![[home]](USCCB-Pro-LifeActivities-HumanCloningvsHuman%20Dignity_files/usccb_logo.gif){kind=logo}
Why do Christians oppose human cloning?
It's a fair question. Sheep, cattle and other animals have now been
"replicated" by the cloning procedure called somatic cell nuclear
transfer. An unfertilized egg has its nucleus removed or inactivated,
and replaced with the nucleus from an animal's body cell. This nucleus,
containing the animal's full genetic makeup, is stimulated to interact
with the egg, and a new embryo develops that is genetically identical to
the animal providing the body cell. Scientists say the technique can
be useful for animal breeding and medical research — and the Catholic
Church does not object, as long as the norms against mistreating animals
in research are respected.
Yet the situation is very different when this technique is proposed for
humans. Catholics and other Christians are in the forefront of the
effort to ban human cloning. Supporters of cloning even accuse us of
imposing our religious beliefs on a diverse society in this debate.
That charge is false and unfair. Public sentiment against all human
cloning is strong and transcends the usual political and religious
categories. But the question still remains: Why should Christians, in
particular, be so strong in their opposition?
Cloning supporters have proposed one answer: Catholics and other
Christians oppose cloning because they are afraid of science and
technical progress. But this is false. Catholic tradition honors
natural reason and the sciences, unless these disciplines overreach
themselves by claiming there is no truth beyond them. Catholics tend to
see new technology as good in itself, or at least morally neutral —
something that can be turned to good or evil depending on how and why it
is used. But our tradition insists on the dignity of the human person
and on the need to respect that person's basic human goods — the first
and most basic of which is life itself. This is where a true answer
begins.
Cloning as a Threat to Life
Cloning may seem like a new way to create human life, not destroy it. But a closer look reveals its darker side.
This technique can be used for two purposes: to produce a live-born
child (so-called "reproductive" cloning), or to create human embryos to
be destroyed in medical experiments (so-called "therapeutic" cloning —
more accurately called research cloning, since therapies may never come
from these experiments).
Animal trials indicate that any attempt to use human cloning for
reproduction will have many victims. Well over 90% of cloned embryos
miscarry or are stillborn. Dolly the cloned sheep was the sole survivor
out of 277 attempts. Those few who survive to birth have serious
medical problems. Dolly, for example, developed premature arthritis and
lived only half a normal life span. Even carrying such a pregnancy to
term may pose special dangers to the mother, due to the risk of "large
offspring syndrome" and other problems. In short, anyone who chooses to
reproduce this way must disregard the life and health of child and
mother, to fixate on the supposed benefits of creating a much younger
"replica" of oneself. Human reproductive cloning is a dangerous and
unethical experiment on women and children.
Many scientists oppose "reproductive" cloning for these reasons, but
still favor cloning for research. Yet the main difference between the
two is this: In reproductive cloning, most cloned humans will die very
young; in cloning for research, all of them will die, because they will
be deliberately killed as means to someone else's idea of medical
progress. The fact that this killing may take place at a very early
stage makes no difference, for our moral tradition regards human life at
every stage as deserving respect and protection.
Cloning for research presents a new evil not found even in the practice
of abortion: creating new human lives solely in order to destroy them.
This is the ultimate reduction of human life to an object, to a
commodity that has no value except for the use someone else chooses for
it. Pope John Paul II has underscored the grave evil of such
experiments, calling them "atrocities" that are "unworthy of man" (World Day of Peace Message, January 1, 2001, no. 19).
Some try to obscure the gravity of such evils, by denying the humanity
of their victim. They say the entity produced by cloning is not really a
human being with a human soul. Sometimes they even claim that no
embryo can be a human being until after implantation in a mother's womb.
But these are self-serving arguments with no factual basis.
A human life begins when a new organism of the human species forms —
that is, when the human genetic makeup is complete and the development
of a new individual has begun. Implantation in the mother's womb is an
important step needed for later survival — but it is essentially a
change in location, one stage among many in a new life already begun.
And while union of egg and sperm are the normal and usual way for such
human development to begin, we now know there are other ways.
Catholics have no reason to deny that a cloned human has a human soul.
Respect for natural reason, and for the equal dignity of all human
beings under God, leads us to respect every member of the human species
regardless of his or her origins. The account of Jesus' origin in the
Gospel of Luke certainly reminds us that there may be more than one way
to come into existence as a member of the human family!
But if cloning would create a fully human being, can it be wrong in
principle? If the right to life were not under attack, and the death
rate from cloning were greatly reduced, would Catholics still reject it?
Answering this question requires an even closer look.
Cloning and Human Dignity
As the Second Vatican Council affirms, moral judgments about procreation
must be based on "the nature of the human person and his acts" (Gaudium et spes, no. 51). To understand the nature of the act of human procreation is to realize why cloning does not respect this nature.
In sexual procreation, a man and woman join in a loving embrace that
expresses their love for each other, and is open to cooperating with God
to create a new person the two will love and care for together. This openness
to new life sets the stage for our lifelong attitude toward our
children. We know that our children arise from our act of self-giving
love; that their makeup will be a new and unpredictable combination of
traits from both parents; that we provided the opportunity for God's
creative act, rather than forcing the production of a particular child.
