Scribd
Upload
14 views4 pages

The Immorality of Human Cloning

1) The document argues that human cloning is immoral as it violates human dignity and does not respect the human embryo as a person from the moment of conception. 2) It asserts that any genetic manipulation of embryos for non-therapeutic reasons, such as selecting for sex or traits, is wrong. Producing human beings through cloning outside of marriage is also considered immoral. 3) The document expresses concerns that cloning could lead to the commodification and exploitation of human beings for things like organ harvesting or developing superior races, and that cloned humans may lack souls.

Uploaded by

Vtg
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
14 views4 pages

The Immorality of Human Cloning

1) The document argues that human cloning is immoral as it violates human dignity and does not respect the human embryo as a person from the moment of conception. 2) It asserts that any genetic manipulation of embryos for non-therapeutic reasons, such as selecting for sex or traits, is wrong. Producing human beings through cloning outside of marriage is also considered immoral. 3) The document expresses concerns that cloning could lead to the commodification and exploitation of human beings for things like organ harvesting or developing superior races, and that cloned humans may lack souls.

Uploaded by

Vtg
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

Why Human Cloning Is Immoral

[Link]

by Fr. William Saunders

Dolly the ewe certainly did make international headlines. Dr. Ian Wilmut, the
Scottish scientist responsible for this research and technique of craning, took
an ovum from an ewe, sucked out the nucleus with its unique DNA, and then
fused the ovum with a cell (with its own DNA) from the donor. This technique
produced an ewe named Dolly, which was genetically identical to the original
donor. The question then arises, "If this can be done with animals, why not
human beings?"

While we may have the technology "to do" something, we do not necessarily
have the moral mandate "to do" that something. Therefore, we must hold to
some basic truth principles. (The most thorough teaching concerning this
subject is the "Instruction on Respect for Human Life in Its Origin and on the
Dignity of Procreation" [Donum Vitae], issued by the Sacred Congregation for
the Doctrine of the Faith in 1987 with the approval of Pope John Paul II.)

We must always remember with what, or rather with whom, we are dealing
when we speak of reproduction—a child. The Catholic Church has continually
asserted that a human being must be respected as a person from the moment
of conception, the very first instance of existence. Each person is made in the
image and likeness of God and thereby has an inherent dignity beyond the
rest of creation. The "Declaration on Procured Abortion," stated, "From the
time that the ovum is fertilized, a new life is begun which is neither that of the
father nor of the mother, it is rather the life of a new human being with his own
growth. It would never be made human if it were not human already. To this
perpetual evidence . . . modern genetic science brings valuable confirmation.
It has demonstrated that, from the first instant, the program is fixed as to what
this living being will be: a man, this individual-man with his characteristic
aspects already well determined. Right from fertilization is begun the
adventure of human life, and each of its great capacities requires time . . . to
find its place and to be in a position to act" (No. 12-13). Moreover, we believe
that almighty God creates and infuses an immortal soul, which truly gives
each of us that identity of one made in His image and likeness.
Therefore, we must respect the unborn child as a person whose life is sacred
and whose rights must be protected. A child has the inviolable right to life from
the moment of conception until natural death. A child has the right to be
respected as a person from the moment of conception. A child has the right to
be "the fruit" of the conjugal love of his parents, who are united in marriage:

"The transmission of human life is entrusted by nature to a


personal and conscious act and as such is subject to the all-holy
laws of God: immutable and inviolable laws which must be
recognized and observed" Pope John XXIII, "Mater et
Magistra"). Finally, a child has the right to be born. Each of us
has the responsibility of guarding these rights for the
defenseless child. Never must we slip into thinking that anyone
has the right to a child at any cost, or that a child is like a piece
of property to be had ("Donum Vitae," II, 8).

Based upon these rights of the child, the Church provides the following moral
teaching which specifically addresses the issue of cloning and actions related
to its technique:

—Procedures designed to influence the genetic inheritance of a


child, which are not therapeutic, are morally wrong. To try to
correct a genetic disorder, such as cystic fibrosis, is morally
permissible, whereas to manipulate the genetic structure to
produce human beings selected by sex or some other quality is
wrong. Attempts to produce a "breed" of humans through
cloning, twin fission, or parthenogenesis outside the context of
marriage or parenthood is immoral. These manipulations violate
the personal dignity of the human being and attack his integrity
and identity. (Donum Vitae, I, 6.)

—Any production of human beings for the sake of


experimentation, research, or the harvesting of organs is morally
wrong. Such actions reduce a human being to simply disposable
biological material. (Cf. Donum Vitae, I, 5.)

—Any medical research or observation which jeopardizes the


health or life of the unborn child is morally wrong. (Cf. Donum
Vitae, I, 5.)
The danger with cloning is that we easily lose sight of the dignity of the
person, and the sanctity of the act of conjugal love in marriage. We slip into a
selfish vision of creating our own kingdom, instead of striving to live in God's
kingdom. When Dolly made the headlines. the Wall Street Journal printed an
article entitled, "Who Will Cash in on Breakthrough in Cloning?" The answer
was "the company who holds the technique." From a purely monetary point,
the whole market of organ harvesting becomes a reality.

For example, think of a past situation, forerunner to this issue: In 1991, Anissa
Ayala, a 19-yearold suffering from leukemia, received a bone marrow
transplant from her 13-month-old sister, Marissa, who was purposefully
conceived to be a bone marrow donor. While still in the womb, physicians
analyzed Marissa's tissue and determined that she would be an acceptable
donor for her older sister. The moral question underlying this act included,
"What if her tissue had not been compatible with that of her sister? Would she
have been aborted, and would the parents then try to conceive another
compatible donor?" Dr. Robert Levine at Yale Universtiy School of Medicine
commented, "It seems to me that when a primary motive for conceiving a child
is to produce tissue or an organ, we are getting very close to seeing this new
being as a means to another end." With cloning, the morality becomes more
blurred because we could produce another person like ourselves, harvest the
organ (even while in the womb or partially born, as is legal in our country),
end then destroy the remainder. Moreover, organ harvesting is just one
avenue for cloning to proceed. What about developing a master race or even
a master army?

