First topic for today, Cloning.
It seems that the consensus so far is that cloning for harvest of embryonic stem cells, or for research is OK, but cloning for production of a human is not OK.
Anybody have a clear explanation of what the difference is?
Glenn Reynolds offers another blast against the banning of cloning for experimentation, yet he never has explained why experimentation and research is OK, but production of humans is not.
Well, let's take a closer look. One argument is that the embryo is not a human being until it is born. Supporters of this argument use current abortion rulings to back them. If we fully extend this argument though, we quickly reach an area that most proponents of cloning would not accept. Right now, it is acceptable to abort a third trimester fetus for the health of the mother. 'Health of the mother' is a designation which has been left completely up to the doctor in charge to determine. So, we have a situation where a cloned fetus could gestate for the full nine months, then be legally aborted, extracted, and used for research. In fact, with just a tiny stretch, we could extract the clone in the ninth month, destroy the brain prior to extraction, taking care not to damage the autonomic nervous system, and have the perfect tissue bank for organ harvests, autologous blood transfusions, skin grafts, etc. If you balk at this possibility, then the abortion standards are not the right way to go, as the foregoing is completely within the established precedents.
Another argument is intent. These people argue that since the intent to create a human is not there, the resulting embryo is not human. This is a favorite position of right to life politicians who wish to justify supporting the more popular embryonic stem cell research. What should be obvious is that this is a completely specious argument. How many pregnancies are unintentional? Are the resulting babies less human as a result?
A third argument deals with development of the embryo. This argument says that the embryo is not a person with rights until a certain stage of development. The problem is that nobody is willing to specify a point of development at which the fetus becomes a person. Roe v. Wade specified the point of viability as the point at which the right of the state to protect life balanced the right of the woman to privacy, and set that point at the end of the second trimester. Susequent decisions eliminated viability as a consideration. So when does a fetus, cloned or not become a person? The two traditional ethical tests for personhood, self sufficiency and autonomy, are not appropriate tests in this instance. Some ethicists say personhood, or identity, or self awareness does not exist until the brain has developed enough to allow it. Not only is this a circular argument, cognitive researches and pre natal development specialists have not been able to pin this moment down. Working strictly from what we do know, it would seem that the first moment when all the necessary components for human development are present is the only definitive moment for biologically assigning identity. Of course, that moment is conception, which rules out cloning, embryonic research and so on. Apparently development is not a good place to hang our hat either.
Most of the rest of the arguments in favor of cloning for research boil down to the ends justifying the means. "We shouldn't care about a lump of undifferentiated tissue at the expense of those now living," is their battle cry. Of course, once you dehumanize your victim, you can do anything with them, and if our history has proven anything, it has proven that humans are great at dehumanizing their victims.
So, call me a luddite, or an ignorant bible thumper, or what have you. It seems fairly clear to me that cloning, whatever the purpose, involves some very serious ethical issues, and that characterizing the debate over these issues as "an ethical blatherfest" is a shoddy attempt to cover up some sloppy thinking.
Posted by Rich at January 31, 2002 11:57 AM