To begin with, opponents will claim that people are against the cloning process by saying it is unethical and immoral due to how it controls the lives of animals and its level of involvement with animals reproductive systems. According to the website article “Ethics”, several religions, such as Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists, believe cloning is unethical due to how similar it is to “playing God” as well as the “greater level of involvement and interference with animals’ reproductive performance”. For this reason is cloning viewed as unethical to the opposition. They believe that the level of control over the animals is too powerful. In addition to the the previous statement, there are many non-religious people who are against
…show more content…
Autumn states “the efficiency of animal cloning has typically been about 1 to 2%, so for every 100 embryos that are implanted in surrogate animals, about 98 of the embryos fail to produce a live animal offspring”. The inefficiency of animal cloning can cause the surrogate mothers to have health risks. Also, when the process of cloning animals in inefficient, it causes higher costs. “The frequency of birth defects and long-term health complications in cloned animals remains exceedingly high,” says Appel. This backs up Autumn’s statements on the efficiency of cloning. With inefficiency, there comes health problems to the surrogate mothers and, especially, the clones. However, there have been multiple cases where clones have grown without any defects as well as live long, healthy lives. According to the article “Dolly the Sheep’s Cloned Sisters”, Dolly’s sisters, as well as other animals, can grow to be healthy and well. This defeats the claim that clones will suffer from health problems and defects. It also shows how cloning could considered ethical because of the lack of suffering. Actually, Langwith states how cloning “enhances animal well-being” and is not any more interference than other accepted “forms of assisted reproduction such as in vitro fertilization”. For this reason can cloning be ethical. It helps rather than hurts animals, unlike what the opposition claim. Evidently, cloning benefits the animals, rather than causing defects and
Autumn states “the efficiency of animal cloning has typically been about 1 to 2%, so for every 100 embryos that are implanted in surrogate animals, about 98 of the embryos fail to produce a live animal offspring”. The inefficiency of animal cloning can cause the surrogate mothers to have health risks. Also, when the process of cloning animals in inefficient, it causes higher costs. “The frequency of birth defects and long-term health complications in cloned animals remains exceedingly high,” says Appel. This backs up Autumn’s statements on the efficiency of cloning. With inefficiency, there comes health problems to the surrogate mothers and, especially, the clones. However, there have been multiple cases where clones have grown without any defects as well as live long, healthy lives. According to the article “Dolly the Sheep’s Cloned Sisters”, Dolly’s sisters, as well as other animals, can grow to be healthy and well. This defeats the claim that clones will suffer from health problems and defects. It also shows how cloning could considered ethical because of the lack of suffering. Actually, Langwith states how cloning “enhances animal well-being” and is not any more interference than other accepted “forms of assisted reproduction such as in vitro fertilization”. For this reason can cloning be ethical. It helps rather than hurts animals, unlike what the opposition claim. Evidently, cloning benefits the animals, rather than causing defects and