Shots Across The Bow

Cloning pets and kids

Cloning pets and kids Charles Murtaugh writes in this piece from the National Review Online that

What the copycat news made me realize is that if given the chance, I probably would have cloned Gina. And in this realization is the silver lining for those of us opposed to human cloning: The very harmlessness of cloning pets throws into sharp relief the evils of cloning children.

He makes the point that since pets are property, cloning them is OK, but since children are not property, cloning them is not OK.

He goes on to say that:

A cloned child, made rather than begotten, is a pet: His or her "breed" picked out for its "unique characteristics" just as a border collie is chosen for its intelligence and a poodle because it doesn't shed much hair.

Does his distaste for a "made" child extend to the eradication of genetic defects through prenatal gene therapy? These potential therapies are applications of the same techniques as cloning. Is a child whose spina bifida is repaired prior to development a "pet?" How about a neonate with sickle cell anemia? Does one genetic repair make him or her a "made" child?
OK, so maybe Charles is willing to make an exception for therapeutic purposes. How about more frivoluos purposes?
The techniques used to repair genetic defects could also be used for selection of specific traits; hair color, eye color, athletic ability, intelligence, shedding(baldness), etc. All of the sudden, we are back to his "pet" analogy, with children being made to order.

Murtaugh's argument would seem to rule out all genetic engineering, which begs the question, if genetic engineering results in a child who is less than human, then why are we pursuing it at all?

His argument fails because it is based on a false premise, that cloning a creature makes it property. Whether a creature is property or autonomous is a function of what it is, not how it was made. The process of selecting for certain characteristics will not lessen a child's humanity, whether done over generations of breeding, ie evolution, or in one generation with the biochemical equivalent of a scalpel. This is what may prevent us from travelling the "slippery slope" that most foes of genetic engineering fear. If humanity comes from what you are, rather than where you come from, or how you were made, then many of the ethical considerations vanish.

So why not just say that and get it over with? Simple. The statement above recognizes an essential humanity inherent in a prenate. I don't need to go into what that would entail for the pro-choice crowd.

In order to avoid recognizing a simple truth, folks will continue to perform feats of logical prestidigitation rivalling that of Oolon Colluphid

Posted by Rich at February 20, 2002 3:30 PM