique set of genes” represents an individual (Klotzko and Moraczewki). In the cloning process, the “unique set of genes” is copied, meaning an individual is copied, stripping the individualism from the individual. Basically, cloning may seem like a process in which someone loses their individuality, devaluing the importance of each human
being.

A handful of religious people, such as priests and theologians, believe that cloning is similar to playing God because some believe that cloning manipulates life and messes with powers that the human race shouldn’t be messing with, and ergo are against it. Albert Moraczewki and Arlene Judith Klotzko wrote in their article “Should Human Cloning Be Banned?” that “while the human race is certainly part of creation, it is set apart from the remainder of creation by its God-given dignity... human life is of high value by divine gift” (Klotzko and Moraczewki). Some people believe that the “God-given dignity” is too holy to be replicated and think that by cloning humans or animals, people are playing God. Many believe that playing God is a sin; in other words, cloning itself is a sin. It is further developed that that if the society makes a “radical change in the means of precreation which God (through nature) has provided, we invite disaster” (Klotzko and Moraczewki). In other words, if a change is made to the natural way of reproduction, destruction will follow. This may remind some readers of World War 2 and Adolf Hitler, who tried to destroy the diversity, “procreation which God (through nature) has provided,” by killing Jews, which ultimately led to his downfall (Klotzko and Moraczewki). Cloning may also lead to destruction, according to some people, because they believe cloning may be similar to playing God by replicating or manipulating God-given resources.

In conclusion, scores of people believe that cloning is unethical and should be banned because of the high failure rate, the clone is faced with health problems such as deformities, it challenges the concept of individualism, and is similar to playing God because cloning manipulates life. Anyhow, cloning can impact this world both positively and negatively. Even now, cloning organs may be able to save the lives of the thousands who die every year waiting for an organ transplant. Cloning animals will increase the food supply, and may help feed the people in developing countries who suffer from food shortages. Cloning can also help revive some of the masterminds of history, which would be the dream of the world with famous figure of the past come alive.