Cloning
To clone is
to imprint a human egg with genetic material taken entirely from a single
person, producing a genetic replica of that person. This is different from
normal reproduction, in which genetic material from two persons, mother and
father, is combined in a third, their child.
A clone, though a genetic replica, is not an exact
duplicate of his parent, as in the Michael Keaton movie “Multiplicity.” Although the genetic material of the two persons is identical, the clone will
be much younger, and will inevitably be raised in a different environment from
the parent. Identical twins, who also share a common genetic makeup, differ
from one another significantly, and no doubt a cloned child would be even more
different from his parent. Identical twins often have their similarities
reinforced by being raised in the same household, receiving the same education,
being subject to similar influences. A cloned child would not have anywhere
near that level of environmental sameness with his parent.
It seems
almost inevitable that in the near future someone will succeed in cloning a
human being. Indeed, that may already have been achieved. The technique is
available, having succeeded with Dolly the sheep and many other animals. So the
ethical treatises are flowing thick and fast. This topic is a good one on which
to practice our skills of ethical reflection, because there is a great need to
distinguish between serious reasoning and hysterical ranting.
There are
some good reasons for Christians to oppose the cloning of humans at this time:
1.
Research
into the cloning of humans would require destruction of many fertilized eggs
and embryos. Given the pro-life premise that the fertilized egg is a human
person, with the right to life granted in the sixth commandment, such research
involves murder, and Christians should not condone it.
2.
As
of now, the process of cloning as performed on animals produces a high risk in
the clones of birth defects and other serious health problems. It is wrong to
conceive a human being in such a way as to virtually ensure such problems.
3.
It
is hard to imagine a good motive for creating a clone of oneself, rather than
reproducing normally or using other artificial means of conception (artificial
insemination, in vitro fertilization, surrogate motherhood, etc.) Some may
secretly wish hereby to achieve some kind of immortality, but of course that is
foolish and wrong. Others may want to see someone live after them who has
exactly the same personality, talents and virtues. But talents and virtues may
have as much to do with environment, training, etc. as genetics. The same
questions arise about someone’s attempt to make a perfect genetic copy of
somebody else, say, a spouse, or someone they admire, from genetic material
that has been frozen or otherwise preserved.
I can, however, imagine one good motive: A married couple
can’t have biological children because one spouse is incurably infertile. But
they wish to have a child who carries on the genetic inheritance of one of them, without bringing a third
party (artificial insemination by donor, surrogate motherhood) into the
picture. Certainly the desire to continue one’s genetic inheritance is not a
bad thing, and the desire to keep third parties out of a couple’s reproductive
life (though a difficult question ethically) is certainly a godly desire.
So the
question does arise: If research on cloning reaches a point of success, where
clonal reproduction is no more risky than natural reproduction, should Christians
approve of it (given the godly motivation described above)?
Here the
hysteria mounts: Isn’t such cloning playing God? Consider some arguments
against cloning even in the best-case scenario noted above:
1.
“God
has restricted the right to govern human reproduction.” Well, of course God
governs everything. But what has he said that forbids cloning?
2.
“Cloning
is an unnatural process.” Yes, in a way, but so is birth control. So is healing
by antibiotics. So is surgery. But God does not call us to leave nature as it
is, but to take dominion of nature for his glory (Gen. 1:28ff). See course
discussions on “natural law” ethics. It is relevant, perhaps, also to mention
that something like cloning does occur in nature: when one fertilized egg
divides into two, creating genetically identical twins.
3.
“Cloning
is creating, while natural
reproduction is begetting. Creating
is God’s prerogative; begetting is ours.” To my knowledge, Scripture does not
make any moral distinctions along these lines. Certainly we have creative
powers that are part of the divine image in which we are made. We are not, of
course, creators in the sense of making the first genetic material. God did
that in Gen. 2:7. But it is not clear from Scripture that we should abstain
from using the creative powers we do have, that he has given us. Note the
parallel between Gen. 1:27, 5:2, and 5:3.
4.
“A
cloned child is given an identity not freely chosen by him” (see my review of
Bouma, et al., Christian Faith, Health,
and Medical Practice, that makes this argument). But none of us freely
chooses his or her identity. We all must take the genetic cards we are dealt.
The argument may seek to make the point that the cloned child of a pianist
might be forced to become a pianist against his will. But that is by no means a
necessary consequence of cloning, and parents of normally conceived children
often impose similar pressures.
5.
“Even
when carried out with the best motives, one who carries out a cloning process
is using a technique that has been perfected at the loss of much human life,
the destruction of human embryos.” This argument gives one pause, but I don’t
think it is determinative. Certainly the history of weaponry has advanced at
the cost of much unjust destruction of human life. But is it therefore wrong
for us to use that technology to pursue just
war, or to hunt deer? We cannot evaluate an action merely on the basis of the
history of similar actions. To do so is to engage in genetic fallacy. Something
that was once done with a sinful purpose and result may be done again with a
godly purpose and result.
So I am not convinced that there is any principle of Scripture that rules out cloning in all cases. Cloning, in the best case, is “playing God” only in the sense that we should always play God: imaging his creativity by taking dominion of natural processes for his glory.