Shots Across The Bow

Reproductive Cloning vs Therapuetic Cloning

Reproductive Cloning vs Therapuetic Cloning Charles Murtaugh published this piece on why he supports therapeutic cloning, and not reproductive cloning.

On a related note, I've added my name to a petition against Senator Sam Brownback's proposed ban on "therapeutic cloning," i.e. the production of cloned early human embryos for research/treatment purposes, rather than for birth. Since I've been so outspoken in opposition to human reproductive cloning, you might ask whether I'm being a hypocrite at worst, or foolish at best.

Obviously I don't think so, and here's why. First off, as an ethical matter, since I support human embryonic stem cell research, it would be hard for me to muster opposition to embryo cloning on a purely ethical basis. Put simply, I don't believe that very early human embryos are people, in any moral or legal sense.

Charles is neither foolish, nor hypocritical, but he doesn't really explore the ramifications of his position.

For example, when does this non-person become a person? At what point in it's development can you point to the fetus and say that it is now a person? Or do you wait until it is born to call it a person? The way he puts it "...very early human embryos.." leads me to believe that he thinks that the point at which a fetus becomes a human is somewhere before birth, although I could be mistaken in this assumption. As far as I can know, conception is the defining moment when a new organism is created, which makes it the obvious choice for assigning personhood. I don't know of any other point in pre-natal development which equals it, except possibly for the initiation of brain activity.

My next problem with this position is it takes one procedure, cloning, and makes it legal or illegal based on the intentions of the person performing it. What justification can there be for making such an artificial distinction?
We've heard the proponents of therapuetic cloning dissmiss the arguments of those against it as motivated by the "Eewww factor." I contend that the arguments against reproductive cloning can be assigned the same motivation. Most of the arguments against reproductive cloning(RC) fall into the "slippery slope" category which is cavalierly dismissed by therapuetic cloning(TC) supporters when it is applied to them. OK, so let's eliminate this line of argument from consideration in both cases, and consider purely scientific reasons why RC would be a bad idea.

I'm waiting.....

If it is the failure rate you are worried about, as Charles Murtaugh discusses, then what failure rate is acceptable? Once we reach or exceed that point, does that end your objection to RC?
Or maybe deformities are your concern. Do you also feel that we should limit the reproductive rights of those who possess inheritable genetic defects?
Or are you concerned about misuse of the process? Ooops, there's that slippery slope again.
Or are you concerned that folks may use RC for purposes that don't live up to it's noble aspirations (like plastic surgery has gone from helping folks who need it to designing centerfolds for Playboy)? There's the eeeww factor.

For a quick demolition of the standard arguments against human cloning in general, see Glenn Reynold's post here. While I have a few problems with his logic (remember, I oppose human cloning for any purpose), for the purposes of this discussion, I'll ignore them for now. Basically, what it comes down to is this. The arguments for therapuetic cloning work just as well for reproductive cloning, and the same can be said for the arguments against each.

Posted by Rich at April 10, 2002 2:50 AM