Part 4 What about cloning?

I am continuing to post answers to common objectives by Scott Klusendorf (see part 3).

“There’s no good moral argument for making research cloning illegal.” Reply: The key moral issue in cloning is not how a human being comes into existence, but how we treat that human being once life begins. In order to perfect the cloning process, millions of living human embryos must be destroyed. This is immoral. It treats the distinct human being as nothing more than a disposable instrument used to benefit others. Since human beings are intrinsically valuable in virtue of the kind of thing they are, rather than some benefit they confer on others, cloning research is morally problematic and should be banned. The U.S. House of Representatives passed a total ban on human cloning in 2001, but the U.S. Senate, led by Democrats, refused to affirm the House ban. Now that the Senate is back in Republican control, the prospects of passing a total ban are better (though by no means guaranteed) than the 2001 legislative session. Ironically, even those opposed to a total ban on cloning claim to reject the practice. However, this again is misleading. What they oppose is the birth of a cloned human, not its creation for research purposes. In other words, they support what is reasonably referred to as “clone and kill” legislation. Under this legislation, human embryos will be created then destroyed for the express purpose of extracting their stem cells to treat people suffering from degenerative diseases. [1] Supporters of the law insist it contains a strict prohibition against cloning human beings. That “strict” prohibition is simply that all cloned embryos must be killed before they have a chance to develop into more mature human beings. In other words, human lives may be created using cloning technology if and only if the creators agree, under threat of law, to destroy the embryonic child. That is the so-called ethical safeguard that allegedly prevents the cloning of human beings.

“The federal government should not get involved in abortion.” Reply: It already has, with crashing bells and cymbals.[2] One branch of the federal government, the courts, has totally co-opted the issue from the legislative and executive branches, leaving the people no say in the matter. In other words, nine men decided national policy for the rest of us.

[1] See for example Senate bill S. 2439, sponsored by Democrats Dianne Feinstein, Ted Kennedy, and Tom Harkin, along with Republicans Arlen Specter and Orin Hatch.

[2] Hadley Arkes, Hearing on H.R. 4292, the “Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2000,” Committee on the Judiciary July 20, 2000.