Pet Cloning Not Immoral

As the topic of pet cloning becomes more widely discussed and debated, those who oppose it spread unfounded arguments about why you should not clone your pet. Two of the most commonly used arguments against pet cloning are based on faulty reasoning. Opponents of pet cloning say that the cloning process is unethical because companies that will clone your pet deceive consumers and because large homeless pet populations should be adopted before new pets are created. These may both be arguable points, but they do not prove that pet cloning should be eliminated.

It is unfair for naysayers to claim that you should be unable to clone your pet because pet cloning companies offer a product that may not be exactly what consumers expect. The use of false advertising does not automatically make a product immoral. Sexualized commercials for beer or cologne imply that these products will make consumers more attractive. The fact that the products do not cause such results does not mean that they should be pulled from shelves. Perhaps pet cloning companies indulge in false advertising by refraining from disclosing the possible results of the cloning process, but that does not make pet cloning unethical.

Another popular argument against pet cloning is that there is a large number of homeless pets that are currently in animal shelters. There is no denying that this is the case. However, this is an invalid argument against pet cloning. Pet cloning does not increase the amount of animals that are in animal shelters. The cloning process results in one animal for each consumer. Activists to whom shelter overcrowding is worrisome should take issue with breeders and puppy mills.

The problem with the arguments that are currently being made against pet cloning is that they are largely based on opinion. While it is understandable that people would form strong opinions on topics such as this, it is unfair to place bans on things because of differing values and opinions.