| There are two types of cloning. One involves | | | | right not to be killed - there is no right to have one's |
| harvesting stem cells from embryos ("therapeutic | | | | own life saved. Thus, while there is an obligation not to |
| cloning"). These are the biological equivalent of a | | | | kill - there is no obligation to save a life.IIC. Killing the |
| template. They can develop into any kind of mature | | | | InnocentOften the continued existence of an innocent |
| functional cell and thus help cure many degenerative | | | | person (IP) threatens to take the life of a victim (V). By |
| and auto-immune diseases.The other kind of cloning is | | | | "innocent" we mean "not guilty" - not responsible for |
| much derided in popular culture - and elsewhere - as | | | | killing V, not intending to kill V, and not knowing that V |
| the harbinger of a Brave, New World. A nucleus from | | | | will be killed due to IP's actions or continued existence.It |
| any cell of a donor is embedded in an egg whose own | | | | is simple to decide to kill IP to save V if IP is going to |
| nucleus has been removed. The egg is then implanted | | | | die anyway shortly, and the remaining life of V, if |
| in a woman's womb and a cloned baby is born nine | | | | saved, will be much longer than the remaining life of IP, |
| months later. Biologically, the cloned infant is a replica of | | | | if not killed. All other variants require a calculus of |
| the donor.Cloning is often confused with other | | | | hierarchically weighted rights. (See "Abortion and the |
| advances in bio-medicine and bio-engineering - such as | | | | Sanctity of Human Life" by Baruch A. Brody).One form |
| genetic selection. It cannot - in itself - be used to | | | | of calculus is the utilitarian theory. It calls for the |
| produce "perfect humans" or select sex or other traits. | | | | maximization of utility (life, happiness, pleasure). In other |
| Hence, some of the arguments against cloning are | | | | words, the life, happiness, or pleasure of the many |
| either specious or fuelled by ignorance.It is true, though, | | | | outweigh the life, happiness, or pleasure of the few. It is |
| that cloning, used in conjunction with other | | | | morally permissible to kill IP if the lives of two or more |
| bio-technologies, raises serious bio-ethical questions. | | | | people will be saved as a result and there is no other |
| Scare scenarios of humans cultivated in sinister labs | | | | way to save their lives. Despite strong philosophical |
| as sources of spare body parts, "designer babies", | | | | objections to some of the premises of utilitarian theory |
| "master races", or "genetic sex slaves" - formerly the | | | | - I agree with its practical prescriptions.In this context - |
| preserve of B sci-fi movies - have invaded | | | | the dilemma of killing the innocent - one can also call |
| mainstream discourse.Still, cloning touches upon | | | | upon the right to self defence. Does V have a right to |
| Mankind's most basic fears and hopes. It invokes the | | | | kill IP regardless of any moral calculus of rights? |
| most intractable ethical and moral dilemmas. As an | | | | Probably not. One is rarely justified in taking another's |
| inevitable result, the debate is often more passionate | | | | life to save one's own. But such behaviour cannot be |
| than informed.I. Right to Life ArgumentsAccording to | | | | condemned. Here we have the flip side of the |
| cloning's detractors, the nucleus removed from the egg | | | | confusion - understandable and perhaps inevitable |
| could otherwise have developed into a human being. | | | | behaviour (self defence) is mistaken for a MORAL |
| Thus, removing the nucleus amounts to murder.It is a | | | | RIGHT. That most V's would kill IP and that we would |
| fundamental principle of most moral theories that all | | | | all sympathize with V and understand its behaviour |
| human beings have a right to life. The existence of a | | | | does not mean that V had a RIGHT to kill IP. V may |
| right implies obligations or duties of third parties | | | | have had a right to kill IP - but this right is not automatic, |
| towards the right-holder. One has a right AGAINST | | | | nor is it all-encompassing.But is the Egg - Alive?This |
| other people. The fact that one possesses a certain | | | | question is NOT equivalent to the ancient quandary of |
| right - prescribes to others certain obligatory | | | | "when does life begin". Life crystallizes, at the earliest, |
