Imagine cries of terror being heard from a mile away. As you and your friends get closer, there is a tunnel where you hear the incessant rattling of cages. You see countless shadows of some animal shaking and desperately attempting to break the prison. On closer inspection, you see that this animal looks like a primate. Closer and closer you approach the scarred-trapped animal. A sudden chill rushes up your spine as you realize that these animals are human. Your friends, however, are calm and just merely ignore these animals. Your fears start to diminish as you realize that this is normal for your time. These are not "real" real humans, only clones. Mere clones … nothing more … slaves to man. This is future is possible if cloning is not banned, and further research is allowed. Cloning, if further developed, will have devastating results on mankind. The reasons this position can be best understood by examining the arguments most frequently heard in favor of cloning, and the consequences that cloning will bring.

Many people when they hear the word clone, they tend to think a duplicate, the equivalent of identical twins. Alike in physical features. In order to fully understand the question of cloning, one must understand the meaning of the word cloning. What is cloning: The first thing that must be cleared up is what is cloning, and what is a clone. A clone is an organism derived asexually from a single individual by cuttings, bulbs, tubers, or fission reproduction ("Cloning", 1997). Parthenogenesis reproduction is the development of an organism from an unfertilized ovum, seed or spore ("Parthenogenesis", 1997). Hence, cloning, biologically speaking, is any process in which production of a clone is successful. Thus, the biological term cloning is the production of a genetically identical duplicate of an organism.

Technology brings us again to another point where we must choose whether to pursue and research further, or to stop. This is the same scenario brought up when nuclear arms were being developed. Scientists and governments had to face the difficult issue of producing weapons of mass destruction. They had to weigh the possibility of eradicating millions of people, and have unforeseen consequences on man; or gather technology that will give not only military power, but power that can be used to power the entire country. To many, cloning provides a medical leap from waiting for organ transplants to fabricating organs themselves from the donor immediately. Cloning may also open many opportunities to help not just mankind, but all creations. Understanding and examining the arguments in compliance of cloning is the first step to apprehend the position against cloning.

Extinction of Animals. Certain animal activists are for cloning because it offers an alternative to extinction for endangered animals. It is their belief that by cloning these endangered animals, extinction of animals will not occur. However, what is not realized is that cloning only solves the short-term problem. If an animal is endangered, it is most likely the environment. If the environment is not changed to meet the animals needs, then the animal will still be endangered. One question is asked when this argument is brought up: Is it not more cruel to have more animals die, then to have a few? This brings to point that by cloning, more animals then necessary die.

The classic rebuttal is that with more animals, there is a much higher chance that the speices will survive and that with more, the population will increase. Without further examination the argument for animal examination seems to be in favor; but if every clone has identical genes, then if they were to reproduce would that not be inbreed. Inbreeding is never wanted because this causes unfavorable characteristics in animals. An example is the possibility of being born without a limb, or excessively weak and fragile. Animal activists wish populations of animals to thrive, not to self-destruct. By cloning, the destruction of the species is prolonged.

2. Medical purposes. Doctors and many others have proclaimed that cloning is the future of medicine. The first argument is that there can be more subjects to test on. This will allow more accurate projections on the potency of the treatments. Clones may also be used for training doctors instead of using plastic manikins. Activists for cloning are reminded that by testing on a human clone, rights are being violated. Testing on humans in the name of science has been long outdated. Cloning activists then counter by saying that clones can be considered not as humans, but as animals. If this is the case, then clones still can not be tested on. Animal rights activists have pushed for laws against testing on animals for research purposes. In any class that clones fall under, human or animal, testing on clones is ethically wrong.

Throughout the country an argument has been made that we use technology to help treat and cure illnesses. However cloning presents many risks that can result in detrimental effects on all existing life. By using this solution, more problems are caused. Cloning raises a number of concerns arising from its consequences. They would be created as clones for the primary benefit not of the individuals themselves but of some third party. This would be the case for cloning a dying child or parent to help those bereaved cope with the loss, or cloning an infant with a predisposition to leukemia, as a source of bone marrow which would suffer less tissue rejection problems. These violate a basic ethical principle, which of creates another human being other than primarily for their own sake. There is an important distinction in Christian theology, which admits an instrumental role for animals, to a limited degree, but prohibits it in humans. To clone a child with leukemia to provide compatible bone marrow would treat the cloned sibling to that extent as means to an end, for the benefit of a third party, rather than for their own sake, and without their consent. Again, it is rightly said that we have mixed motives for why we want children, but that does not justify treating a child as a means to an end.

