Cloning has been a largely debated topic for a number of years now. It has been been identified under two branches which is therapeutic cloning and reproductive cloning. Both have faced many criticisms and have also shown that they both provide benefits. Nonetheless, one of the main aspects against cloning research is that it poses a threat to a human’s right to life.
The argument that therapeutic cloning is not pro-life sound a little ironic because it is being developed as a means to save life yet it would mean sacrificing a life, at least this is what staunch pro-life advocates believe—that life begins at the moment of conception that that the termination of the unborn life “morally unacceptable” (White). On the other end, a patient at a nearby hospital desperately needs a kidney transplant but there are no available donors, with stem cell technology, an organ could be readily available and no complications would arise because the patient and the new organ would have the same genetic components.
The patient waits for a donor but unfortunately, he dies even before a donor was found. The argument that life begins at conception may not really prove to be a strong ground when you think of such situations that results in death which could have been avoided if stem cell technology is already available. In this kind of situation, the question arises. Is the life of an unborn human who is basically still a single-celled organism more important than a completely developed human being?
This may be a subject of intense debate between pro-life activists and researchers. Recent developments however showed a new discovery. It has been discovered that “fusing ‘blank’ embryonic stem cells with adult skin cells rather than with fertilized embryos, to create all-purpose stem cells viable to treat diseases and disabilities” is possible. This method does not cause the death of an embryo so pro-life advocates cannot argue against this. This development however, could take more years to perfect (White).
The government should help support this research which could help mankind a lot. If the US government really does value human life, supporting this study would really put an emphasis on that point. On one aspect, the use of human embryos in stem cell research is not really a morally disturbing scenario compared to the umber of deaths which could have been avoided. Unlike fully developed human beings, an embryo yet does not have a brain, a heart or nerves to even feel pain or any other sensation.
Embryos do not have dependents. They do not have children to support or any other legal obligations. Whereas, a father suffering from a very serious and life threatening liver disease may have three children and a wife who will suffer if the father dies. Through stem cell technology, the life of this human being may be saved and the suffering of others could be avoided. Also, cloning animals have not faced such restrictions and the same should apply to humans.
Therapeutic cloning then may be considered more pro-life than anti-life because this technology could countless number of lives in the future without really sacrificing much. It would just be up to the decision-makers to weigh if the life of an undeveloped human being is more important the life of a fully developed human whom many depend on for their survival. Nonetheless, the wisdom that no life should be sacrificed for the sake of another may still apply for some although stem cell technology would indeed provide more benefits.