The Ethical Debate Concerning Cloning.

Authors Avatar

The Ethical Debate Concerning Cloning 
In the year that has elapsed since the announcement of Dolly’s birth, there has been much discussion of the ethical implications of cloning humans.  Although the simple use of the word “clone” may have negative connotations, many people have resigned themselves to the idea of cloning cows that produce more milk or using a cloned mouse for use in controlled experimentation.  However, the idea of cloning humans is a highly charged topic.  Several authors have attempted to outline some of the ethical objections to cloning while at the same time minimizing the role religion plays in this debate.  The objections posed by Leon Kass and James Q. Wilson provide basic arguments that deserve consideration.

Kass outlines the possibility of clones through the idea that cloning is neither inherently good nor bad in its process but that can be used to produce both good and bad results.  Kass outlines three general contexts in which cloning is discussed.  First he looks at the outcome of cloning on the child.  One main objection to cloning is that it will naturally force parents to treat their new child differently than they would one that is born through sexual union.  Technically the process of reproduction would have been different, but Kass sees no reason why parents would follow this process for producing a child unless they truly wanted it.  This argument is generally used to warn others of the potential social harms that a child might face.  A child that is born from cloning will be different from other children in the way he or she was created as well as in the fact that he or she will have the same genetic structure as someone else already living.  This child may be faced with social pressures that he or she will have to deal with.

A second argument for cloning starts with the idea of reproductive rights.  This liberal view holds that every individual is entitled to the right to have a child as long as the child born is unharmed.   Some philosophers point out that when talking about rights it is necessary to discern from whom these rights should come.  This question is difficult to answer because it either assumes natural, God-given rights or requires that the state ensure the right to reproduce or both.  A third view says that cloning will provide for the possibility of improvement by giving birth to children who are free of birth defects, because when any two people create a child through sex there is the possibility for genetic defects.  However, since clones are the exact replicas of someone already alive, their genetic dispositions will have already surfaced.

Kass’ response is these three contexts are that they are all too passive.  They ignore the value of the process of bringing forth new life and look at the question in terms of results and rights.  He claims that we should look at this question from the anthropologic perspective that the meaning behind the process of having a child is what’s important.  With many of the reproductive biotechnologies now accepted by a large portion of society, we tend to forget that there is only one natural way to reproduce.  Unless one believes that decreased intelligence makes a person less human, sexual reproduction always produces children that are equally human and unique.  Kass does not indicate that reproductive biotechnologies are immoral, he simply tries to reinforce the idea that cloning may take something away from the natural process.  He also stresses that begetting children provides unification of two individuals physically and genetically.

Another argument that Kass uses against cloning is that it is unethical to experiment on humans .  Scientists have never cloned a human so they cannot be sure what the outcomes of the procedure would be.  This leaves open the possibility that there will be some long-term effect on the child such as a shorter lifespan or other difficulties, but there is no room to take the time to perfect their techniques because the tests required are in themselves experimentation.  This argument is circular and if we maintain that it is impermissible to experiment on humans the cloning of humans will never happen.

The third argument that Kass uses deals with the possible effects on the child if she is born without physical problems.  He questions whether or not a clone can be a moral agent.  By giving a child the same genetic makeup at someone who is already alive, do we take something from his or her identity?  Will the child be compared to the person from whom the genes came?  Some argue that genes are not the same as identity.  However, it is widely agreed that it would be wrong to clone someone without his or her permission.  If that is the case, is it not fair to say that genotype is in fact related to identity?  And if genes are linked to identity, does the child lose the possibility of being truly unique?

James Q. Wilson’s article “The Paradox of Cloning” discusses many of the issues brought to light by Kass.  However, Wilson believes that a total ban on cloning would be hasty.  He sees the possibility for good in cloning and believes that the idea has not been carefully thought out.  Wilson begins by presenting two philosophical arguments against cloning.  The first objection to cloning is that it violates God’s will.  Wilson rejects this argument on the basis that IVF also creates embryos outside of the female body.  He also finds it hard to doubt that a cloned person has a soul or that it would be impossible for God to give a soul to a cloned individual.  The second objection to cloning that Wilson presents is that cloning is contrary to Nature.  Wilson counters by pointing out that those who use this argument cannot pinpoint exactly what natural rules cloning breaks.  He speculates that these people fear that harm will be done to the resulting child and this, in itself is unnatural.

Wilson does not himself present a complete argument against cloning.  Instead, he believes that cloning is acceptable in certain instances.  Wilson presents the idea that, in general, parents love their children; further, those that go out of their way to undergo some process to obtain a child do not do so unless they truly want offspring.  However, Wilson puts forth two requirements for cloning:  the family to which the child will be born must be a two parent, heterosexual family and the actual birthing process must take place.  The first stipulation excludes the possibility for a single mother to give birth to her clone; likewise, Wilson fears the use of cloning for homosexuals.  This argument would be difficult to legislate and perhaps immoral itself as it denies single mothers and homosexuals the right to reproduce.  The second requirement, that birth must occur, is intended to strengthen the ties between parents and child.  He believes that were the womb to be excluded, cloned children would become like pets  and the parents would be more likely to treat a child differently than they would under normal circumstances.  It would also cut down the possibility of producing a child for her organs.

Wilson and Kass both present very different views on the moral value of cloning.  Scientists such as Lee Silver point out other arguments.  He confirms that possibility that the long term effects for the cloned person cannot be determined.  Still, the debate will continue and those who are unable to have children through means already available will continue to look to cloning as a possible solution to their problems.  This is yet another case when it is hard to come to a universal consensus about where we will allow science to go in the future.

The Theological Debate Over Cloning 
Most organized religions oppose cloning with the possible exclusion of Buddhist teachings that view cloning as a possible extension of the individual.  Judaism and Christianity both oppose this technology, but for different reasons; likewise, the different denominations of Christians each have their own view of the subject.  Both Christians and Jews believe that humans are created in the image of God.  To some religious scholars, clones are also included as children of God.   If this is true, it answers the overarching question of whether or not a clone can be endowed with a soul.  If a clone is still created in the image of God, it is assumed that God can present that individual with a soul.

According to one Jewish scholar, a clone would be unique by her mode of birth.  However, in dealing with this ‘uniqueness’ she will have experiences that will make her a better person.     On the contrary, in an article in U.S. News & World Report, one Rabbi was quoted as saying that although Judaism does not oppose “the use of technology to improve nature’s shortcoming. . .cloning humans. . . ‘is an area where we cannot go.  It violates the mystery of what it means to be human.’”

Although Jewish scholars present seeming hesitation, Christians seem to be more open in their protest against the use of cloning.  Protestant theology has not shown all cloning to be bad, although most believe that what is acceptable is unclear.  One scholar said that it “crosses the line.  It places to much power in the hands of sinful humans.”
Overall, both Jewish and Christian scholars fear the safety of cloning for the child to be and worry about the implications it may have on the definition of family.

Join now!

Typically Roman Catholic view of reproductive technologies is negative. In condemning cloning, the Roman Catholic Church stressed that every human has “the right to be born in a human way”  and Pope John Paul II called for an unconditional worldwide ban on the use of cloning.  As mentioned earlier, GIFT is one example of a compromise that has been made between Catholicism and technology.  However, in examining an issue such as cloning, there are two traditional issues of importance.  First, the Church tends to begin any argument by looking at God’s role, if any, in the process and how science ...

This is a preview of the whole essay