The book entitled Whose Afraid of Human Cloning argues that the Genetic Benefit Argument is what seems to be the strongest argument in favor of human cloning. The work advances that "the possibility of reducing risk of genetic disease for a child by selective choice of ancestor genes is the strongest direct argument in favor of originating a child by Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer. It directly counters a major objection that such origination may harm the child." (p. 104-5.
The argument goes as follows:
Premise 1: Many devastating and fatal disease are genetic or are caused by genes inherited from one's parents.
Premise 2: Human Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer would allow parents to have children without the risk that certain genetic disorders will be passed on to them.
Premise 3: This would result in an increase in overall well being for everyone concerned.
Conclusion: Therefore, human Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer is morally permissible.
For instance, imagine a couple that want to have a child. They discover that the female partner has the gene for Huntington's disease, a devastating degenerative brain disorder for which there is, at present, no effective treatment or cure. It slowly diminishes the affected individual's ability to walk, think, talk and reason. Eventually the person with Huntington's disease becomes totally dependent upon others for his or her care. Any child the couple has together will have a 50% risk of inheriting the gene. They want to avoid this risk but also want to have a child with whom they both have a genetic connection. They can use the male's DNA and the female's enucleated egg to create a child. Since the male does not have the Huntington's gene, the child will not have it either. And since the child will inherit the mitochondrial DNA from the female, he will have a genetic connection to both parents.
But is the argument valid?
Some have proposed that in order for the argument to be valid, it depends on what has been term "the implicit premise." The implicit premise of the argument is one that is not explicitly stated as part of the argument, but which is being assumed by the person presenting the argument. Consequently, if this premise of part of the argument, then the argument is valid. If this premise is not part of the argument, then the argument is not valid. The argument has therefore been presented as "if x results in an crease to overall well being for everyone concerned, then it is morally permissible." The argument is essentially Utilitarian in nature.
