You can clone a body, but you cannot clone the spirit.
Hold that thought when the subject of human cloning comes up. The ethics involved in the cloning debate have many people in a tailspin, but without reason. The dire worst-case scanarios presented by cloning opponents are mostly based on gut reaction and emotional response, not on common sense. At its most fundamental later is the question “What is a Clone?”
If a human were cloned, it would still be another human being. He or she would not be a brainless, soul-less package of DNA in the shape of a human. OK, so the sperm didn't meet the egg in the traditional manner. So what? So the DNA is identical to the host... again, so what?
There were plenty of people who freaked out about "test tube babies" many years ago, and now there isn't even a ripple of concern. Why? Because the fears of "playing god" were generally found to be groundless. The babies who were begun in a test tube were in every way just as "real and valid" as babies begun in the womb via traditional insemination. They weren't monsters or freaks of nature.
A cloned human would not be merely a collection of duplicated cells, but a complete and unique individual. Identical DNA does not make for identical humans. Identical twins are nature’s clones, but we have no trouble perceiving these people as individuals, even though they share DNA. A clone would still have consciousness, individuality, and spirit.
Dire science fiction scenarios are unlikely. Some people fear that the very wealthy will use cloning technology to artificially extend their lives, thereby gaining extraordinary power over those of us trapped in our aging bodies. This idea doesn’t play out for several reasons.
The thought that we might create clones to become replacement bodies for the elderly elite is absurd. The brain, as an organic body part, ages and decays along with the rest of the body. Transplanting an elderly brain into a newborn makes little scientific sense, and is physically impossible due to the size restrictions. You'd have to allow the cloned human to grow to adulthood before the replacement brain would fit. Are we suggesting that we should attempt to grow a clone in an artificially induced coma for a few decades? Because if the child/clone were awake, it would be aware... there would be the presence of soul. There’s no getting around that.
Some have speculated that, rather than transplanting the aging brain to a younger clone, we might perhaps simply transfer the content of the aging brain into a duplicate. Transferring the memories and experiences from the host to the clone is out of our current range of abilities, and although it would be an interesting line of scientific research, we haven’t even approached the science that would make that possible. It’s so speculative and far into the realm of science fiction that it’s not worth becoming concerned about.
Even if we were to allow this line of speculation to carry any weight, you still have to take into account that the cloned human would still be a fully complete person in their own right. This clone, if allowed consciousness, would develop with an intact personality. I can’t imagine the child (clone) willingly giving up their life merely to supply body parts to their parent (DNA donor). They might object to giving up their life to their parent, and I can't see anybody anywhere supporting this as a plan.
The only difference between a cloned human and a "naturally inseminated" human is that they borrowed their DNA from one parent instead of two. The presence of consciousness and the existence of an independent spirit precludes using human clones for selfish or nefarious ends.
~Flame RavenHawk
January 11, 2004