| behaviours and proscribes certain acts or omissions. | | | | when an egg and a sperm unite (i.e., at the moment of |
| This Janus-like nature of rights and duties as two sides | | | | fertilization). Life is not a potential - it is a process |
| of the same ethical coin - creates great confusion. | | | | triggered by an event. An unfertilized egg is neither a |
| People often and easily confuse rights and their | | | | process - nor an event. It does not even possess the |
| attendant duties or obligations with the morally decent, | | | | potential to become alive unless and until it merges |
| or even with the morally permissible. What one MUST | | | | with a sperm. Should such merger not occur - it will |
| do as a result of another's right - should never be | | | | never develop life.The potential to become X is not the |
| confused with one SHOULD or OUGHT to do morally | | | | ontological equivalent of actually being X, nor does it |
| (in the absence of a right).The right to life has eight | | | | spawn moral and ethical rights and obligations |
| distinct strains:IA. The right to be brought to lifeIB. The | | | | pertaining to X. The transition from potential to being is |
| right to be bornIC. The right to have one's life | | | | not trivial, nor is it automatic, or inevitable, or |
| maintainedID. The right not to be killedIE. The right to | | | | independent of context. Atoms of various elements |
| have one's life savedIF. The right to save one's life | | | | have the potential to become an egg (or, for that |
| (erroneously limited to the right to self-defence)IG. The | | | | matter, a human being) - yet no one would claim that |
| right to terminate one's lifeIH. The right to have one's | | | | they ARE an egg (or a human being), or that they |
| life terminatedIA. The Right to be Brought to LifeOnly | | | | should be treated as one (i.e., with the same rights and |
| living people have rights. There is a debate whether an | | | | obligations).Moreover, it is the donor nucleus embedded |
| egg is a living person - but there can be no doubt that | | | | in the egg that endows it with life - the life of the |
| it exists. Its rights - whatever they are - derive from | | | | cloned baby. Yet, the nucleus is usually extracted from |
| the fact that it exists and that it has the potential to | | | | a muscle or the skin. Should we treat a muscle or a |
| develop life. The right to be brought to life (the right to | | | | skin cell with the same reverence the critics of cloning |
| become or to be) pertains to a yet non-alive entity | | | | wish to accord an unfertilized egg?Is This the Main |
| and, therefore, is null and void. Had this right existed, it | | | | Concern?The main concern is that cloning - even the |
| would have implied an obligation or duty to give life to | | | | therapeutic kind - will produce piles of embryos. Many |
| the unborn and the not yet conceived. No such duty or | | | | of them - close to 95% with current biotechnology - |
| obligation exist.IB. The Right to be BornThe right to be | | | | will die. Others can be surreptitiously and illegally |
| born crystallizes at the moment of voluntary and | | | | implanted in the wombs of "surrogate mothers".It is |
| intentional fertilization. If a scientist knowingly and | | | | patently immoral, goes the precautionary argument, to |
| intentionally causes in vitro fertilization for the explicit | | | | kill so many embryos. Cloning is such a novel technique |
| and express purpose of creating an embryo - then the | | | | that its success rate is still unacceptably low. There |
| resulting fertilized egg has a right to mature and be | | | | are alternative ways to harvest stem cells - less |
| born. Furthermore, the born child has all the rights a | | | | costly in terms of human life. If we accept that life |
| child has against his parents: food, shelter, emotional | | | | begins at the moment of fertilization, this argument is |
| nourishment, education, and so on.It is debatable | | | | valid. But it also implies that - once cloning becomes |
| whether such rights of the fetus and, later, of the child, | | | | safer and scientists more adept - cloning itself should |
| exist if there was no positive act of fertilization - but, | | | | be permitted.This is anathema to those who fear a |
| on the contrary, an act which prevents possible | | | | slippery slope. They abhor the very notion of |
