The cloning debate has been going on for a while now. Whether cloning is good or bad is yet to be generally agreed upon because people have different opinions. According to Baird, human cloning should be prohibited for the simple reason that the onus of justification will be placed on the shoulders of those performing the cloning rather than those who want the cloning done. Baird’s implications are, however, misplaced because we need a good reason to limit the actions of others, especially when those actions are not bringing any harm to anyone, for example, an activity should not be forbidden just because a portion of the society finds it distasteful even if it does not bring any harm to them.
Many critics have argued that human cloning is harmful to the clones even though there has not been any formally documented evidence of the harm of cloning. Human cloning, especially for reproductive purposes, has been increasingly practiced and also criticized. It should be well tested and attempts made on animals before trying it on human beings to determine whether it has any effects that are negative.
Baird is still against human reproductive cloning because she believes that it might change the way society views children. She argues further that if children are cloned, then they will be viewed as a commodity because of the expensive nature of cloning. Other researchers have, however, revoked these claims by stating that it is also costly to raise normal children from childhood to adulthood, and therefore the costs of cloning should not worry us or make us love the cloned children any less.
Baird still argues against cloning that it does not support human identity and where they come from, for example, the sense of arising from a maternal or paternal line. We can however, discard these arguments by stating that most normal people born normally do not identify with where they come from either their maternal or paternal lines for example someone who is raised by a single mother identifies only with the maternal heritage.
This means that dual heritage is normal and desired but it does not affect our conception as human beings. Baird continues to argue that we should also look at the social effects of cloning rather than the individual effects only. He also argues further that cloning is relatively a new technology and should be carefully reviewed before it is allowed. This is reasonable but it does not mean that cloning should be totally banned as Baird and other critics suggest. They should instead champion for discussion and regulation on cloning for example limiting the number of clones that might be created from one individual.
Bayis in her article on cloning argues that cloning should be thought of as an enhancement on technology and not a reproductive technology and that this way it might be easily accepted. As mush as cloning should be accepted, it does not mean that it is totally good or that it has no negative effects. This is because cloning is not right in all circumstances. Some people carry out human cloning for malicious reasons.
This means that cloning is only appropriate in a few cases and therefore caution should be taken towards cloning. The public should also not direct all its resources towards cloning because sometimes cloning is bad. A ban on research activities that lead towards human cloning is not necessary even though there should be caution and discretion towards cloning.