By Michele D. Shoun
The announcement that Scottish scientists had cloned an adult sheep set alarm bells ringing all over the world. While scientists generally responded with elation, ordinary people as well as theologians and ethicists expressed grave misgivings.
Pro-life groups have been uncharacteristically silent on the issue. The cloning of humans should be a cause for concern among Christians, but for once, most of the voices finding expression in the media seem to be airing a conservative, let's-think-twice-before-we-go-further theme. Their caution gives Christians space for reflection.
Would it be wrong to clone humans, and why?
Most everyone thinks it would be wrong to clone a human being. The scientists who unveiled the procedure hastened to assure us they had no plans to do such a thing. People who ordinarily shun absolute pronouncements of 'evil' or 'immorality' tossed relativism out the window and quickly pinned those labels on human cloning.
The source of this abhorrence seems to be the image of a clone as some sort of grotesque sub-human, a monster conjured in an underground laboratory. The description of the electric jolt used to jump-start the cell-division process that became Dolly certainly lent itself to such fantasy.
But is this reaction fair? Would a human clone be essentially different from you or I?
At first, this question may seem odd because the purpose of cloning is to create someone exactly like the original. But everyone's idea about this clone, this copy, seems to be that he or she would be available for experimentation, used as a repository of spare parts, or as some sort of pliable toy one could mold in one's own image. Given the chance, we would do to 'it' what we wouldn't dream of doing to a 'real' human, the 'genuine article.' People are already asking, "If 'it' had defect, what would we do with 'it?'"
The pro-life movement and groups concerned with civil rights properly argue that a person's physical nature does not excuse discrimination. It would be wrong of me to judge another on the basis of skin color or sex or disability - or DNA composition. A person is more than the sum of his or her physical parts. If a clone walked into my office right now, I hope I wouldn't treat him differently than anyone else. It wouldn't be my business to question his origin or worth or personhood.
Am I just falling sway to science fiction? I know there aren't any human clones yet, but what if there were someday? If the cloning of humans is inevitable, as I think it is, would it really be a big deal?
A human clone would still be a human being, would she not? Try as I might to stamp my own image on a clone, she would still possess the image of God. She would have a soul. More important than questions of what the cloning of humans could mean to us are questions of how we will treat human clones.
In a real sense, an identical twin is a clone of his brother, although the distinction between 'original' and 'copy' would be impossible to make. Everyone knows twins who, no matter how similar, can find infinite differences among them, despite being raised in the same environment by the same parents. The bottom line is, each one needs to accept Jesus Christ for salvation.
If not careful, Christians participating in the discussion over human cloning could contribute to the devaluation of an entire class of human beings. We must not buy into the idea that a human being can be 'less than a person' or that a person can be 'less than a human being.' If, as we say, the embryo wrought through in vitro fertilization is an individual worthy of all protection, then so is the human clone. As much as we uphold the personhood of a Down's Syndrome baby, we ought to stand for the personhood of a human clone.
Some advocates of cloning point to potential benefits, for instance creating a sick person's perfect match for bone marrow transplantation. But a person must never be looked upon as an 'organ farm' or a 'marrow-making machine.' Neither ought a human clone be thought of as a 'duplicate' of or 'replacement' for another individual. Life is its own benefit. A person must be loved, wanted and respected for himself. Do unto clones as you would want done to yourself.
Responding to the potential for human cloning, the Vatican made a mistake that could relegate clones to second-class status. By saying "the creation of human life outside marriage went against God's plan" did they mean that any resulting creation, in this case a human clone, is "outside God's plan?" We've come a long way from depersonalizing those conceived out of wedlock by calling them 'illegitimate.' Why should we want to erect ready-made obstacles for people cloned through no fault of their own?
Yes, cloning would wreak havoc on family life (Who would the parents be?) and is repugnant enough for that reason. Yes, many questions remain about the process (Is it a 'conception' at all?). And yes, it would be absurd to do what the president of one research firm suggested: use cloning in attempts to "revitalize" aborted babies!
Our first priority, however, is to uphold the sanctity of life of all human beings despite one's manner of conception. Once created, a human "clone" ought not be forced to endure experimentation, tweaking, "selective reduction," freezing, or whatever else scientists do.
What is the main problem with cloning? Is it wrong because it is 'unnatural,' or because our tendency with various 'artificial' technologies is to confer non-person status on certain people? Would cloning be wrong because it's 'playing God,' or because, when we want to play God, too often we're looking for an excuse to demean or mistreat someone? Is cloning wrong because it has the potential to create a subspecies for which we presently have no category, or because our sinful nature likes to relegate one group or another to a class beneath ourselves?
Though none yet exist, Christians dare not speak of clones with anything less than dignity and respect. We should start by resisting the use of the term in connection with any human being, since a label like 'clone' automatically marginalizes a person.
A helpful outside resource: The Conception View of Personhood, by Dennis M. Sullivan, MD, FACS, Ethics & Medicine, 19:1 (2003):11-33.