The possibility of human cloning is controversially accepted by public opinion. There are reasonable opinions for and against it. It is noteworthy that this issue once again made academics and clergy advocate their position, expressing opposite views on this problem. The majority of scholars are rather reserved to the possibility of human cloning. Religious leaders in the vast majority are strongly opposed to the experiments of this kind, although representatives of some extravagant cults support the idea of human cloning.
The problem with human cloning is first of all an ethical problem. A person invades the sphere of existence, for which one is not liable by virtue of nature. This leads to unpredictable consequences of such steps. Not coincidentally, the representatives of the major religious movements in the contemporary world (Christians, Jews, and Muslims) show rare unanimity in a sharply negative attitude to human cloning. No matter how a person is born divinely or naturally, he or she is by no means should be the product of production in the literal sense of the expression.
Depending on the purpose of clone production, there are two kinds of cloning – the one directed at the reproduction of a human being, as a method of breeding (reproductive cloning), and cloning for medical purposes (therapeutic cloning), for example, in order to regenerate organs of the same person or the production of medicines. The second kind of cloning is not directed to the full re-establishment of the person and methodologically is done without the use of a donor uterus.
The prime direction in therapeutic cloning is the research in the area of cultivation of the so-called therapeutic cloning stem cells, which are a kind of construction material of the body (they appear on the 4th or 5th day of its development).
According to many experts, research in the field of stem cells is the most extraordinary case where the cloning of human beings may be permitted, because it can help save the lives of hundreds and thousands of those who were born in a natural way. Scientists’ opinions on whether to allow human cloning are divided. Ian Wilmut believes that the cloning of human beings is absolutely unacceptable, his French counterpart, Jean-Francois Mattei is convinced of the need, for the UN to develop special international binding norms on bioethics, taking into account the latest advances in science, even making the amendment to the Declaration of Human Rights. Simon Fishel, a scientific director of clinical research at Nottingham, on the contrary, believes that the cloning can lead to huge benefits in many ways.
The possibility of human cloning is controversially accepted by public opinion. There are reasonable opinions for and against it. It is noteworthy that this issue once again made academics and clergy advocate their position, expressing opposite views on this problem. The majority of scholars are rather reserved to the possibility of human cloning.