Another faith dilemma concerns the soul. Even if we can clone a human
being, we cannot "clone" the soul. While two people may be genetically
identical, their souls make them unique, even totally different in personality.
We have to ask also, "If reproduction is taken out of the ordinary means as
God has designed, does He have to infuse a soul?" Maybe cloning would only
produce humanoids or androids—soulless replicas of human beings that
could be used as slaves. The answer to these questions themselves could be
like opening Pandora's box.

I truly fear what will become of this technology. "Hello, Dolly" could mean
"Goodbye, Humanity." The situation is reminiscent of the Garden of Eden
story The technology is there, but do we dare use it and risk paradise?
Perhaps Huxley's Brave New World or Wells' Island of Dr. Moreau are not so
much pieces of fiction but prophecy.

Fr. Saunders is dean of the Notre Dame Graduate School of Christendom


College and pastor of Queen of Apostles Parish, both in Alexandria.

This item 180 digitally provided courtesy of [Link]

Common questions

Powered by AI

Fr. Saunders differentiates between therapeutic and non-therapeutic genetic influences by stating that procedures designed to correct genetic disorders, such as cystic fibrosis, are morally permissible because they aim to heal. In contrast, manipulating the genetic structure to select qualities or sex, or to produce humans for specific purposes, is considered morally wrong, as these actions violate the dignity and identity of the individual by treating them as objects rather than persons .

Fr. William Saunders argues against human cloning on several ethical grounds. First, he emphasizes the inherent dignity of human beings, who are made in the image of God, and how cloning violates this dignity by treating human beings as products rather than persons. He asserts the right of every child to be the fruit of conjugal love within marriage, which cloning disregards by creating life outside natural reproduction. Additionally, he raises concerns about the moral permissibility of manipulating genetic heritage for non-therapeutic purposes and the potential reduction of humans to mere biological materials for experimental or commercial use, violating personal dignity and identity .

From a Catholic perspective as conveyed by Fr. Saunders, human cloning could lead to severe societal consequences, such as undermining the dignity of human beings by commodifying them, eroding the sanctity of family and parenthood, and promoting a utilitarian view of human life where people are valued based on their utility. The potential for creating humans for specific qualities or purposes might result in eugenics or exploitation. Moreover, the dehumanization of people could occur, leading to ethical and moral decay in society .

Fr. Saunders considers the soul crucial in the ethical debate on cloning because, according to Catholic teaching, each soul is unique and infused by God, making every person individually distinct despite genetic similarities. Cloning raises the question of whether a human produced artificially would have a soul, and if God's design, which includes the soul, can be applied to such beings. This opens ethical concerns about creating genetically identical humans without considering their spiritual identity and worth, ultimately questioning whether cloning could lead to soulless human replicas used as mere resources .

The Catholic Church views the transmission of human life as a sacred act that must occur within the context of conjugal love and marriage, governed by divine and natural laws. Cloning contrasts with this view as it involves artificially producing life outside this context, reducing the procreative act to a technological procedure and undermining the sacredness and dignity inherent in natural parental relationships. Cloning bypasses the personal, conscious act of marital union that the Church holds as essential for creating life .

The "Instruction on Respect for Human Life in Its Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation," issued by the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, plays a crucial role in the discussion of cloning as it provides fundamental moral teachings and principles. It underlines the importance of respecting human dignity and the sacredness of life from conception, emphasizing that the creation of life must adhere to divine laws and natural order. This document serves as a moral guideline against the artificial manipulation and reproduction of life outside marriage, as in cloning .

The case of Anissa and Marissa Ayala is used to highlight ethical dilemmas regarding genetic selection, as Marissa was conceived primarily as a bone marrow donor for her sick sister. This case raises questions about the morality of creating life with specific intentions and the potential for treating human beings as means to an end. If Marissa's tissue had not matched, ethical concerns about the potential for selective abortion or repeated conceptions to achieve a medical goal are underscored, showcasing the tensions between scientific capability and moral responsibility .

The cloning of Dolly the sheep has significantly impacted ethical discussions on human cloning by demonstrating the technological feasibility of cloning and sparking debates on its moral implications. While it shows that cloning can produce genetically identical animals, the ethical concerns become profound when extended to humans. Issues of personal dignity, the right to life, genetic identity, and the potential for exploitation or commodification of humans parallel those concerns raised for Dolly but are intensified by the moral and spiritual considerations associated with human life .

The document draws parallels with "Brave New World" and "Island of Dr. Moreau" to underscore its concerns about the dehumanizing aspects of cloning. In "Brave New World," humans are mass-produced and conditioned for specific societal roles, reflecting fears of reducing individuals to mere outputs of technological processes. Similarly, "Island of Dr. Moreau" explores ethical implications of creating hybrid beings through scientific manipulation. These literary references symbolize the potential dystopian future where technological advances in cloning could undermine humanity's moral and ethical foundations, reminiscent of cautionary tales warning against playing God .

The economic aspect of cloning presents ethical challenges by incentivizing the treatment of humans as commodities. Financial interests could drive cloning for organ harvesting, genetic selection, or other commercial applications, potentially leading to exploitation and dehumanization. Such motivations could prioritize profit over ethical considerations, reducing the sanctity of human life to market value and fostering a dangerous precedent where life is created or modified based on monetary gain rather than moral or dignified reasons .

You might also like