Why (some) human cloning should be allowed:
You might not like the future, but it won’t prevent it from happening

I am sure all of you have read science fiction books or movies featuring cloning and time travel. As far as cloning is concerned, A Brave New World, Blade Runner and The Island come to mind.

Although time travel still belongs to the fiction shelf, cloning has moved decidedly to the science section, and the real question is no longer if or even when human cloning might happen, but rather how it will take place and with what consequences.

Human cloning is an issue loaded with such strong emotional, religious and ethical charges that its detractors and advocates alike are adamant that their views need to prevail.

The question however is a complex and multi-facetted one, and who is to say that he won’t be swayed one way or another by the strong arguments on either side:

Obviously, some will argue, there is no question that such a scientific breakthrough, with the potential to cure cancers and other deadly diseases, to provide us with an unlimited source of replacement organs and eradicate famine should be allowed?

Just as evidently according to others, a process involving the destruction of thousands if not millions of human beings, with an extremely low success rate to date and the potential to open the Pandora’s Box as we try to equal – or indeed surpass – God by playing sorcerer’s apprentices, should definitely be banned.

I would argue to you that some type of human cloning should be allowed, and indeed encouraged in a controlled way, as an absolute ban is both unworkable and misguided:

Do we realistically believe that new techniques with such promises will stay unused?

Do we believe that potentially highly profitable new businesses will stay untapped?

Do we think it is still possible to put the Genie back in the bottle?

This is not a reason though to let scientific progress move forward unchecked, and as human