Forum
Human Cloning Foundation Hails British Scientists
Paralyzed
Walk Again
Childless Couples
Essays
The Benefits of
Human Cloning
All the Reasons to
Clone Human Beings
The Top Ten Myths
about Human Cloning
Human Cloning is the Cure for Infertility
Infertility is
a Disease
Books
People
Reports
Archives
Feedback
Donate
Links
Website Links
About Us
Contact Us
Site history
Site Map
Past Books of the Month
John Kunich's Books
Copyright
Illegal Beings: Human Clones
Re: My proof that cloning,Human and Animal, is wrong
EternalWater7K ( 11/24/2004, 22:15:42 )Human Cloning By John F. Kilner, Ph.D. Society's quest to make humanity the way we want it to be-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- We live in a brave new world in which reproductive technologies are ravaging as well as replenishing families. The new eugenics is simply the latest version of the age-old quest to make human beings — in fact, humanity as a whole — the way we want them to be. It includes our efforts to be rid of unwanted human beings through abortion and euthanasia. It more recently is focusing on our growing ability to understand and manipulate our genetic code, which directs the formation of many aspects of who we are, for better and for worse. We aspire to complete control over the code, though at this point relatively little control is possible. Yet it is this backdrop that can help us understand the great fascination with human cloning today, which promises to give us a substantial measure of control over the genetic make-up of our offspring. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------It is demeaning to produce clones simply to provide spare parts, such as vital transplantable organs, for other people. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- We cannot control their code exactly, but the first major step in that direction is hugely appealing: You can have a child whose genetic code is virtually identical to your own. And you didn’t turn out so badly, did you?! Admittedly, in our most honest moments we would improve a few things about ourselves. So the larger agenda here remains complete genetic control. But human cloning represents one concrete step in that direction, and the forces pushing us from behind to take that step are tremendous. Sheep and other animals have been cloned, though the latest sheep research suggests that the clones are not truly identical to the originals. So we can expect human cloning to be alluringly close at hand.If we have any serious qualms about human cloning, we need to voice them now, in publicly understandable terms, while society is in the process of deciding whether to ban or limit this practice. What’s the Fascination? Why would people want to clone humans in the first place? Most people respond to the prospect of human cloning in two ways simultaneously: They are deeply squeamish about the idea, and yet they also find something extremely captivating about it. Such fascination is captured in a variety of films, including The Boys From Brazil (portraying the attempt to clone the powerful Adolf Hitler), Bladerunner (questioning whether a clone would be more like a person or a machine), and Multiplicity (presenting a man’s attempt to have enough time for his family, job and other pursuits by producing several live adult replicas of himself). Popular discussions ponder the wonderful prospects of creating multiple Mother Teresas, Michael Jordans or whomever. The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity The Bioethics in the New Millennium conference, hosted by the Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity, will be held July 20 - 22 on the campus of Trinity International University, located in Deerfield, Ill. Co-sponsors of the event include Christian Medical and Dental Society, Christian Legal Society, Nurses Christian Fellowship, Americans United for Life and Trinity International University. An international event, this conference will provide participants with cutting-edge information, ethical analysis and Christian perspective regarding the bioethical issues that will shape the new millennium. Participants will be armed with the insight and tools necessary to shift from a reactive to a proactive mode toward bioethical issues, new medical possibilities and emerging scientific technologies. Speakers include Diann Uustal, R.N., Ed.D., Educational Resources in HealthCare, Inc.; Richard Swensen, M.D., Future Health Study Center; Scott Rae, Ph.D., Biola University; John Patrick, M.D., University of Ottawa, Canada; Donal O’Mathuna, Ph.D., Mount Carmel College of Nursing; Johnny Hunter, L.E.A.R.N. African American Network; Christopher Hook, M.D., Mayo Clinic; Cardinal Francis George, O.M.I, Archbishop of Chicago; Claretta Dupree, M.S.N., Ph.D., North Park University; David Cook, Ph.D., Oxford University, England; Helen Alvare, J.D., National Council of Catholic Bishops. For information or to register, call (888) 246-3844; fax (847) 317-8153; e-mail cbhd@cbhd.org or visit www.cbhd.org. The greatest problem with creative, media-driven discussions like these is that they often reflect a misunderstanding of the science and people involved. Multiplicity presents human replicas, not clones in the form that we are discussing them here. When an adult is cloned (e.g., the adult sheep from which Dolly was cloned), an embryo is created — not another adult. Although the embryo’s cells contain the same genetic code as the cells of the adult being cloned, the embryo must go through many years of development in an environment that is significantly different from that in which the adult developed. Because both our environment and our genetics substantially influence who we are, the embryo will not become the same person as the adult. In fact, because people also have a spiritual capacity to evaluate and alter either or both our environment and our genetics, human clones are bound to be quite different from the adults who provide their genetic code. Weighing the Benefits Are there any more thoughtful ethical justifications for human cloning? Indeed, many have been put forward, and they most frequently appeal to its utility or benefit. As long as cloning will produce a net increase in human well-being, the rationale goes, it is warranted. People are well-acquainted with the notion of assessing costs and benefits, and it is common to hear the argument that something will produce so much benefit that efforts to block it must surely be misguided. Such justifications for human cloning include the benefits of replacing a dying child with a genetically identical new one and producing a clone of a sick child to provide bone marrow or organs for transplant. However, there are serious problems with this type of justification. Most significantly, it is unworkable, because knowing with any precision the utility achieved from cloning or any other practice is simply impossible — and it is dangerous. We cannot know all of the ways a practice will affect the people in the world. For example, it is inconceivable that we could accurately quantify the satisfaction of every parent in future centuries who will choose cloning rather than traditional sexual reproduction in order to spare their children from newly discovered genetic problems. In fact, as Ian Wilmot observed shortly after announcing his cloning of Dolly, "Most of the things cloning will be used for have yet to be imagined." The difficulty of comparing the significance of every foreseeable consequence on the same scale of value, including comparing each person’s subjective experiences with everyone else’s, only adds to the unworkability. In real life, decision-makers intuitively compare only the consequences of which they are most aware and concerned. Such an approach invites bias and discrimination, intended and unintended. Even more dangerous is the absence of limits to what can be justified. There are no built-in protections for weak individuals or minority groups, including clones. People can be subjected to anything — the worst possible oppression or even death — if it is beneficial to the majority. Situations such as Nazi Germany and U.S. slavery can be justified using this way of thinking. Expendable Beings? When utility is our basis for justifying what is allowed in society, people are used as mere means to achieve the ends of other people. It may be appropriate to use plants and animals in this way, within limits, but that is another debate. