to become available, society would for some unknown reason decide that its rejection of slavery had really been a mistake? Or that a dictator who was unable to conscript a sufficient army from the existing citizenry could induce people to undertake a massive cloning program, in order that, eighteen years or so down the line, he would finally have the army he needed?
3.3 Arguments in favor of cloning to produce persons
If the arguments to show that cloning human persons is intrinsically wrong are, as I have argued, implausible, and if the crucial objection appealing to undesirable consequences can be satisfactorily answered, either now, or in the future, either by an increase in our scientific knowledge or by advances in cloning techniques, are there now, or would there then be, good reasons to move ahead with the cloning of humans where the aim is to bring persons into existence? I shall argue that there are.
The considerations that, other things being equal, support the implementation of cloning aimed at producing persons fall into four main categories: first, there are considerations related to the well‐being of the person who is produced via the cloning; secondly, there are cases where those benefited are already existing persons; thirdly, there is a consideration that involves the possibility of benefits to both cloned persons and their parents; finally, there are benefits to society at large, including contributions to important scientific knowledge, and resulting benefits for anyone rearing a child, cloned or otherwise.
3.3.1 Cloning to avoid the transmission of hereditary diseases
Inherited diseases fall into various categories, depending on whether they involve a single gene, multiple genes, a chromosomal disorder, or mitochondrial inheritance. If one focuses just on the single gene case, one has, for example, cystic fibrosis, sickle cell anemia, hemochromatosis, and Huntington’s disease. If cloning were implemented, then – as John Roberson (1994) and Dan Brock (1998, 146) pointed out – provided that only one of the potential parents had the defective gene, a clone could be made using a cell from the one who does not suffer from the genetic defect, and the result would be a child who was free of the inheritable disease, and also genetically related to one member of the couple – something that many might find preferable to using a donor egg or donor sperm, where the resulting child would involve a genetic contribution from a third party.
3.3.2 Happier and healthier individuals
Secondly, cloning would have the advantage over sexual reproduction that it should make it possible to increase the likelihood that the person created will enjoy a healthier and happier life. For to the extent that one's genetic constitution has a bearing upon how long one is likely to live, upon what diseases, both physical and mental, one is likely to suffer from, and upon whether one will have traits of character or temperament that make for happiness, or, instead, for unhappiness, by cloning a person who has enjoyed a long life, who has remained mentally alert, rather than falling prey to Alzheimer's disease or dementia, who has not suffered from cancer, arthritis, heart attacks, stroke, high blood pressure, etc., and who has exhibited no tendencies to depression or schizophrenia, etc., one is increasing the chances that the individual created will also enjoy a healthy and happy life.
3.3.3 Enabling individuals to have a genetically related child who otherwise could not do so
A third reason for implementing cloning is that it would benefit people who already exist.
3.3.3.1 Infertility
One way, as Dan Brock and others (Eisenberg, 1976; LaBar, 1984; Robertson, 1994) have pointed out, is that “Human cloning would allow women who have no ova or men who have no sperm to produce an offspring that is biologically related to them” (Brock, 1998, 146).” Another advantage, also noted by Brock, is that “Embryos might be cloned, either by nuclear transfer or embryo splitting, in order to increase the number of embryos for implantation and improve the chances of successful conception.” (1998, 146).
3.3.3.2 Children for homosexual couples
Many people still believe not only that homosexuality is deeply wrong, but also that homosexual sexual relations should be illegal, and, indeed, severely punished – as had been the case in the United States for many years: “All states had laws against sodomy by 1960” (Mattachine Society, 1964, 1), often with very long maximum terms of imprisonment – and even life imprisonment in the case of one state (GLAPN, 2007, 1).These attitudes were deeply rooted in religious views, especially Christian and Islamic teachings, and the current decline in religious beliefs has been accompanied by a decline in such beliefs about homosexuality (Pew Research Center, 2013).
In the United States, a major turning point was the Supreme Court decision, in 2003 in Lawrence v. Texas, that laws against sodomy were unconstitutional, and since then there has been a dramatic change in the attitudes of many Americans on several issues involving homosexuals. Thus, in 2019, a Gallup poll found that 73% of Americans believe that homosexual relations should be legal, while since 2016, over 60% have believed that same‐sex marriages should be recognized by law as valid. In addition, by 2019, 75% of Americans believed that homosexual couples should be allowed to adopt children (PPRI, 2019).
Since such views are very widely accepted by philosophers working in ethics, and since the contrary views are generally rooted in religious beliefs, such as those of evangelical Protestants in the United States – beliefs that there are strong arguments against – there are good grounds for concluding that homosexuals should be allowed to adopt children. If so, then another important advantage of implementing the cloning of persons is that, as Philip Kitcher (1997, 61) and others have noted, cloning would seem to be a desirable method of providing a homosexual couple with children that they could raise, since, in the case of a gay couple, each child could be a clone of one person, while in the case of a lesbian couple, every child could, in a sense, be biologically connected with both people:
A lesbian couple wishes to have a child. Because they would like the child to be biologically connected to each of them, they request that a cell nucleus from one of them be inserted into an egg from the other, and that the embryo be implanted in the uterus of the woman who donated the egg (1997, 61).1
3.3.4 Cloning to save existing persons
Another reason for implementing cloning is suggested by the well‐known case of the Ayala parents in California (Grogan, 1990), who decided to have another child in the hope – which turned out to be successful ‐‐ that the resulting child would be able to donate bone marrow for a transplant operation that would save the life of their teenage daughter who was suffering from leukemia. If cloning had been possible at the time, a course of action would have been available to them that, unlike having another child in the normal way, would not have been chancy: if they could have cloned the child who was ill, a tissue match would have been certain.
3.3.5 More satisfying childrearing: Individuals with desired traits
Many couples would like to raise children who possess certain traits. In some cases they might prefer to have children who have physical abilities enabling them to perform at a high level in certain sporting activities. Or they might prefer to have children having intellectual capabilities enabling them to enjoy mathematics, or science. Or perhaps they would prefer to have children with traits that would enable them to engage in, and enjoy, various aesthetic pursuits.