| fertilization, such as the removal of the nucleus (see IC | | | | "unnatural" conception. To them, cloning is a narcissistic |
| below).IC. The Right to Have One's Life | | | | act and an ignorant and dangerous interference in |
| MaintainedDoes one have the right to maintain one's | | | | nature's sagacious ways. They would ban procreative |
| life and prolong them at other people's expense? Does | | | | cloning, regardless of how safe it is. Therapeutic |
| one have the right to use other people's bodies, their | | | | cloning - with its mounds of discarded fetuses - will |
| property, their time, their resources and to deprive | | | | allow rogue scientists to cross the boundary between |
| them of pleasure, comfort, material possessions, | | | | permissible (curative cloning) and illegal (baby |
| income, or any other thing?The answer is yes and | | | | cloning).Why Should Baby Cloning be Illegal?Cloning's |
| no.No one has a right to sustain his or her life, maintain, | | | | opponents object to procreative cloning because it can |
| or prolong them at another INDIVIDUAL's expense (no | | | | be abused to design babies, skew natural selection, |
| matter how minimal and insignificant the sacrifice | | | | unbalance nature, produce masters and slaves and so |
| required is). Still, if a contract has been signed - implicitly | | | | on. The "argument from abuse" has been raised with |
| or explicitly - between the parties, then such a right | | | | every scientific advance - from in vitro fertilization to |
| may crystallize in the contract and create | | | | space travel.Every technology can be potentially |
| corresponding duties and obligations, moral, as well as | | | | abused. Television can be either a wonderful |
| legal.Example:No fetus has a right to sustain its life, | | | | educational tool - or an addictive and mind numbing |
| maintain, or prolong them at his mother's expense (no | | | | pastime. Nuclear fission is a process that yields both |
| matter how minimal and insignificant the sacrifice | | | | nuclear weapons and atomic energy. To claim, as |
| required of her is). Still, if she signed a contract with the | | | | many do, that cloning touches upon the "heart" of our |
| fetus - by knowingly and willingly and intentionally | | | | existence, the "kernel" of our being, the very "essence" |
| conceiving it - such a right has crystallized and has | | | | of our nature - and thus threatens life itself - would be |
| created corresponding duties and obligations of the | | | | incorrect.There is no "privileged" form of technological |
| mother towards her fetus.On the other hand, | | | | abuse and no hierarchy of potentially abusive |
| everyone has a right to sustain his or her life, maintain, | | | | technologies. Nuclear fission tackles natural processes |
| or prolong them at SOCIETY's expense (no matter | | | | as fundamental as life. Nuclear weapons threaten life |
| how major and significant the resources required are). | | | | no less than cloning. The potential for abuse is not a |
| Still, if a contract has been signed - implicitly or explicitly | | | | sufficient reason to arrest scientific research and |
| - between the parties, then the abrogation of such a | | | | progress - though it is a necessary condition.Some |
| right may crystallize in the contract and create | | | | fear that cloning will further the government's |
| corresponding duties and obligations, moral, as well as | | | | enmeshment in the healthcare system and in scientific |
| legal.Example:Everyone has a right to sustain his or her | | | | research. Power corrupts and it is not inconceivable |
| life, maintain, or prolong them at society's expense. | | | | that governments will ultimately abuse and misuse |
| Public hospitals, state pension schemes, and police | | | | cloning and other biotechnologies. Nazi Germany had a |
| forces may be required to fulfill society's obligations - | | | | state-sponsored and state-mandated eugenics |
| but fulfill them it must, no matter how major and | | | | program in the 1930's.Yet, this is another variant of the |
| significant the resources are. Still, if a person | | | | argument from abuse. That a technology can be |
| volunteered to join the army and a contract has been | | | | abused by governments does not imply that it should |
| signed between the parties, then this right has been | | | | be avoided or remain undeveloped. This is because all |
| thus abrogated and the individual assumed certain | | | | technologies - without a single exception - can and are |