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------"To allow cloning is to open the door to a scarier enterprise: genetically engineering people without their consent." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Accordingly, most people do not find it objectionable to clone animals and plants to achieve products that will fulfill a purpose — such as better milk or better grain. It is demeaning, however, to produce clones simply to provide spare parts, such as vital transplantable organs, for other people. Such cloning fails to respect the equal and great dignity of all people by making some, in effect, the slaves of others. Even cloning a child who dies to remove the parents’ grief forces the clone to permanently be subjected to the parents’ will. The irony of this last situation? The clone will not become the same child as was lost, as both the child and the clone are the product of far more than their genetics. Not only will the clone be demeaned by not being fully respected and accepted as a unique person, but the parents will fail to regain their lost child in the process. In other words, showing that a good benefit — even a great benefit — will result is not a sufficient argument to justify an action. Although it is easy to forget this basic point when enticed by the promise of a wonderful benefit, we intuitively know it is true. We recognize that we could, for example, cut up one person, take her or his various organs for transplant, and save many lives as a result. But we do not go around doing that. We realize that if the action we take to achieve the benefit is itself horrendous, beneficial results are not enough to justify it. Truth and Consequences To justify human cloning by utility, all the consequences of allowing this practice have to be considered — not just the benefits generated by the exceptional situations commonly cited in its defense. What are some of the consequences we need to be concerned about? There is space here to note only two of the many that weigh heavily against human cloning. First, as suggested earlier, to allow cloning is to open the door to a scarier enterprise: genetically engineering people without their consent — not for their own benefit, but for the benefit of particular people or society at large. Cloning entails producing a person with a particular genetic code because of the attractiveness or usefulness of a person with that code. In this sense, cloning is just the tip of a much larger genetic iceberg. We are developing the genetic understanding and capability to shape the human genetic code in many ways. If we allow cloning, we legitimate in principle the entire enterprise of designing children to suit parental or social purposes. As one researcher at the U.S. Council on Foreign Relations commented, "Dolly is best understood as a drop in a towering wave [of genetic research] that is about to crash over us." The personal and social destructiveness of large-scale eugenic efforts (including, but by no means limited to, Nazi Germany’s) has been substantial, but at least it has been limited to date by our limited genetic understanding and technology. Today the stakes are much higher. The second critical consideration that must be included in any honest utilitarian calculus involves the allocation of limited resources. To spend resources on the development and practice of human cloning is to not spend them on other endeavors that would be more beneficial to society. For many years now there have been extensive discussions about the rising costs of health care and the huge number of people (tens of millions) even in the United States that do not have health insurance. It has also long been established that such lack of insurance means that significant numbers of people are actually going without necessary health care and are seriously suffering or dying as a result. Inadequate funding yields serious health consequences because there is no alternative way to produce the basic health result at issue. Not only are the benefits of human cloning less significant than those that could be achieved by expending the same funds on other health care initiatives, but there are alternative ways of bringing children into the world that can yield at least one major benefit of cloning — children themselves. If there were enough resources available to fund every technology needed or wanted by anyone, the situation would be different. But researching and practicing human cloning will result in serious suffering and even loss of life because other pressing health-care needs cannot be met. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Needless to say, it is possible to express our concerns about cloning in theological terms. Bottom line: Using other people without their consent for our ends is a violation of their status as beings created in the image of God. All people have a God-given dignity that prevents us from using them as mere means to achieve our purposes. Knowing that people are created in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27), biblical writers in both the Old and New Testaments periodically invoke this truth about human beings to argue that people should not be demeaned in various ways (Genesis 9:6; James 3:9). Claims about utility, then, are woefully inadequate to justify human cloning. In fact, a careful look at utilitarian justifications shows that they provide compelling reasons instead to reject human cloning. To stand up and say so may become more and more risky in our brave new world. As the culture increasingly embraces utilitarian thinking, it will take courage to insist in the new context of cloning that such thinking is inadequate and dangerous. But such a brave new world, echoing the Word of old, is one where we must be bold to speak. John F. Kilner, Ph.D., is the executive director of the Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity in Bannockburn, Ill. A more theologically explicit version of this article, which examines a broader range of ethical justifications, may be found in The Reproductive Revolution: A Christian Appraisal (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2000). --------------------------------------------------------------------------------This article first appeared in the May/June 2000 issue of Physician magazine. Copyright © 2000, Focus on the Family. All rights reserved. International copyright secured.
This Message is being posted for educational purposes, as well as for comment and criticism, by the visitors to the HumanCloning.org Foundation website (www.HumanCloning.org ).
Disclaimer: Information provided on this web site is for educatonal purposes only. It is not a substitute for, nor can it replace advice from your own physician.
HumanCloning.org™ Established December 11, 2002.
Who's Afraid of Human Cloning?
Disease Prevention and Treatment