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