Human Cloning

Where religion and culture permit, donor sperm, eggs and embryos to be used. So why cloning should be seen as 'playing God' any more than these existing reproductive technologies? There is no evidence of any adverse effects on either the parents or the children involved in any of these technologies. There is also the religious argument that Clones will not have individual souls. It is thought that clones will be treated as second rate because they are "carbon copies" of an individual and that they will also become increasingly inferior as more copies of the same individual are produced. However, if you follow this argument then it would have to be said that within each set of twins one of the two would feel "second rate" to the other. This may be true in some sets of twins but then the same could also be said of siblings who are not clones of each other at all. It is also unlikely that there will be mass productions of clones simply due to the fact that they each have to be born and raised individually. The fact that it is unlikely that clones would be mass-produced also settles the argument that cloning will end up being used to create armies or slaves.
             Having shown that some of the arguments against human cloning and how they can be refuted, we should consider some of the positive benefits that would come from human cloning. For example many leading experts in this field are suggesting that lessons learnt from human cloning are likely to lead scientists to be able to reverse, or at least to halt, the ageing process. Many scientists are also confident that heart disease and particularly heart attacks could be treated by cloning healthy heart cells and injecting them into the areas of the heart that have been damaged. This of course is cloning with only a part of a human being rather than a whole person and so therefore is unlikely to meet with the same level of moral objection as discussed earlier.