The human genome is so much more complex than any animals currently being cloned with limited success, so it is improbable to think that a human will be cloned before without numerous failures take place. To put the situation in context, consider the ethical stigma that abortion carries. Compared to the possibility of hundreds of failed human cloning attempts abortion seems mild. While abortion is considered to be somewhat justifiable under certain situations such as teenage pregnancies; the death of hundreds of fetuses, newborns and children for the sake of science is morally wrong. .
Along with the unproved technological safety the beliefs of human dignity and individuality would be contested by human cloning. For instance the cloned being may hold the notion that he is a copy and not an "original" severely contesting his sense of worth and uniqueness. Furthermore if a child were to be cloned from a parent, as they grew up the clone would have a constant reminder of what their future holds at least on a physical basis. However, Robert Wachbroit conversely discusses this thought in his article on the ethics of human cloning. He states that a cloned child's "knowledge of his .
Cheney 3.
future would differ only in degree from what many children already know once they begin to learn parts of their family's medical history" (4). Linda K. Bevington counters Wachbroit's stance on the influence a clone suffers by being in contact with the person from whom they were copied. She believes that human cloning would "force on the clone a select identity bound to certain, perhaps unfulfilled expectations" (1). Similarly, many opponents of the issue believe that cloned persons would be morally mistreated. They might be constantly compared to the person they were copied from and be held to unrealistic expectations. Such may be the case in a family trying to replace a loved-one that tragically died.