OnlineBookClub.org

This is a discussion topic for the April 2025 Book of the Month, "Chloe The Clone" by William E. Mason

What societal issues are raised through the cloning plot in "Chloe The Clone" by William E. Mason?

The novel explores the moral dilemmas surrounding cloning, particularly the creation of sentient beings for organ harvesting. It raises questions about the humanity and rights of clones, challenging the notion of using them merely as medical

I believe a major issue I saw beside ethics is human rights and identity. At first, when people who know Chloe is a clone, they are surprised she even has a name. We can also see that, since Chloe is made as a match of Sam's tissue, Sam is initially unable to comprehend the relationship between them when Chloe starts to call him "Grandpa." I was also wondering if human rights applied to Chloe since people treated Chloe like an "it" rather than a real person.

I found myself thinking about the ethics of the entire scientific community in this novel, as well as the ethics that scientists possess or lack while researching and creating a significant project like cloning. However, there is nothing new for societies to use something to separate people throughout history; in this case, it is the process of creating a person what is considered but it creates always the same question, why everyone doen't have the same rights?

This book raised questions about if it is ethical to create sentient clones for a medical purpose and destroy them. It creates a dilemma between morals and survival. It challenges human with the question that because clones are just like humans with emotions and senses, then if humans deserve rights and identity then why not clones?

Cloning in the story really shines a light on how society treats people who are different and questions whether we value uniqueness or just want everyone to fit in.

I think the main societal issues were human rights and identity. Although this has not happened in modern society, I believe that there are real issues. Is it morally right to give a clone the same human rights and identity as an actual human being? Things like this would actually question human morals.

Science fiction stories have been featuring cloning for a long time. However, the ethical and moral issues connected to cloning have become mainstream only after some animals started being cloned. Cloning single organs to be used for transplants would solve many dilemmas.

This is such a great question to pose and there are so many potential societal issues within this text. There is a huge moral and ethical component to this. Is it right to clone for the pure purpose of harvesting organs? Would a clone be considered to be a human with rights? It brings up questions that you sometimes think you have an answer for, but after reading can see it through a different lens.

I will say this book would be an interesting one to have in a book club. It would have some lively discussion points.

NetMassimo wrote: ↑20 Apr 2025, 09:25 Science fiction stories have been featuring cloning for a long time. However, the ethical and moral issues connected to cloning have become mainstream only after some animals started being cloned. Cloning single organs to be used for transplants would solve many dilemmas.

I agree with this sentiment! While it could be dangerous, used responsibly, the science could help countless people. It would also definitely help not to have to speak to relatives of brain-dead patients about organ donation.

Kendal Low wrote: ↑23 Apr 2025, 15:32 I agree with this sentiment! While it could be dangerous, used responsibly, the science could help countless people. It would also definitely help not to have to speak to relatives of brain-dead patients about organ donation.

Organ donation mostly relies on someone else's tragedy, which also means that there's always a shortage of organs. Donation also means rejection risk, while a cloned organ would be like a part of the person in need, just grown outside their body.

I think the main societal issue, in my opinion, is the morality in creating whole human beings and then denying them the right to live their lives by rendering them brain-dead and then taking their organs without even considering asking for their consent.

NetMassimo wrote: ↑23 Apr 2025, 15:35

Kendal Low wrote: ↑23 Apr 2025, 15:32 I agree with this sentiment! While it could be dangerous, used responsibly, the science could help countless people. It would also definitely help not to have to speak to relatives of brain-dead patients about organ donation.

Organ donation mostly relies on someone else's tragedy, which also means that there's always a shortage of organs. Donation also means rejection risk, while a cloned organ would be like a part of the person in need, just grown outside their body.

I agree with you; cloning the required organ only makes it a lot easier, more practical, and even less tragic. The author made sure to find an excuse for not using this method in order to justify the way the plot goes.

Omneya Shakeep wrote: ↑23 Apr 2025, 19:11
I agree with you; cloning the required organ only makes it a lot easier, more practical, and even less tragic. The author made sure to find an excuse for not using this method in order to justify the way the plot goes.

Indeed. The plot needed to go into ethical and moral issues connected to the birth of a full human. Here, we go beyond all of that by discussing the possibilities of the development of cloning technologies.

In Chloe The Clone by William E. Mason, the story digs into some deep ethical questions. It makes you think about what it really means to create clones who can think and feel, only to use them for medical purposes and then get rid of them. The book puts survival and morality in direct conflict, asking whether scientific progress should come before basic human values.