Cloned Dogs, A Legal Business?
Is cloning ethically correct and justifiable? Is Cloned Dog Trafficking a Legal Business? To answer these questions, one needs to examine the context in which cloned dogs arise.
According to some scientists and companies, every pet owner has the right to get their lost beloved pet back. So they want to make this return easier for them. For critics, it is precisely this sentimental manipulation of those who can pay for such a genetic copy that speaks against it.
What is cloning
Cloning begins with the removal of cells from a living dog or five days after its death at the latest. This involves taking the nucleus of this cell, which contains the DNA, and injecting it into the egg cell of a female of the same species.
When an embryo has developed, it is implanted in the surrogate mother’s uterus. After the 60-day gestation, the puppies are born.
The first known dog cloning occurred in 2005 in Seoul, South Korea. It was an Afghan hound named Snuppy.
It was made using the same technique that was used on Dolly the sheep nine years earlier. It was the first mammal to be created by cloning from a cell of an adult animal.
Snuppy died in 2015 when he had just turned 10. This cloned dog was the work of Hwang Woo-suk, a Korean researcher accused of falsifying procedures and reports.
He was convicted of violating South Korean bioethics laws and abuse, but received no prison sentence. Nevertheless, because of the clone he created, he became known and his work received recognition.
Cloned dogs, a legal business?
Some scientists argue that cloning offers the ability to use somatic cell nuclear transfer into an egg cell to create an embryo. In this way, those animal species that are threatened with extinction could be cloned and protected.
Endangered species
The ability to conserve endangered species makes cloning more important. However, many people claim that this should be controlled work with purely scientific purposes.
Cloning shouldn’t be done to manipulate the emotions of wealthy people, who should instead adopt or protect other endangered animals.
The scientific rationale goes even further. If an animal is critically endangered, would it not be appropriate to investigate the reasons for its disappearance before cloning it? If there is an opportunity to change these conditions, cloning makes sense.
Is cloning immoral?
Some people think cloning is immoral, for others it is real frivolity. Opponents of cloning claim that it is a sentimental manipulation of financially strong people. They have the option to pay for some type of twin brother or doppelganger of an animal that was emotionally meaningful to them.
The arguments go beyond that. If you accept that some people love their dogs as much as others love their children, is it possible to clone children who have died?
Cloned dogs: exactly the same?
Since cloning does not produce an absolutely identical copy, further questions arise about these genetic copies. If you can’t get a faithful and exact replica of a dead pet that was very important to its owner, what’s the point?
Why not use these many resources to save endangered species instead?
Assuming that animals are sentient beings with their own genetic, psychological, and physiological complexity, there are other arguments against cloning.
Cloning is seen as a business that turns animals into commodities. It is alleged that the emotional significance that animals undoubtedly have for their owners is being placed above the unique worth of individuals.
The suffering of the surrogate or surrogate mothers is another argument. You have to survive up to three operations. First the egg is removed, then the embryo is inserted and then the puppy is born. During this process they suffer and some even die.
What do you clone and why?
Some scholars see the heart of the ethical debate as to what exactly is cloned. If it’s a cell for one-off in vitro experiments, they don’t mind. If it is a living being, however, the situation changes.
The discussion revolves around the creation of life without the ability to control the resulting consequences.
The discussion about whether cloned dogs is a legal business doesn’t stop there. Meanwhile, Miss Violet and Miss Scarlet entertain their owner, actress Barbara Streisand.
She admits that although they are very similar, they have different characters than Samantha, her beloved companion who died a year ago.
