In this blog post, we will explore the ethical controversies and medical possibilities of human cloning technology and seek alternative approaches.

Introduction

When they hear the term “human cloning,” some people immediately feel repulsed. This is because it is difficult to accept, from a religious or ethical standpoint, that humans would artificially create other humans for any purpose. Gregory E. Pence’s book, Human Cloning: What’s the Problem?, which I read recently, emphasizes the injustice of human cloning and raises ethical issues. However, I believe that the advantages of human cloning outweigh the disadvantages, and I would like to present my arguments and refute the book. In other words, my argument is that human cloning is a technology that is clearly worth pursuing, despite some problems.

Main

First, before presenting the basis for my argument, I will examine the problems with human cloning pointed out by opponents of human cloning (hereinafter referred to as “opponents”) in many well-known books, including “What’s Wrong with Human Cloning?” First, opponents question the basic rights of cloned humans, or clones, that are “produced” through cloning. From a genetic engineering perspective, the cloning process is as follows.

1. The nucleus is extracted from the somatic cells of the organism to be cloned.
2. The nucleus is replaced with the nucleus of a fertilized egg taken from the uterus of an organism of the same species.
3. The clone created through this process is genetically identical to the original organism and all of its organs are perfectly compatible with the original organism.

In fact, the idea of human cloning originated as a solution to incurable diseases, and clones are used to treat the original organism. Ultimately, many people reject the paradigm of creating and sacrificing other lives for their own survival. However, even if it is a little cruel, we need to think about it again. This is because all of our activities to breathe and live are followed by the sacrifice of other lives. We do not seriously consider the basic rights of cows, pigs, and chickens that we raise for food. Furthermore, we do not question vegetarians who chew tomatoes, carrots, and lettuce for a meal. So why do we feel so uncomfortable about sacrificing humans? The answer lies in religious and ethical values that have been accumulated over a long period of time. The laws built on this paradigm guarantee individual freedom within the limits of not harming others. It is important to note here that “others” refers to any member of the species Homo sapiens sapiens, excluding myself, i.e., humans. In fact, it is difficult to explain why we should respect only our own species in a world where we sacrifice others for our own growth or survival. What I want to say here is that we are ultimately selfish beings who sacrifice others to prolong our own lives. When we accept this premise, in a situation where we are terminally ill and waiting to die, rather than accepting our own death due to ethical or religious reasons, we would choose to use cloning as a last resort to treat ourselves, that is, we would choose to survive by any means necessary.

The following is a summary of the above logic in an easier-to-understand format. For reference, I borrowed the idea of the selfish gene from Richard Dawkins.

1. If the purpose of existence is survival (reproduction), then that existence is selfish. And selfish beings may sometimes act selfishly in order to achieve their purpose of existence.
2. The purpose of human existence is survival (reproduction). This purpose has been imprinted in our genes over many generations. Therefore, humans are selfish beings.
3. Since humans are selfish beings, they may sometimes act selfishly to achieve their purpose of existence.
4. Human cloning is a selfish act that sacrifices other beings for the treatment of incurable diseases.
5. Humans are selfish, so they can use human cloning, which is a selfish act that sacrifices other beings for the purpose of survival.

In terms of human cloning for the treatment of incurable diseases, we should not condemn others by citing ethical and religious situations and grounds that go beyond the perspective of survival itself. Rather than considering ethics in extreme situations, when we consider examples of self-defense in which it is legally recognized that it is acceptable to harm another person in order to save one’s own life, most people would agree, with some degree of difference, that all possible medical treatments should be attempted, but when those treatments fail, treatment through human cloning should be recognized as justified. Issues such as education, time, and paradigm shifts are what make this logic naturally acceptable. The original, which existed before the being created to achieve a purpose, that is, the fundamental right to exist, must take precedence.
The second argument against human cloning is based on the religious concept of predestination. Many religious scholars argue that humans were created by God and must therefore live and die according to God’s will. However, there are too many conflicting aspects of this argument to simply dismiss it as a matter of religious freedom. First, I would like to point out that fatalism is a concept that can only be approached from a theological perspective, which lacks sufficient grounds. The vague existence of God, which cannot even be scientifically proven to the slightest degree, and the absoluteness of this God’s influence on our lives cannot be used as grounds for discussion due to the weakness of their basis. This perspective may serve as a guide for individual beliefs and choices, but it is insufficient as a basis for persuading and sanctioning others. I would like to borrow a few words from G.E. Fence’s “Who’s Afraid of Human Cloning?”

”…The reason this issue is important is that much of the criticism of human cloning is not based on rational arguments. Most of it consists of elements that are designed to provoke people’s revulsion or appeal “vaguely” to the value of human dignity and the ethical conflict between human cloning and that value. If we leave everything to such vague appeals, we will never seriously consider what ethical conflicts might actually arise, and we will be left with nothing but abstract emotional revulsion… (Omitted) …Now we will consider the arguments for human cloning from two main perspectives. One is defeatism and fatalism. According to fatalism, even if a fatal gene strikes our family and causes us to suffer and die, we should simply accept it and continue to live as we have done until now. The other is that if we take a more decisive stance toward the future of humanity, we may begin to answer new questions that we have never experienced before… (Omitted) …However, we do not yet accept fatalism. We are always striving to become a better humanity.”

Based on our experiences to date, rather than blindly accepting fatalism, we can see that when we challenge ourselves and achieve something, we take a step forward. Now, let’s talk about the benefits and value of human cloning. In this article, the purpose of human cloning is limited to medical treatment, so the value and benefits of this technology are also limited to medical treatment. According to Professor Moon-Yong Moon of Seoul National University College of Medicine, by culturing embryonic stem cells outside the body, we can observe the process of cell differentiation, such as the formation of blood cells, nerve cells, and cartilage cells. If we can unravel the mysteries of this cell differentiation process, stem cell research will enable us to investigate the aging process in humans and discover the mechanisms behind cancer, which is currently an incurable disease. In addition, human embryo cloning research will enable cell transplantation using stem cells as a treatment for blood cancer and other incurable diseases.

Conclusion

From this perspective, the benefits of human cloning research are clear, and its vision is clear. There has never been such effective research in achieving our purpose of existence. If we give up on this, we may be able to appease our vague feelings of aversion, but we will be restricted in achieving our purpose of existence. Therefore, we must allow human cloning at the point when we determine that it can cure diseases by unlocking the mysteries of life. I believe that the ethical and religious issues that arise can be resolved by conducting research in accordance with the fundamental purpose of medical treatment and by monitoring to prevent abuse or misuse.