3. Compromises have been tried that instead of cloning an entire human, only the organ or part needed can be generated. There would be many practical questions to answer. At first, this could look like less of a problem ethically, but once the ramifications become apparent it is by no means clear that this is necessarily as uncontroversial as it seems. This was brought into focus by the announcement in October of work in which headless frog embryos were produced by reprogramming cloned cells.. This was also reported briefly during an excellent BBC TV Horizon documentary on cloning. There is a serious question about whether it would be ethically acceptable to create organs as separate entities from human tissue. This again needs careful thought, rather than knee jerk reactions, but at first sight this would probably be unacceptable to many people.

If this scenario can be overcome, it could be argued that this was only justified in extremis and only for the benefit of the individual involved, or, with appropriate informed consent, a close relative. And underneath this partial cloning, lies the ethical problem known as "gradualism". By a progression of small steps you could eventually provide all the conditions needed to clone the entire human being, even though that had never been the intention of the research. This raises a much deeper question about how the direction of research is determined and controlled. In other words, starting research in only the fields to clone human organs and tissues might lead to cloning a full human. If full human cloning is reached, then the question of cloning humans will then be brought up again.

4. Exceptions: Infertile Couples. Arguments have not only generated from professionals, but also infertile couples. In certain case neither of the couple may bear children, and adoption is not an option. These couples believe that cloning is the answer. But this raises other problems. Instead of being the unique genetic product of both parents, the child is a copy of one of them. For an infertile couple to have a child by cloning one of them would normally be thought at first sight like a compassionate option to offer to childless couples. There could be serious ethical problems, notwithstanding the anguish which childlessness brings to many couples. We would not receive clones with such excitement as a child of a couple who conceived naturally. It would not be the biological child of both parents in the normal sense. For many this might be seen as taking the technological harnessing of the desire for a child one step too far, a means which is not justified by the end. The tendency is becoming to demand parenthood as my right, as though it was some moral absolute. If the clone was born there would still be many risks. These include physical, social, and psychological, all of which will be discussed.

After taking in account the arguments favoring cloning, cloning can now be viewed as dangerous. In the arguments the none of the risks involved are discussed. These risks compound the problem of favoring cloning.

1. Playing God? : A question of ethics. To many Christians, it is a fundamental belief that God is omnipotent and that no creature in the universe can compare to his powers. By definition, cloning is creating life. It is believed that only God has that power, not man. Religious groups claim that cloning defies the rule or their belief that humans have souls. They also consider cloning unnatural, and say we are taking the work of God into our own hands. People question when we will draw the line forgetting involved in natural events (Bruce, 1998). There is also a debate as to the moral rights of clones. Some say this will occur because there is no birth of newness (Post, 1997). We would not receive clones with such excitement as a child of a couple who conceived naturally.

Society consented with the idea of selfishness is not only outdated, but morally wrong. Philosophers agree that to give is better than to receive. When being brought up, values were instilled in us. These values include sharing with others, respect for others, and to think of others. Unfortunetly, cloning focuses only on the donor and a third part, and has the clone has no part in the debate. The clone is still a man, and therefore has rights.

2. Physiological Risks. When the clone matures to the state to comprehend that it is a copy not an original, what damage will be done to its state of mind? There are a number of reasons why human cloning might be ruled out for the psychological dangers involved. No one knows what would be the effects on human identity and relationships of creating someone who is the twin of their father or mother, but born in a different generation and environment. Would the clone feel that he or she was just a copy of someone else who's already existed and not really themselves? Am I really someone else but put into a different womb? What will be my relationship to the one I was cloned from? No one can predict with any degree of assurance what the response would be. Presumably they would vary from person to person. Even though one could not be sure how many people would suffer in this way, it would be wrong knowingly to inflict that risk on someone. Whose interests are being put first? Again this issue comes down to the question of ethics and morals.

3. Social Risks. History has shown that whenever a new breed of class enters society, unpredictable repercussions occur. An example was when slavery was abolished. When the newly freed slaves entered society has "equals" society shunned them and treated them as a second class. If clones were to enter society, would history repeat itself? Human cloning would bring grave risks of abuses to human dignity and exploitation by unscrupulous people. It is also an open door for abuse, in the way that another individual, a group in society or even the state could exert undue control over an individual. If anyone ever did unfortunately clone humans, it is important to counter the suggestion from science fiction that they would be subhuman androids with human bodies but no souls. More seriously, some papers from an Islamic perspective seem to imply that if reproduction is by human artifice, it lacks the spiritual element. Some Christians think the same. If this is the case, is not human nature to act in a manner of superiority over the "inferior" clones? Would this not only cause problems in society, but also amplify the problems that the clone must handle? Is this fair to the clone, would it not be more merciful not to make a clone and spare this pain? These questions present a possibility that erratic adverse effects will occur.

