Reproductive Cloning Should Not Be Banned

Reproductive cloning is the production of a genetic duplicate of an existing organism. A human clone is therefore a genetic copy of an existing person. Reproductive cloning of humans was believed to be impossible until the birth of Dolly the sheep. Dolly was the first mammal to be cloned from an adult cell. Following this major scientific and technological breakthrough, it raised the possibility that humans can be cloned using the same procedure‒ somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT).

At present, however, human reproductive cloning remains a highly controversial issue. This is particularly due to the associated ethical considerations which include potential genetic damage to the clone, health risks to the mother, psychological harm to the clone and complex altered familial relationships. In this essay, we attempt to argue on why human reproductive cloning should not be banned.

Human reproductive cloning, if successful, will allow infertile couples to have a genetically related child. Identical sex couples can also have a child without the use of donor sperm or donor eggs, although the men would require a surrogate to carry the clone until birth. All of these are restricted by current medical advancements. However, before we can create a

Although human reproductive cloning should not be banned, they should only be adopted when there are no available alternatives. Parents should state their motivations for cloning which would be reviewed by a panel. If parents have the capability to naturally conceive another child, they should not be granted an opportunity to cloning. An instance where cloning may be obliged involves a couple who have struggled to conceive a child naturally. At one month old, however, the child was lost in an accident. The child was not given the opportunity to fully develop his or her personality. In this case, it would thus seem plausible to permit cloning to this couple who wants to have a child of their