That's the impression I get. With technologies like IVF even couples of which at least one of them is infertile can have kids, provided that both produce the required cells (sperm and eggs).
If the woman doesn't have a womb, the womb of another woman is used for the embryos.
Now even couples who can't get a child through IVF will get a chance to get a child using cloning.
IMHO this is one application of cloning which should be prohibited since it's totally uncalled for and when looking at the gigantic costs of one clone, it's not worth it. Even if the price per clone would decrease with 50%, it would still be too expensive.
Aside from the costs of such a clone, let's take a look at whether it is actually necessary.
First question: is it necessary for the survival of the species that those clones are born?
The answer is negative. Whether or not those clones are born will have no positive impact on the survival of the Human species. I said 'positive impact', because it could happen that the DNA of such a clone proves to be unstable, which could easily lead to a disaster if those clones reproduce. Their offspring would carry the same unstable DNA which might mutate at such a high rate that either those individuals die or introduce many new genetic diseases.
Second question: is it necessary for anyone else that those clones are born?
The answer is negative. Homo couples (lesbians, homos) might complain that it's for them the only way to get a child which really is their own, but I don't see why it's necessary for those homo couples to get any children. They can easily adopt one. Insisting to get a child which carries their own DNA is selfish and should never be permitted.
A couple which is totally infertile and thus can only get a child through cloning are simply out of luck. Cloning just to satisfy the selfish needs of a few individuals is unrealistic and unnecessary. Adoption would be a far better choice for them.
This leads us to the question: how much more do we want to let the world population grow? Currently we're approaching the 6.5 billion people.
Now one could say that a few clones extra wouldn't matter, but I would like to point at the answer at the first question for why we shouldn't allow this.
Also, by not allowing cloning for reproduction we've clearly set the border of which applications for cloning are allowed. With this measure, we avoid 'fabrics' to produce Humans as well. Once those 'few clones' have become a few clones per day (currently about 3 babies per second are born. 400,000 per day), those clones will have a serious impact on the world-population.
Maybe later when our technology has improved and the understanding of embryology has increased we might be able to use cloning for reproduction, but this will take a long time.
I would like to conclude this post with a final remark.
In our modern society, there appears to be a right to reproduce. This is probably due to the fact that we permit virtually everyone to use all available technologies (e.g. IVF). In my opinion it would be preferrable to have a control on reproduction instead, which would involve a maximum number of children to be born in a certain period and the obligation of couples to ask permission to produce offspring.
If you've read through the whole post, I'd like to thank you for reading it and (hopefully) considering my words.
Thanks for your attention.
If the woman doesn't have a womb, the womb of another woman is used for the embryos.
Now even couples who can't get a child through IVF will get a chance to get a child using cloning.
IMHO this is one application of cloning which should be prohibited since it's totally uncalled for and when looking at the gigantic costs of one clone, it's not worth it. Even if the price per clone would decrease with 50%, it would still be too expensive.
Aside from the costs of such a clone, let's take a look at whether it is actually necessary.
First question: is it necessary for the survival of the species that those clones are born?
The answer is negative. Whether or not those clones are born will have no positive impact on the survival of the Human species. I said 'positive impact', because it could happen that the DNA of such a clone proves to be unstable, which could easily lead to a disaster if those clones reproduce. Their offspring would carry the same unstable DNA which might mutate at such a high rate that either those individuals die or introduce many new genetic diseases.
Second question: is it necessary for anyone else that those clones are born?
The answer is negative. Homo couples (lesbians, homos) might complain that it's for them the only way to get a child which really is their own, but I don't see why it's necessary for those homo couples to get any children. They can easily adopt one. Insisting to get a child which carries their own DNA is selfish and should never be permitted.
A couple which is totally infertile and thus can only get a child through cloning are simply out of luck. Cloning just to satisfy the selfish needs of a few individuals is unrealistic and unnecessary. Adoption would be a far better choice for them.
This leads us to the question: how much more do we want to let the world population grow? Currently we're approaching the 6.5 billion people.
Now one could say that a few clones extra wouldn't matter, but I would like to point at the answer at the first question for why we shouldn't allow this.
Also, by not allowing cloning for reproduction we've clearly set the border of which applications for cloning are allowed. With this measure, we avoid 'fabrics' to produce Humans as well. Once those 'few clones' have become a few clones per day (currently about 3 babies per second are born. 400,000 per day), those clones will have a serious impact on the world-population.
Maybe later when our technology has improved and the understanding of embryology has increased we might be able to use cloning for reproduction, but this will take a long time.
I would like to conclude this post with a final remark.
In our modern society, there appears to be a right to reproduce. This is probably due to the fact that we permit virtually everyone to use all available technologies (e.g. IVF). In my opinion it would be preferrable to have a control on reproduction instead, which would involve a maximum number of children to be born in a certain period and the obligation of couples to ask permission to produce offspring.
If you've read through the whole post, I'd like to thank you for reading it and (hopefully) considering my words.
Thanks for your attention.
Facebook
Twitter