| duties and obligations, including the duty or obligation to | | | | abused routinely - by governments and others. This is |
| give up his or her life to society.ID. The Right not to be | | | | human nature.Fukuyama raised the possibility of a |
| KilledEvery person has the right not to be killed unjustly. | | | | multi-tiered humanity in which "natural" and "genetically |
| What constitutes "just killing" is a matter for an ethical | | | | modified" people enjoy different rights and privileges. |
| calculus in the framework of a social contract.But does | | | | But why is this inevitable? Surely this can easily by |
| A's right not to be killed include the right against third | | | | tackled by proper, prophylactic, legislation?All humans, |
| parties that they refrain from enforcing the rights of | | | | regardless of their pre-natal history, should be treated |
| other people against A? Does A's right not to be killed | | | | equally. Are children currently conceived in vitro treated |
| preclude the righting of wrongs committed by A | | | | any differently to children conceived in utero? They |
| against others - even if the righting of such wrongs | | | | are not. There is no reason that cloned or |
| means the killing of A?Not so. There is a moral | | | | genetically-modified children should belong to distinct |
| obligation to right wrongs (to restore the rights of other | | | | legal classes.Unbalancing NatureIt is very |
| people). If A maintains or prolongs his life ONLY by | | | | anthropocentric to argue that the proliferation of |
| violating the rights of others and these other people | | | | genetically enhanced or genetically selected children will |
| object to it - then A must be killed if that is the only | | | | somehow unbalance nature and destabilize the |
| way to right the wrong and re-assert their rights.This is | | | | precarious equilibrium it maintains. After all, humans |
| doubly true if A's existence is, at best, debatable. An | | | | have been modifying, enhancing, and eliminating |
| egg does not a human being make. Removal of the | | | | hundreds of thousands of species for well over 10,000 |
| nucleus is an important step in life-saving research. An | | | | years now. Genetic modification and bio-engineering |
| unfertilized egg has no rights at all.IE. The Right to Have | | | | are as natural as agriculture. Human beings are a part |
| One's Life SavedThere is no such right as there is no | | | | of nature and its manifestation. By definition, everything |
| corresponding moral obligation or duty to save a life. | | | | they do is natural.Why would the genetic alteration or |
| This "right" is a demonstration of the aforementioned | | | | enhancement of one more species - homo sapiens - |
| muddle between the morally commendable, desirable | | | | be of any consequence? In what way are humans |
| and decent ("ought", "should") and the morally | | | | "more important" to nature, or "more crucial" to its |
| obligatory, the result of other people's rights ("must").In | | | | proper functioning? In our short history on this planet, |
| some countries, the obligation to save life is legally | | | | we have genetically modified and enhanced wheat |
| codified. But while the law of the land may create a | | | | and rice, dogs and cows, tulips and orchids, oranges |
| LEGAL right and corresponding LEGAL obligations - it | | | | and potatoes. Why would interfering with the genetic |
| does not always or necessarily create a moral or an | | | | legacy of the human species be any different?Effects |
| ethical right and corresponding moral duties and | | | | on SocietyCloning - like the Internet, the television, the |
| obligations.IF. The Right to Save One's Own LifeThe | | | | car, electricity, the telegraph, and the wheel before it - |
| right to self-defence is a subset of the more general | | | | is bound to have great social consequences. It may |
| and all-pervasive right to save one's own life. One has | | | | foster "embryo industries". It may lead to the |
| the right to take certain actions or avoid taking certain | | | | exploitation of women - either willingly ("egg |
| actions in order to save his or her own life.It is generally | | | | prostitution") or unwillingly ("womb slavery"). Charles |
| accepted that one has the right to kill a pursuer who | | | | Krauthammer, a columnist and psychiatrist, quoted in |
| knowingly and intentionally intends to take one's life. It is | | | | "The Economist", says:"(Cloning) means the |
