The Injustice Of Cloning In Mary Shelley's Frankenstein

The Injustice of Cloning

“Cloning represents a very clear, powerful, and immediate example in which we are in danger of turning procreation into manufacture.” (Kass) The concept of cloning continues to evoke debate, raising extensive ethical and moral controversy. As humans delve into the fields of science and technology, cloning, although once considered infeasible, could now become a reality. Although many see this advancement as the perfect solution to our modern dilemmas, from offering a potential cure for cancer, AIDS, and other irremediable diseases, its effects are easily forgotten. Cloning, especially when concerning humans, is not the direction we must pursue in enhancing our lives. It is impossible for us to predict its effects, it exhausts monetary funds, and it harshly abases humanity.

In arguing against cloning, the central debate is derived from the fact that this unnatural process is simply unethical. The alleged

benefits resulting from cloning are not worth this belittlement of human life. One distinguished group, the Universal Declaration on Human Genome and Human Rights, released a report arguing “cloning contradicts human nature and dignity, cloning is asexual reproductive mode, which could distort generation lines and family relationships, and limit genetic differentiation which ensures that human life is largely unique.” (Socyberty) As stated by the organization, human cloning would have a profound effect on parenting and family life. It will be devastating to the common family to witness how cloning will separate love from reproduction and human relationship. The value of life, which should be cherished, will be degraded to simply a manufactured object. If carried out, cloning will erode essential elements of human nature, such as raising a family, and accepting a child as unique.
By furthering our studies in the field of cloning, humans are breaking the environmental principle known as the precautionary principle.

In essence, the long-term effects of cloning are completely unknown. When studying cloning, we may see its desirable effects, but we neglect its many unknown effects. At the mention of cloning, many may contemplate Mary Shelley’s famous novel Frankenstein. Although fictional, the novel does show some truth. In the novel, Shelley warns of the dangers that come as a repercussion of knowledge, with Victor Frankenstein’s dialogue “seek happiness in tranquility and avoid ambition, even if it be only the apparently innocent one of distinguishing yourself in science and discoveries.” (Shelley) Today, we find ourselves debating similar ethical issues that Mary Shelley considered long ago. With so many incredible discoveries that lie in our future, we must also consider the responsibilities that come with these discoveries. If not, we may suffer the same fate as Victor Frankenstein had in the novel

(MegaEssays).
Additional opposing arguments derive from religious orders and organizations. All religious institutions share the belief that cloning ultimately mocks the role of God. The majority of humans participate in some variation of religion, all teaching of God’s powers to create, preserve, and destroy. In both techniques of therapeutic and reproductive cloning, a human life is being created, therefore emulating the power of God. The concept of cloning disputes the existence of God, infringing upon the religious and spiritual beliefs of those concerned (Rawat).
Another issue arises when the cost to carry out cloning is considered. In order to construct a cloned embryo, a human egg cell is required. Fertilization clinics will pay anywhere from $3,000 to $5,000 to a single egg donor. Assuming therapeutic cloning requires nearly 100 eggs from ten donors, the price could easily reach $50,000. Peter Mombaerts, a scientist at Rockefeller University, estimates that once other medical costs are considered, the means to treat a single patient through techniques of cloning would soar above $100,000 (Herper). Despite the fact that cloning comes at such a great expense, there is no guarantee of its success.
If actually successful, cloning could be a revolutionary advancement in the treatment of incurable diseases, such as cancer or AIDS, but when considering its many uncertainties, it is highly unrealistic. It is a widely held belief that cloning relies heavily on luck, and in cases where it is successful, the subject still suffers various complications. Cloned animals regularly suffer from increased rates of mortality, and deformity at birth. One of the most famous cases of a cloned animal was Dolly the sheep. Although her creation has been regarded as a landmark advancement in the field of science, was it really? Dolly was a Finn Dorsett ewe cloned in 1996. The average sheep lives for 12 years; whereas Dolly died in 2003, not even living for a full six years. Attempts at cloning Dolly had a very low success rate. She was created after 277 eggs were manipulated to form 29 embryos. Only 3 were alive at their moment of birth and only 1 survived past infancy. There have also been many attempts of cloning with cattle. Of the nearly 9,000 attempts, only 70 of the calves lived past birth, with one-third of these dying very young (Institute). Obviously, cloning is far from reliable and the thought of attempting it with humans is absolutely absurd. The deformations and mutations animals suffer from as a result of cloning are already in many cases disturbing, but imagine the horrifying effects it could have on humans.
If cloning were to become a conformity throughout the world, the value of human life would be dramatically degraded. Although many believe it would come with endless benefits, it would destroy our society. When debating the issue of cloning, we must not only look at the positive effects it may bring, but its detrimental negative consequences, and even its many unknown repercussions. With a future abounding with discovery, we must differentiate between discoveries that will truly enhance our existence, and those that may hinder it.