SOME THOUGHTS ABOUT CLONING

          The reproduction of an animal clone from DNA has already been demonstrated.  Dolly, the sheep in Scotland is, apparently, a duplicate of the animal from which she was cloned.  I have heard also that in Japan an experiment is under way to clone a cow.  Obviously, if it is possible to clone an animal, it should also be possible to duplicate a human being.  It appears, at present, that the only reason this has not yet been done, is the moral force of society.  Humanity, up to now, does not seem to believe it is a good idea.  Suppose, for the sake of argument, we somehow come to believe in our society that cloning is acceptable. what would be the answers to the following questions:

WHAT INDIVIDUALS SHOULD BE CLONED?

          Obviously, it would be prohibitively expensive to provide a duplicate for everyone.  The clones would at the very least require food and shelter, effectively doubling those requirements worldwide.  It does not seem possible that supplies of world food and shelter could be doubled rapidly enough to support this increase.  If only affluent people could afford to have a clone, this would cause a severe division in society, but that is probably the most practical method of deciding.  Throughout history, there has always been a division between the haves and have-nots.  Certainly defective persons, mongoloids, imbeciles, those born with less than complete bodies, dwarfs, and others with similar defects should not be cloned.  It also seems obvious that very intelligent individuals whose existence enhances society should definitely be preserved by this method.  Imagine having another Einstein, Oppenheimer, or Billy Graham to continue on after their deaths.  An argument could also be made that there would be little value in cloning very poor people—those with income below a certain level.  There is a much smaller chance that a very poor family might produce a genius compared to that of the middle or upper class.  There are also some countries in the world where it would be less worthwhile than others to perform cloning.  Those countries where people barely subsist, and are a drain on world food supplies would only become more of a glut by increasing the number of people in their populations.  Cloning of Aleut Indians, Eskimos, Laplanders, and similar societies would also seem to be unnecessary.

WHEN WOULD CLONING BE ACCOMPLISHED?

          Should it be an automatic occurrence when a woman becomes pregnant to draw fetal tissue for cloning, and to begin the procedure so the individual and the duplicate would have the same chronological age?  Then in case of a miscarriage or an abortion the clone also might be destroyed, or with nurturing, could take the place of the lost child.  In this circumstance, perhaps the clone itself should be cloned to replace the lost baby.  Maybe the cloning should wait until the baby is born and seen to be healthy at the normal six-week check up.  Unless somehow accelerated growth can occur, no one would want to wait until, at the age of 65 years they develop lung cancer, to have themselves cloned, and then wait 10 to 20 years for the cloned lungs to develop well enough for installation.  Maybe it would be  best to wait until each child is perhaps 16 years old to begin the cloning process.  If this course were followed, required body parts at some future date would always have a chronological age of 16 years less than the prime persons age. A sixteen-year-old could easily be assigned the responsibility of caring and feeding for their clone as they grow into adulthood.

WHO WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CARE AND FEEDING?

Surely, cloned people would be responsible for their own double—after all, who should be the most concerned and interested in the clone’s well being.  This responsibility of course, could not be forced upon the very young.  They would have to be provided for just as children are today.  The clone would have to be treated as a fraternal twin; although it would be best to mark the clone with a tattoo, by crimping its ear, or through some other permanent method to prevent mix-ups and to ensure the primary person receives priority.  It would be extremely critical in this circumstance, for the prime individual to understand that the clones only purpose is to provide spare parts when they are needed, or to perform labor and tasks which the prime person finds too onerous or dangerous to accomplish.  If this is not carefully done, it might be very difficult when time comes to use the clone for a purpose that ends its life, for the prime person to assent.  The trauma might be compared to that of ending the life of an aged dog.

On the other hand, if the clones are kept isolated from the prime individuals in some facility maintained for that purpose this would surely be cheaper for society.  In this facility they could all be fed the same simple food, and could be treated in a unisex manner.  If the environmental temperature were controlled, it might not even be necessary to provide clothing.  No education would be needed, and it would not matter even whether the beings learned to speak.  Toilet training could be accomplished with punishment and reward.  The attendants who operated this facility would have to be carefully trained and monitored.  Physical or sexual abuse, if it occurred, would have to be severely punished.  The attendant who sexually abused the clones would be banished from the facility, and the clone destroyed.  It might be possible in a unisex environment, for the clones to be raised without knowledge of sex.  Obviously, a pregnant female clone would have to be destroyed, and probably the male impregnator should be euthanised.

FOR WHAT PURPOSE WOULD THE CLONES BE USED?

          Probably the most important reason for cloning oneself is to have available spare body parts if they are ever needed—a heart which could be transplanted with no possibility of rejection because the body cells would recognize the tissue as part of itself.  The clone of a person who lives to old age and dies would be euthanised and buried with the person. 

Another purpose for the clones might be to perform some very dangerous task for the prime person, e.g., to perform military combat, or perhaps to perform work in a high radiation environment.  The clone might be used for any dangerous task that the primary person prefers not to be engaged in.  Mature clones probably could be allowed to perform independent functions, but it would always be necessary for any prime person to immediately through a recognition device, a bracelet or necklace maybe, be able to discern whether a person they are dealing with is or is not a clone. 

WHEN A CLONE DIES?

          Would there be a funeral at the death of a clone?  Should they be mourned?  Assuming there is an accident resulting in the clone’s death, or that it grows sick and dies, the prime person obviously would show some regret at the loss of their spare parts, but, if a careful separation were maintained, the death could be treated similarly to the death of a pet.

          On the other hand, when it is necessary to euthanize the clone in order to obtain some vital part, the death would be treated similarly to the manner in which a military commander treats the deaths of subordinates on a vital mission: Costly and regrettable, but they were expendable.

DOES A CLONE HAVE A SOUL?

          Certainly not!  The status of a clone in society would be only a little higher than that of a pet dog or cat.  Clones would not be created as were Adam and Eve.  They also would not be Man born of Woman.

          This is a ‘thinking piece’ only.  What I have written is intended only to cause those who read it to consider the subject of Cloning of Human Beings if somehow our society should change and begin to allow it to be done; and to attempt to demonstrate the foolishness of such a change.  The purpose is actually to argue against these actions.  I have done so, in some cases, with absurdities; and in others with erroneous logic.  I do not believe cloning of humans should ever occur.