By the very nature of our procreative act, we respect God's creative
role. We also show respect for our children, welcoming them as free and
equal members of the human family with their own open future — as
persons over whom we have stewardship, not absolute dominion.
Some reproductive technologies assist this natural process. But some
ignore or violate its central features. These technologies make
children result from the meeting of sperm and egg in a Petri dish,
rather than from parents' act of embodied love. They introduce third
parties into the procreative act, and allow technicians to manipulate
and control life at its very beginning.
Human cloning is the final step down this path of depersonalized
procreation. It involves no meeting of male and female at all — in
fact, a child produced this way has no "mother" or "father" in the
ordinary sense, but only a template or model. Instead of openness to
life, it involves domination over life — for a technician manufactures
the new embryo in a laboratory, and even controls his or her genetic
makeup to be identical to that of someone else. This act has the nature
of a manufacturing process, suited to a commodity rather than a human
being. It dehumanizes in the act of creating.
This is not only a Christian insight, for it is imbedded in our human
nature. Says ethicist Leon Kass: "Human cloning would ... represent a
giant step toward turning begetting into making, procreation into
manufacture (literally, something "handmade") ... [W]e here would be
taking a major step into making man himself simply another one of the
man-made things."1
Yet Christians above all should realize how important this insight is.
Our Creed underscores the equality of God the Son with God the Father by
insisting that He was "begotten, not made." The Son is not a creature
like others, but arises in an eternally spontaneous outpouring of the
Father's love. Our humility before God begins with the fact that
although we are made in God's image and likeness, we are indeed
creatures he has made, "the work of His hands." This is central to the
infinitely vast difference between the divine and the human — a
difference bridged only by God's free act of infinite love toward us.
When we manufacture offspring according to preset specifications, then,
we are violating a fundamental aspect of human procreation. We are
treating our children as inferior beings, as our "creatures." The other
abuses of human cloning — the selfish fixation on producing a child
"just like me"; the willingness to subject cloned humans to high risks
of death and disability; even scientists' willingness to clone embryos
solely to exploit and destroy them — flow from this first fundamental
error.
Human cloning would create a human being who deserves to be treated as
our equal, but would do so in a way that undermines this equal dignity.
It is not a worthy way for humans to bring other humans into the world.
And there is still more.
Cloning and God
Cloning invites humans to treat their "creations" as less than
themselves, as less than human. But it also tempts them to think of
themselves as greater than human, as gods with the power to "create"
life. This is, of course, the first and greatest temptation presented
to human beings, to Adam and Eve: "You will be like gods" (Gn 3:5).
If this seems an exaggeration, we have only to look at statements by cloning proponents.
Dr. Lee Silver of Princeton University titles his book in favor of
cloning Remaking Eden. In this Eden, the genetics expert plays the role
of God, driving humanity to "self-evolve" into a superior race. He
envisions a future in which "mental beings," "as different from humans
as humans are from the primitive worms with tiny brains that first
crawled along the earth's surface," find themselves "coming face to face
with their creator" — and perhaps seeing "simply their own image in the
mirror."2 The scientists who created Dolly the sheep call their recent book The Second Creation
and they don't just mean creating sheep. "Cloning of the kind we have
developed," they say, "makes it possible in principle to apply all the
immense power of genetic engineering and genomics to animals .... and
human beings, of course, are animals too."3
These scientists are not talking only about laudable efforts to use
genetics to eliminate terrible disease. Cloning is a "gateway
technology" to efforts to engineer the human species, for two reasons.
First, genetic engineering is such a hit-and-miss procedure that one
must be able to duplicate one's rare successes. Second, if scientists
can make a new being who is exactly the same as another, they can refine
their procedure to make that new being the same except for one or two
"superior" traits, and then build on this. The human species itself
would be the laboratory bench and the research animal for such
experiments.
Tragically, many scientists are blind to the paradox in this grand
scheme. When the true God makes people in His image and likeness, He
produces an inexhaustible variety of people who reflect different facets
of His infinite goodness. When we mere humans try to do the same, we
only replicate one narrow set of traits already provided to us in the
past ? and when we try to "improve" on that heritage, all we can apply
are our own narrow, biased and imperfect ideas of a "better" human. By
imposing those biases on our offspring, we would still treat them as
objects we can control and dominate — even if we are trying to create a
"superior" product. As C.S. Lewis prophesied over a half a century ago
in The Abolition of Man, these new powers for controlling the species
are not a net gain of power for humanity — they are ways for a few
imperfect humans to exert control over many other humans and the future
of humanity.
To imagine we are ready for such control over fellow humans is to commit
the ultimate sin of overweaning pride — what the Greeks called hubris,
the pride of grasping at what belongs only to gods. While any
reasonable person can see the destructiveness of such pride, Christians
know above all that the road to human progress is paved instead by
humble service to others. Jesus' sacrifice blazed the right path for us
long ago. From this perspective, human cloning and the mentality that
accepts and uses it is an affront to God.
