HUMAN CLONING IS ETHICAL

Stuart K. Hayashi


           Since the dawn of time, there were those who opposed mankind’s ventures into then-uncharted scientific frontiers—anesthesia, atomic power, and computer technology—out of fear of the changes in everyday life they would invoke. Today, such is the case with our ability to clone humans, which is completely safe and ethical, yet outlawed simply because of our society’s unfounded fears. The legal ban on cloning a complete human being should be lifted, because it has been fueled by misconception, is a violation of individual property rights, and will be of great detriment to society in the future.


           While so much fervor over the immorality of cloning has been brewing, many of the people advocating the ban do not have a clear, accurate idea of what it truly is. It is commonly believed that a clone of an adult will be an exact duplicate, down to the very age and personality of the clonee (person being cloned). In reality, however, all clones must start off as babies and physically mature at the same rate as everyone else. Thus, if one clones a thirty-year-old man, the clone will always appear thirty years younger than the original.
           Another erroneous belief is that the clone will behave exactly like the clonee, thereby robbing the original of his or her uniqueness. Self-proclaimed "bioethicists" often create a fictitious scenario in which someone clones Hitler and takes over the world. What these arguments ignore is that individual personality is largely shaped by environment, conditioning, and free will, and not just by biology.
           If life experiences and background truly mold a person’s character, then these circumstances must be taken into account for the personalities of clones. Being born in a different time period, the clone will already face many life experiences unlike that of the parent—he’ll have different friends, be influenced by different teachers, and adapt to the modern culture of his own age group. This already creates vast variations between the clone and his or her parent. Also vital is how the clone is raised. His legal guardians may bring him up with different values and beliefs than the clonee, and may discipline him in ways unlike that of the original’s parents. As editorialist Thomas Sowell noted, "If you make a clone of Rush Limbaugh and put him in a different household, he could grow up to be a liberal. If, on the other hand, you take a clone of Bill Clinton and put him in a different household, he could turn out to be honest."            Even more important than either environment or conditioning, however, is free will. Every individual, regardless of his or her genetic code, must decide for him- or herself how he or she will behave. Though identical twins share the same DNA structure, and were born in the same time period and raised in the very same environment with the same conditioning, they are still individual, autonomous entities who live and think independently of one another. Though they are nature’s own clones, a few twins even turn out to be behavioral opposites. A clone of Hitler may end up a freedom-espousing, Civil Rights advocate. While cloning may be possible in the near future, exact duplication remains a simple pipedream. Any "egotist" or would-be dictator who expects his clone to be a copy of himself will be sorely disappointed.
           One of the more valid issues raised by bioethicists is that the pioneering clones will grow up in households different from the socially-accepted norm, and that they may be treated as outcasts. However, today children are growing up in many different households considered less than ideal, such as single-parent homes or families with in vitro fertilized children. Though these households were once regarded as abnormal, most of the children in them mature into well-adjusted adults who function satisfactorily in the community. Their situation differing from that of the status quo did not fully impede their development. Also, over time, the more clones are made, the more society will grow accustomed to them.


           There are indeed many more serious issues involving clones not raised by the bioethicists, but all of these can be answered by applying the principles of individual property rights. If Americans truly have a right to their own life and liberty, then surely they own their own unique genetic code. Also, because one owns his own physiological structure, he should have the right to peacefully do whatever he wants with it—such as cloning himself—provided that he does not harm the life, liberty, or property of others. Just as a couple has a right to have children when, where, and how they see fit, so too does a person who wishes to have a child-clone. Forbidding a man to clone himself, because we perceive him to be irresponsible, would be like forbidding a poor, young, unmarried couple to have children simply because we perceive them as not being responsible enough.
           Still, one question this raises is, "If cloning is legal, what should stop ‘mad scientists’ from cloning others against their will?" The answer is that, since an individual owns his or her own DNA, no one can use his or her genetic material for any purpose other than what he or she permits, just as it is illegal to publicly use another’s likeness without his or her consent.
           Individual rights also protect clones from abuse. Full-bodied, human clones would have rights, because, unlike animals and separately-cloned body parts, they have the ability to think, which means that they possess the abstract concept of rights, and therefore can respect the rights of others. Because of this, it would be illegal to grow an entire body for transplanting body parts, since this violates the clone’s rights to life and liberty.
           One may still worry that, if clones were accepted into everyday life, the dreadful scenario of the novel Brave New World may be brought to reality. The story focuses on a civilization of clones whose lives are identical, and who are easily ruled by a totalitarian elite. The subjects possessing the same genetic code makes them more likely to agree with one another and conform. However, when discussing this frightening, hypothetical situation, a number of things must be pointed out—besides its being only fiction. A society like the one in the book is made possible only by the absolute, arbitrary rule of the government which has the power to decide everything for everyone, from cradle to grave. Brave New World’s technocratic politicians are not capitalistic, but semi-fascist, semi-socialist, and have gained their power only because their citizens chose collectivism and central State planning over individual choice and limited government. The situation presented in the story cannot be brought to fruition under America’s free enterprise system, because individuals can choose for themselves what they want to do with their own lives. People can choose whether or not they want themselves cloned, and even clones have the option of having children by more natural, socially-accepted means. Anyone, clone or non-clone, can associate with anyone they choose—clone or non-clone—for any reason whatsoever. The State can only control the lives of individuals if the electorate unwittingly gives it this power. In order to avoid creating a civilization like the one in Brave New World, what must be opposed is not technological progress, but the government’s growing power to regulate what we do with our own minds, bodies, and belongings. As long as our system of free trade and private property are preserved, human cloning will not threaten society, but benefit it enormously.


           The cloning of human beings in the future will improve life in a number of ways. The mere cloning of human embryos, which will not even develop into fetuses, can be used in the production of new medicines. (This use is not a violation of life, since the embryo has not become a true human being).
           Also, the cloning of existing adults will give psychologists a better understanding of which factors develop our character the most. For years, psychologists of various intellectual schools have argued over what is most important in making us who we are—biology, environment, conditioning, chance, or free will? Should clones behave differently from their parents, it will show once and for all that physiological makeup does not shape our destiny. If a Rush Limbaugh clone really were raised by liberal foster parents and came out a liberal himself, that would support the case of the Behaviorists who insist on the importance of conditioning. However, if a man reared his own clone in a manner very similar to his own upbringing and the clone still turned out different, it would finally> prove the supremacy of free will over both conditioning and physiology.
           Human cloning would probably most improve life for infertile couples who would still like to have biological children. Many of these couples would prefer to have babies by more natural, socially-accepted means, but this is simply not an option for them. They still desire to pass on their own genes to another generation, however, and cloning makes this possible. Any infertile couple who disapproves of this scientific breakthrough will still be able to adopt. While people exercising their own right to peacefully use their own DNA as they see fit do not infringe on our rights in any way, the way we treat them is a different story! Does our fear of the unknown , and intolerance for those who are different, justify denying infertile couples the joys of raising their own biological children?!


           It is natural for humans to fear the new and unusual, but when we let this fear control us, we may refuse ourselves great pleasures and prosperity. Not only does real human cloning contradict the misconceptions we have formed, but abuses in this area would be most adequately controlled by are already-established free market system, and the advancements made in our civilization would be fantastic. A ban would undermine all of this. Rather than cling to the status quo and equilibrium of everyday life, we would do well to put our prejudices aside, and welcome the grand wonders and joys human cloning will bestow upon the world.



Back to Essay Page!


Return to Main


The above essay is Copyright © 1999 Stuart K. Hayashi, and may not be reproduced by any means without his written consent. All rights reserved.