If humankind truly believes that the clone, the donor, and the third party will have only benefits and no drawback … the human race is doomed. There is still the grand problem of genetic diversity. This problem is not a question of ethics or circumstantial evidence but facts and principles.

The biggest problem with the use of cloning on a large is scale is the decline in genetic diversity. Think about it, if everyone has the same genetic material, what happens if we lose the ability to clone. We would have to resort to natural reproduction, causing us to inbreed, which will cause many problems. Also, if a population of organisms has the same genetic information, then the disease would wipe out the entire population. Helping endangered species by cloning will not help the problem. Currently, zoologists and environmentalists trying to save endangered species are not so much having trouble keeping population numbers up, but not having any animals to breed that are not cousins. Thus, errors are occurring when scientists carry out the procedure. For instance, it took 277 tries to produce Dolly, and Roslin scientists produced many lambs with abnormalities. If we tried to clone endangered species we could possibly kill the last females integral to the survival of a species. This may be the main reason science is holding out on cloning humans.

We need to be sure the UK legislation is adequate to outlaw any such activity, about which some have already expressed doubts, and there should be immediate moves to set up, if possible, an internationally binding treaty to ban experiments that would lead to human cloning. The Church of Scotland, along with many others, considers that attempts to clone human beings should be outlawed worldwide. It would be impossible to stop a "back street" clinic or a dictatorship from ignoring such an international treaty, but the lines need to be drawn. If cloning is allowed to be researched further, it will surely destroy the human race. Constitutional law scholar Laurence Tribe said that "human cloning would alter the very meaning of humanity". It is up to everyone to write to his or her government representative and adamantly protest cloning.

Benoit, Dr. B. "Why Clone Human Embryos?." (3 March 1996) HUMAN

CLONING AND RE-ENGINEERING. [WWW Document] URL

http://cac.psu.edu/~gsg109/qs/

Bruce, Dr. Donald. "Cloning, A Step too Far?"( 1998, January 5)

Society, Religion and Technology Project, Church of

Scotland, [WWW Document] URL

http://webzone1.co.uk/www/srtproject/srtpage3.htm

"Cloning." Compton's Interactive Encyclopedia. 1997 edition.

Griffin, Harry. "Cloning and genetic modification: a brief

history of Nuclear Transfer." (11 December 1997) Roslin

Institute Online, [WWW Document] URL

http://www2.ri.bbsrc.ac.uk/library/research/cloning/history.html

Kerschen, Arthur. "How to Clone a Human (Version 1.1)" (2

February 1998) Human Cloning, The How to Page, [WWW

Document] URL

http://www.u.arizona.edu/~ahk/cloning/human.html

Kolata, Gina. "Clinton's Panel Backs Moratorium on Human Clones"

The New York Times. 18 May 1997: publication web-site page.

Kolata, Gina. "On Cloning Humans, Never' Turns Swiftly Into Why

Not.'" The New York Times. 2 December 1997: A2, A24.

Kolata, Gina. "Rush Is on for Cloning of Animals" The New York

Times. 3 June 1997: publication web-site page.

Kolata, Gina. "With Cloning of a Sheep, Ethical Ground Shifts"

The New York Times. 24 February 1997: publication web-site

page.

Macklin, Ruth. "Human Cloning? Don't Just Say No." US News &

World Report. 10 March 1997: 64- 5.

McKeen, Mike. (1997, December 11) Roslin Institute Online

Welcome to RIO. [WWW Document] - Copyright 1997 Roslin

Institute. URL http://www.ri.bbsrc.ac.uk

McKinnel, Robert Gilmore. Cloning: A Biologist Reports.

Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1979.

"Pathogenesis." Compton's Interactive Encyclopedia. 1997

edition.

Post, Stephen G. "The Judeo-Christian case against human

cloning." America. 21 June 1997: 19-22.

Specter, Michael and Kolata, Gina. "After Decades and Many

Missteps Cloning Success" The New York Times. 3 March

1997: publication web-site page.

Travis, John. "A Fantastical Experiment: The Science Behind the

Controversial Cloning of Dolly." Science News. 5 April

1997: 214-215.

Wills, Christopher. "A Sheep in Sheep's Clothing?." Discover.

January 1998: 22-23.