If God, in his infinite wisdom has given us the means to reproduce, many people would argue that society itself, should have little right to determine the method in which this process is facilitated or indeed enacted. A visiting philosopher reviewing some of the ethical problems relating to these particular methods could not be faulted for saying that many appear to exist in the clarity, accuracy, and indeed consistency of the use of religious and scientific terms, specifically relating to this issue. These terms themselves have tended towards a level of inconsistency mainly because it is now widely morally accepted that most reproduction today is usually performed with the assistance of medicine. There is little doubt with the growing number of new reproductive techniques including IVF, ICSI, AID, AIH, GIFT, and ZIFT that this medical assistance is occurring earlier and is also becoming more invasive than ever before. During most of these procedures, the sperm and egg are combined in the laboratory and surgically implanted in the womb. Consequently, the traditional route of reproduction meaning sexual intercourse between husband and wife resulting in fertilisation through their gametes is less acceptably defined.
It is less than three decades ago, that ethical concerns similar to those surrounding reproductive cloning were raised over the moral and social implications resulting from the procedure of IVF or media "test-tube babies." We must now recognise that to date, nearly one hundred thousand babies have been born using these techniques throughout the world and the moral issues surrounding the concerns have largely all but disappeared. If we recognise that IVF is now almost universally ethically (rather than theologically) acceptable, then human cloning must have a strong argument for similar acceptance in the future, because effectively the only technical difference between the two resultant embryos is that DNA from an adult cell would replace the DNA of sperm and egg by this technique. God in his infinite wisdom has also decreed that clones or genotypes of exact genetic complement already exist in nature. About one in every 1,000 births results in a pair of babies with the same DNA, which are born into the world as identical twins.
There is little doubt we easily accept what they have in common as novel and even a thing of beauty, but we also recognise they are different people in the most fundamental sense, each with their own identities, their own thoughts, and their own rights. Essentially, a person's basic humanity is not governed by the method of reproduction used to bring them into this world, or more especially, whether another family member happens to have exactly the same DNA. If God in his wisdom decreed that human clones are a natural part of his creation, then we should not legislate against them before they are born based on their shared genetic complement with another human being. This is similar to defending our identity by denigrating that of others to the point that, at least symbolically, we refuse to recognise their full human quality.
Many theologians, especially those within the Catholic Church, have expressed concerns about "techniques of artificial procreation" being used to "produce" human beings. Their main concern is potential genetic selection according to racial criteria or other desirable characteristics and that this ethical acceptance could give rise to a resurgence of the deadly myth of eugenic racism. A 1988 Vatican theological document entitled 'Towards a More Fraternal Society' (Pontifical Commission Justice and Peace) reads, "wherever the absolute respect for life and its transmission according to the Creator's intentions disappears, it is to be feared that all moral restraint on a person's power will also disappear, including the power to fashion humanity in the derisive image of these apprentice sorcerers". This argument, although no doubt having considerable moral and ethical value, is tainted within the confines of logic. For a start, consider the medieval syntax used to describe reproductive molecular biologists or obstetricians in terms of 'these apprentice sorcerers.' It is not a large steps from similar syntax used in doctrines when theologians once refused to look down Galileo's telescope because 'the Devil was capable of making anything illusory and deceptive appear there'. Let us also consider the nebulous expression 'derisive image', and ask what exactly does this term mean?
Does 'derisive' mean 'irreverent' as in the Kylie type of image or 'cynical' as in the Ali G type of image or even 'contemptuous' as in the Saddam Hussein type of image. All are potentially genetically derisive in their own way. If people hypothetically suddenly began craving for Kylie's all singing buttock loaded type of genes, we would soon find out that even celebrity infatuation has its own constraining limits. This is because this type of irreverent celebrity image by definition has to be directly linked to rarity in order for it to be appreciated by the populous.
Again, people might presently be amused by the cynicism of Ali G, and even wish is genes to remain in circulation, but they certainly would find his image a lot less endearing when faced with a hundred or even a few thousand of them walking down our streets. Others fear that some evil dictator could raise an army of cloned warriors. However, armies are much easier to raise the old fashioned way, by drafting naive and impoverished young adults from the central heartlands to go and fight your Middle Eastern war. Let us not forget that Homer's myth of 'Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori' has worked well enough to send countless young men to their deaths through the ages, so why interfere with success, especially if one cloned warrior disputed the reason for going to battle, then you potentially could have an immediate mutiny on your hands. Concerning the fears surrounding cloned dictators; I need not remind you that 'contemptible' Saddam Hussein 's natural son, Uday, is reputed to make his father seem close to St Brigid by comparison. On the other side of the world, KIM Chong-il has brought North Korea closer to nuclear war than his dictator father KIM Il-song, ever did. In other words, theoretically we should have no more to fear from a clone of these dictators than we do from their natural-born kin.
Consequently, once the philosophical die is cast, there will be more articles like this one challenging the established moral thinking and I predict that the procedure of reproductive cloning will become socially acceptable within the next ten to twenty years. However, there is a greater legislative issue that the world will need to consider face before introducing an international ban on human reproductive cloning. Towards the end of the eighteenth century that the word "race" was used for the first time to classify human beings biologically. Mainly as a result of the discoveries of Gregor Mendel, the word 'race' presently defines a human group in terms of immutable and hereditary physical traits and 'racial prejudice', can be applied by extension to all persons who act against others because of their ethnic origin or genetic complement. Established Catholic doctrine recently states 'victims of racism, wherever they may be, must be defended and acts of discrimination among persons and peoples for racist or ideological reasons, which lead to the phenomena of exclusion, must be denounced and brought to light without hesitation' In principle, prejudice of reproductive clones may theoretically be considered another form of racism. During the twentieth century western governments mostly agreed that it is wrong to discriminate against people based on a set of genetic characteristics, known as 'race'". To bring this to another level, mandatory calls for a ban on cloning are effectively discrimination against people based on another genetic trait--the fact that somebody already has an identical DNA sequence.
In the present United Nations Convention, genocide is a crime under international law under Resolution 96 (I) 11 December 1946. The definition of genocide means any act committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group. This includes in subset (d) 'imposing any measures intended to prevent births within the group'. To bring it to another level, the most extreme form of 'racial discrimination' is 'genocide', where a group of people willingly take a conscious decision to eliminate other humans that are perceived to be different from themselves. During the Second World War, Nazi scientists experimented on Jewish females in order to find out a means to eliminate a group of people who were seen as been genetically inferior to them. In this case, technically the genocide is pre-emptive-we consider reproduced clones to be so abhorrent that we must eliminate them before they exist by banning their creation. Christian doctrine may counter this argument as the same document also states that "All men are endowed with a rational soul and are created in God's image; they have the same nature and origin and, being redeemed by Christ, they enjoy the same divine calling and destiny". This contains a second danger, because if theologians or legislators perceive clones as being less than equal to humans born by natural method, then people might feel they have an inherent right to sacrifice them for the benefit of their creators, perhaps by providing organs for transplant. At that point, unfortunately, the theologians would have created the very scenario that we they were trying to prevent.
This is, in conclusion, the very basis of the philosophical paradox and soon all free thinking men will all have to decide, whether human reproductive clones are really the same 'nature and origin' as the rest of us?