Conclusion
Catholics and others who respect human life stand at a crossroads. For
decades we have waged a sometimes lonely fight to insist that innocent
human life must never be attacked. Today we face a challenge that is
more subtle, but even more overpowering, as human beings are tempted to
exert ultimate control over the origins and traits of fellow humans. As
ethicist Nigel Cameron has said, we are moving from the "Cain and Abel
issues" to the "Tower of Babel issues," from denying human lives to
denying our human limitations.
To be sure, the debate on "cloning for research" demonstrates that there
will be much outright destruction of life along this path as well. But
this willingness to destroy life is a symptom of a new level of disdain
for human dignity, a mentality that treats other human beings as
objects for our control. Nothing could be more alien to the attitude
needed to build a culture of life.
Richard Doerflinger is deputy director of the USCCB Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities.
Program Models
In most states, the pro-life movement is on the front lines in
challenging cloning and other immoral biomedical research. However,
when pitted against "the scientific community" in a debate over
research, the pro-life movement, by itself, is disadvantaged in having
scientific credibility. Having a more credible voice to challenge
immoral research and promote moral research was the impetus for the
formation of the Nebraska Coalition for Ethical Research (NCER). NCER
is comprised of a diverse group of leaders in science, medicine,
religion, ethics, business and politics who wish to promote cutting-edge
biomedical research that protects the life, dignity and rights of every
human being at each developmental stage. The Coalition's vision,
objectives and position papers on fetal tissue, embryonic stem cell and
cloning research are available online at www.ethicalresearch.net.
Information on the mechanics of forming such a group is available by
contacting Greg Schleppenbach, State Director of Pro-Life Activities for
the Nebraska Catholic Conference, at 402-477-7517 or
gregschlepp@alltel.net.
Begotten, Not Made: Pastoral Care for Couples Experiencing Infertility
is a program developed by the Family Life Institute. This program
manual is used to aid dioceses in their counseling of couples and
providing moral teachings on how to deal with infertility. For more
information on how to start this program in your diocese contact the
Family Life Institute at 703-365-7281 or visit their website
www.familylifeinstitute.com.
Resources
Teaching Documents
Declaration on the Production and Scientific and Therapeutic Use of Human Embryonic Stem Cells. Pontifical Academy for Life, 2000. Visit www.vatican.va.
Instruction on Respect for Human Life in its Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 1987. USCCB: Call 800-235-8722 or visit www.usccb.org/publishing.
The Gospel of Life. Pope John Paul II, 1995. USCCB: Call 800-235-8722 or visit www.usccb.org/publishing.
Print Resources
Catholic Bioethics and the Gift of Human Life. William E. May, Huntington, Ind.: Our Sunday Visitor Books, 2000 ($17.95).
Cutting-Edge Bioethics: A Christian Exploration of Technologies and Trends. John F. Kilner, et al. (eds.), Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 2002 ($22.00).
Ethical Issues in Human Cloning. Michael C. Brannigan (ed.), New York: Seven Bridges Press, 2001 ($19.95).
Human Cloning: Assault on Life and Dignity. National Committee for a Human Life Amendment: Washington, D.C. Flier is available at www.nchla.org/campaign.htm.
Human Cloning and Human Dignity: An Ethical Inquiry. Washington, D.C.: The President's Council on Bioethics, 2002. Available at www.bioethics.gov.
Human Cloning: Playing God or Scientific Progress? Lane P. Lester
and James C. Hefley, Grand Rapids, Mich.: Fleming H. Revell, 1998.
Visit www.bakerbooks.com or call 800-877-2665.
Issues for a Catholic Bioethic. Luke Gormally (ed.), London: The Linacre Center, 1999. Visit www.linacre.org.
Life, Liberty and the Defense of Dignity: The Challenge for Bioethics. Leon R. Kass, M.D., San Francisco: Encounter Books, 2002 ($26.95).
The Future is Now: America Confronts the New Genetics. William Kristol and Eric Cohen (eds.), New York: Rowman & Little Field Publishers, 2002 ($19.95).
Respect for the Human Embryo, Summer 2001 (Vol. 1, No. 2). Edward J. Furton, M.A., Ph.D. (ed.), Boston, Mass.: The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly, 2001.
The Whole Truth about Stem Cell Research, What Hollywood, Biotechnology and the News Media Leave Out. William L. Saunders, Jr. and Charles A. Donovan. Washington, D.C.: Family Research Council, 2001 ($4.50).
What is Man, O Lord? The Human Person in a Biotech Age. Edward J.
Furton, M.A., Ph.D. and Louise A. Mitchell, M.T.S. (eds.), Boston,
Massachusetts: The National Catholic Bioethics Center, 2002 ($24.95).
Without Moral Limits: Women, Reproduction, and Medical Technology. Debra Evans, Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books, 2000 ($14.99).
Internet
USCCB Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities
The Coalition of Americans for Research Ethics
www.stemcellresearch.org
Americans to Ban Cloning
www.cloninginformation.org
National Committee for a Human Life Amendment
www.nchla.org/campaign.htm
Notes
1 L. