Caitlin Hall

It finally happened. I always knew that someday the techniques of cloning would be applied in a noble, ethical and sound way. Never again will we be haunted by the mourning cries of a child who has lost his precious pet. Never again will we have to fear losing our feline companion sooner than we are ready. For wherever old age, illness or the occasional automobile rears its ugly head, there will always be a copycat waiting in line to assume the place of its much-loved genetic donor.

However, this is not just about pets. The announcement that such a complex animal has been successfully cloned will doubtless renew the debate over the promises and pitfalls of human cloning. When such a debate has arisen before, the consensus reached over whether human cloning should be allowed has been an unswerving no. However, since I'm such a radical nut, I would like to offer an argument as to why the issue deserves second consideration.

First of all, it is important to realize that the supporters of cloning who the media like to latch on to - for sensationalistic thrills and ratings - are hardly the best spokespeople for the procedure. This group includes bereaved parents wanting to make carbon copies of their deceased children and a group of at-best misguided scientists, called the Ra‘lians, led by a man who claims to have been abducted by aliens.

Rest assured, there is a fundamental difference here between human cloning and feline cloning. It may be comforting to know that we might never lose the company of our cherished pet. However, put yourself in the place of a couple who has just lost a child. I fail to see how it would be reassuring to have a carbon copy of him or her around to serve as a constant reminder of that pain.

Furthermore, most people would have reservations about subjecting their child to the emotional complexities of literally living someone else's life, of being a replacement for their preferred child. Before you nonetheless dismiss it as something that would become commonplace, answer this: Would you do such a thing? Do you know anyone who would?

In addition, the surprisingly common fear that someone would mass-produce an army of clones is completely unfounded. Ignoring the political, social and ethical difficulties involved, cloning is plagued with problems that would make that scenario unfeasible - namely safety and cost. In time, it is hoped that the safety issues could be resolved, and no one in their right mind is arguing for cloning until they are - but it seems the procedure's success would always remain a matter of probability, much like in vitro fertilization.

In addition, what mother, I wonder, is going to carry those babies to term? It's no secret that cloning is not a very popular idea, and those who oppose it should take comfort in the fact that it certainly appears there would be a shortage of willing participants if it were made available.

Furthermore, it is important to remember that a person is not really determined by their genes in any way other than their physical appearance. True, genes predispose people to certain behaviors and tendencies, but that doesn't mean that they are the end-all, be-all of what a person is. We must believe that if we place any stock in the existence of personal identity or free will.

Cloning could, however, be a viable solution for those people who are unable to have children by conventional methods. Infertile couples are the most obvious example, but gay and lesbian couples and single women who don't want to deal with the various difficulties associated with sperm donation would also be likely beneficiaries.

In closing, I have a few words for the people who dismiss cloning on the grounds that "it just isn't right." If your religion or personal morality dictates that you be opposed to cloning, don't clone. To each his own. The separation of church and state should, however, ensure that faith-based wariness does not impose itself on our laws. It is important to remember that, though it may seem like it, our laws are not based on popular morality; they are based on demonstrable harm to another person.

Who, I should ask, does cloning harm? The child who would not otherwise be created? Or the parents who would not otherwise be able to have children?