Is Cloning Pets Ethically Justified?





Is Cloning Pets Ethically Justified?

The notion of cloning animals has presented considerable ethical concerns. However, the issue in this case involves the duplication of pets. Pets are usually domesticated under the comfort of their respective owners. In this case, they are viewed as part of the property, which the pet owner possesses. In this case, the ethical concerns that are raised are particularly tailored within this respective context. On one hand, Autumn Fiester argues that the endeavors assumed in cloning animals, especially Fido may actually deem pet cloning as a defensible practice (Fiester 132). Even though the respective author is aware of the frivolity that comes with the pet cloning, it is perhaps an acceptable practice. Fiester argues that the cloning of animals may create new grounds for discovering beneficial aspects (Fiester 131). Such dimensions may involve the possible gains that may result from the process and eventually outweigh the demerits expressed by anti-cloning factions. In addition, the respective practice, similar to other costly procedures involved in advanced veterinary service such as neurosurgery, orthopedics, transplants, and psychopharmaceuticals, may augment the pet animals’ moral status due to the benefits it adds to them in terms of considerable degrees of concern and cost (Fiester 137).

On the other hand, Hilary Box asserts that the process of cloning is unsafe for human beings and in this situation, companion animals. In contrast with Fiester’s focus on the pertinence of the moral status, Bok is assured that the cloning practice is simply unhealthy and disadvantageous to the health of companion animals. For her, the cloning process solely develops complications that cause suffering for the animals in question (Bok 142). Hence, such procedures are not particularly safe for companion animals aside from the norms established. Nonetheless, the argument conjured by Bok seems to be considerable based on the issues it raises. With support from Fiester’s observations concerning the risky mortality of cloned pets, Bok is clearly rational for asserting the health-impinging nature of the cloning process (Bok 143). For the author, participation in the cloning process may cause health complications for the test animals as shown by the implications imposed on 85 percent of cattle clones such as miscarriages, future health issues, and premature deaths (Bok 145).

The argument raised by Fiester may prove to be less substantial. This is in attribution to the use of recent data, which supports the safety of pet cloning procedures. Accordingly, efficiency of this procedure has normally been at approximately 1 to 2 percent (Fiester 133). This implies that for every 100 embryos that have been implanted within surrogates, 98 or 99 tend to be ineffective and thus, not yield live offspring (Fiester 133). Additionally, arguing from a moral standpoint raises further concerns regarding the cloning procedure. Despite this, the inclination towards moral status indicates the extent to which human beings utilize social status as a key dimension in determining the ethical or unethical nature of a particular process. It is within this same light that Fiester asserts the relevance of animal cloning due to the considerable degree of investment poured into the respective process (Fiester 136). In his defense, Fiester will argue that the cloning of pets results in potential benefits that could be groundbreaking in facilitating the longevity and wellness of these animals.

In conclusion, the rejoinder to Bok will be specifically based on the lack of rational research concerning the health complications that pets will face when going through the animal cloning process. Since the introduction of the procedure, domesticated species such as cats and dogs have never been used within the cloning process. In this respect, discouraging the practice without supporting evidence based on domesticated animals illustrates more of a theoretical and unsupported anti-cloning stance. For Fiester, the rationale focused on the dimension of moral status should not solely be counted upon as the reason for asserting the ethical nature of pet cloning.



















Works Cited

Bok, Hilary. “Cloning Companion Animals is Wrong.” Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Moral Issues. Ed. Stephen Satris. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2010. 142-146. Print.

Fiester, Autumn. “Creating Fido’s Twin: Can Pet Cloning be Ethically Justified?” Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Moral Issues. Ed. Stephen Satris. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2010. 130-137. Print.

Calculate your order
275 words
Total price: $0.00

Top-quality papers guaranteed


100% original papers

We sell only unique pieces of writing completed according to your demands.


Confidential service

We use security encryption to keep your personal data protected.


Money-back guarantee

We can give your money back if something goes wrong with your order.

Enjoy the free features we offer to everyone

  1. Title page

    Get a free title page formatted according to the specifics of your particular style.

  2. Custom formatting

    Request us to use APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, or any other style for your essay.

  3. Bibliography page

    Don’t pay extra for a list of references that perfectly fits your academic needs.

  4. 24/7 support assistance

    Ask us a question anytime you need to—we don’t charge extra for supporting you!

Calculate how much your essay costs

Type of paper
Academic level
550 words

How to place an order

  • Choose the number of pages, your academic level, and deadline
  • Push the orange button
  • Give instructions for your paper
  • Pay with PayPal or a credit card
  • Track the progress of your order
  • Approve and enjoy your custom paper

Ask experts to write you a cheap essay of excellent quality

Place an order