| debatable, though, whether one has the right to kill an | | | | routinisation, the commercialisation, the commodification |
| innocent person who unknowingly and unintentionally | | | | of the human embryo."Exploiting anyone unwillingly is a |
| threatens to take one's life.IG. The Right to Terminate | | | | crime, whether it involves cloning or white slavery. But |
| One's LifeSee "The Murder of Oneself".IH. The Right to | | | | why would egg donations and surrogate motherhood |
| Have One's Life TerminatedThe right to euthanasia, to | | | | be considered problems? If we accept that life begins |
| have one's life terminated at will, is restricted by | | | | at the moment of fertilization and that a woman owns |
| numerous social, ethical, and legal rules, principles, and | | | | her body and everything within it - why should she not |
| considerations. In a nutshell - in many countries in the | | | | be allowed to sell her eggs or to host another's baby |
| West one is thought to has a right to have one's life | | | | and how would these voluntary acts be morally |
| terminated with the help of third parties if one is going | | | | repugnant? In any case, human eggs are already being |
| to die shortly anyway and if one is going to be | | | | bought and sold and the supply far exceeds the |
| tormented and humiliated by great and debilitating | | | | demand.Moreover, full-fledged humans are routinely |
| agony for the rest of one's remaining life if not helped | | | | "routinised, commercialized, and commodified" by |
| to die. Of course, for one's wish to be helped to die to | | | | governments, corporations, religions, and other social |
| be accommodated, one has to be in sound mind and | | | | institutions. Consider war, for instance - or commercial |
| to will one's death knowingly, intentionally, and | | | | advertising. How is the "routinisation, commercialization, |
| forcefully.II. Issues in the Calculus of RightsIIA. The | | | | and commodification" of embryos more reprehensible |
| Hierarchy of RightsAll human cultures have hierarchies | | | | that the "routinisation, commercialization, and |
| of rights. These hierarchies reflect cultural mores and | | | | commodification" of fully formed human beings?Curing |
| lores and there cannot, therefore, be a universal, or | | | | and Saving LifeCell therapy based on stem cells often |
| eternal hierarchy.In Western moral systems, the Right | | | | leads to tissue rejection and necessitates costly and |
| to Life supersedes all other rights (including the right to | | | | potentially dangerous immunosuppressive therapy. But |
| one's body, to comfort, to the avoidance of pain, to | | | | when the stem cells are harvested from the patient |
| property, etc.).Yet, this hierarchical arrangement does | | | | himself and cloned, these problems are averted. |
| not help us to resolve cases in which there is a clash | | | | Therapeutic cloning has vast untapped - though at this |
| of EQUAL rights (for instance, the conflicting rights to | | | | stage still remote - potential to improve the lives of |
| life of two people). One way to decide among equally | | | | hundreds of millions.As far as "designer babies" go, |
| potent claims is randomly (by flipping a coin, or casting | | | | pre-natal cloning and genetic engineering can be used |
| dice). Alternatively, we could add and subtract rights in | | | | to prevent disease or cure it, to suppress unwanted |
| a somewhat macabre arithmetic. If a mother's life is | | | | traits, and to enhance desired ones. It is the moral right |
| endangered by the continued existence of a fetus and | | | | of a parent to make sure that his progeny suffers less, |
| assuming both of them have a right to life we can | | | | enjoys life more, and attains the maximal level of |
| decide to kill the fetus by adding to the mother's right | | | | welfare throughout his or her life.That such |
| to life her right to her own body and thus outweighing | | | | technologies can be abused by over-zealous, or |
| the fetus' right to life.IIB. The Difference between Killing | | | | mentally unhealthy parents in collaboration with |
| and Letting DieThere is an assumed difference | | | | avaricious or unscrupulous doctors - should not |
| between killing (taking life) and letting die (not saving a | | | | prevent the vast majority of stable, caring, and sane |
| life). This is supported by IE above. While there is a | | | | parents from gaining access to them. |