Cloning is in the news again. A California scientist cloned himself.
"All kinds of human cloning are immoral and ought to be banned."
When it comes to cloning, most agree that there is something wrong about it. Very few humans outside of the Raelians immediately warm up to the idea of cloning. Why is there an icky factor to it?
I would argue that it is part of our natural law to know that the power to create life is not something that is ours to possess and wield. The power over the creation of life is in God's domain. Once we try to conquer Nature, Nature conquers us. C.S. Lewis makes a brilliant argument to this effect in the Abolition of Man.
"Man's conquest of Nature turns out, in the moment of its consummation, to be Nature's conquest of Man."
~ C.S. Lewis, Abolition of Man
Cloning is a fool's errand. Christians ought to wake up and get in the game now and influence the public debate before it is too late. Things are advancing at a break neck pace, and those who seek to make a name for themselves in this area will soon succeed in their ghoulish adventures.
I don't agree with this proposition. On what basis is human cloning immoral?
I'm not a fan of the idea of human cloning. I prefer the natural way. But I don't claim a moral basis for my preference.
Posted by: | January 22, 2008 at 09:59
It is immoral on the basis of natural law ... unless you are arguing that it is natural to take an egg and suck out all of its genetic material and inject all of your own genetic material.
There is a very clear natural path for egg fertilization ... and this method is clear denigration of a designed process.
Why are you not a fan of cloning?
Please put your name on your comment so I know who I am dialoging with.
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | January 22, 2008 at 17:01
"Please put your name on your comment so I know who I am dialoging with."
Oops! I didn't mean to be mysterious.
"It is immoral on the basis of natural law ... unless you are arguing that it is natural to take an egg and suck out all of its genetic material and inject all of your own genetic material."
Then apparently flying in an airplane is immoral on the basis of natural law. To do so is no more natural than to manipulate organic material.
Posted by: Rob Ryan | January 22, 2008 at 17:25
"Why are you not a fan of cloning?"
I almost forgot to respond to this part. Like I said, I prefer the natural way. I don't like excessive use of antibiotics; that is what the immune system is for. I don't care for our automobile dependence; that is what legs are for. I don't like pesticides, manmade fertilizers...I could go on. I realize that most of my preferences are impractical to some extent in the context of modern society, but preferences don't have to be practical, do they? I dream of an idyllic existence on a South Pacific island. Too bad we can't all have that.
I think we could live without cloning. We have done so for a long time. I felt the same way about cell phones, by the way, but now I have one. C'est la vie. I hope that answers your question. I don't have an innate "icky" feeling about it, if that was what you were fishing for.
Posted by: Rob Ryan | January 22, 2008 at 17:42
As much as I love technology, I think it has serious downsides. I think you are onto something with the South Pacific island idea ;)
Flying in an airplane -vs- creating life (in many cases for the sole purpose of destroying it) ... sorry, the comparison is not too strong in terms of moral equivalence.
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | January 24, 2008 at 19:15
The problem with cloning ethics is how far you take it. I think most people would agree that cloning people crosses a line. But what if you could clone, say, an organ, from a living person's own tissues? This "clone" would not be from an embryo, and would have no potential to become a "person" in its own right, no matter what anyone did.
Imagine the life-saving potential of such a technology!
This is why I'm not keen on a blanket ban on "human cloning." You want to ban cloning entire people, fine. You want to ban cloning embryos, we can talk, although the implications here (for things like IVF) are a little more profound. But a blanket ban, I don't think so.
Posted by: tgirsch | January 25, 2008 at 11:59
"Flying in an airplane -vs- creating life (in many cases for the sole purpose of destroying it) ... sorry, the comparison is not too strong in terms of moral equivalence."
It is a very strong comparison in terms of natural law, which is the only basis you have advanced for the immorality of cloning. Suddenly the unnaturalness of cloning doesn't seem to be the problem. It appears you need a new basis for your claim.
Posted by: Rob Ryan | January 27, 2008 at 08:53
Couldn't it be argued that flight is not unnatural since the principals of lift are found in the shapes of birds' wings?
Posted by: Matt | January 29, 2008 at 11:50
Matt:
But if you want to go that way, then it follows that human cloning is also not unnatural, since that's basically how we get identical twins, which while not exactly common, are far from a rare occurrence.
Posted by: tgirsch | January 29, 2008 at 12:35
I didn't know we got identical twins by removing DNA information from a fertilized egg and replacing it with new DNA?
Posted by: Matt | January 30, 2008 at 08:35
Besides, we are talking about human flight, not the flight of birds or insects.
Posted by: Rob Ryan | January 30, 2008 at 08:46
Matt:
I didn't know that birds flew using turbines and internal combustion of refined fossil fuels.
Posted by: tgirsch | January 30, 2008 at 13:54
For what it's worth, I'm not arguing that human cloning is "natural." I'm arguing that your claim that human flight could be argued as not-unnatural is bunk. :)
Posted by: tgirsch | January 30, 2008 at 13:55
Actually unless something about humans themselves is inherently not natural, then anything that humans do is not-unnatural.
I don't know if I know enough about human cloning efforts to argue why else it shouldn't be practiced except that most likely any research thereof will consist (among other things) of the deliberate destruction of a lot of unique human life...
Posted by: Matt | January 31, 2008 at 13:39
Well, if they're clones, then by definition they're not unique. But I see what you're getting at, even if I don't agree with it. :)
Posted by: tgirsch | January 31, 2008 at 15:03