A secular argument against cloning

Cloning is wrong, no matter the reason. Admittedly, George W. Bush is not the best with words, and his explanation as to why cloning is morally unjustifiable leaves something to be desired. However, like so often in the past, when faced with a difficult issue President Bush has made the correct policy decision on cloning, despite some faulty logic. Human cloning is the Pandora's Box of the medical community, a box which is tempting to open, but that will bring unforeseeable evils if unlatched. The moral ramifications of cloning do not stop with the creation of duplicate people or replacement organs, but instead are intertwined with the very nature of life itself. After examining the extent of the possible damage done by human cloning, it is evident that the abuse of the process could bring results so devastating that only a complete ban is appropriate.

President Bush defines his opposition to human cloning in terms of religious objections, a method often ridiculed by intellectuals. However, there are more than enough secular reasons why cloning is immoral. First off, clones are not twins, and asserting that people who object to cloning somehow object to twins is ludicrous. While Mr. Kimberly correctly points out that both biological twins and clones share genetic material, he does so in order to distort the President's statement and not to really draw any real parallels between his situation and that of a true clone. When the President stated that clones lacked "human dignity," he was obviously not attacking identical twins. What the President alluded to is that clones do not have the same type of control over their destiny as traditional people do. This is the biggest fault in "traditional" human cloning, e.g. creating an infant that is genetically identical to someone who is already alive, or in many cases deceased. A clone is unlike a normal child in that a clone would be created with a specific preconception of what it should become. Since a clone would always be created for a specific purpose, there would be crippling expectations placed on a clone that are far different than those placed on anyone else.

One of the most cherished aspects of our humanity is our individuality, the fact that no one is exactly the same as anyone else. Because we are complete individuals, each person has the opportunity to live a life quite different from anyone who has preceded him. Even twins fit this qualification, because they forge their own unique path in life together. Clones would have no such opportunity. Whether a clone is created to "replace" a dead child (in the normal case) or as a biological copy of Michael Jordan (in a more perverted case), a clone's destiny has already been decided. The cloned child will always have the expectation that he will be identical to the deceased, and a Michael Jordan clone couldn't conceivably do anything but "be like Mike." This is different than simple parental expectations on children, because it uses science to force a future upon children that they do not wish. Cloning is biological coercion, and could be misused as a new form of slavery. To unnaturally create a person in someone else's image will chain the clone to the original, as the clone's life will inevitably be measured against that of the original. Any deviation will be interpreted as failure. Cloning is the ultimate form of control, as every single piece of genetic code has been predetermined for a purpose that can be no other than dictating a clone's life. Parents who want to clone a dead child are in the ultimate form of denial, as they wish to cheat death by bringing the same child back from beyond the grave. Infertile couples who cannot be helped by any current forms of artificial insemination must not resort to cloning, as a clone cannot be considered a true child but instead a copy of one's self.

Another proposed "benefit" of human cloning is that we would suddenly be able to solve the shortage of transplantable organs by simply cloning new ones. While helping the sick is a noble cause, the actual mechanics of growing organs are not. Currently, creating organs requires destroying a fetus, and this is blatantly against President Bush's pro-life stance. Even from a pro-choice position, it seems strange that to save one innocent life we would be so eager to destroy another.

The biggest danger of human cloning does not arise from cloning itself, but instead comes from the prospect of widespread gene selection. Since cloning selects all a person's genes, once we morally justify cloning it is very easy to justify picking specific traits in children. Selecting specific positive traits for human children has a long and evil history, one which has roots in eugenics, Nazism, and even American slavery. Once people are allowed to select the characteristics of their child, there will be instant competition as to who can build the "perfect" offspring. The complete argument against this is beyond the scope of this article, but it important to illustrate exactly what type of slippery slope that cloning is perched upon. In its most basic incarnation, human cloning creates not an individual but a copy, someone who lacks self-determination regarding their course in life. Creating organs is a lofty goal, but in doing so scientists must simultaneously destroy embryos, exchanging one life for another. In almost all forms, cloning is science gone wrong, and should be looked upon with the utmost caution. Cloning brings humans back to the reproductive level of single celled organisms, forsaking sex for science. Let us hope we do not forsake part of our humanity in the process. David Sillers is from Potomac, Md. He can be reached at dsillers@princeton.edu.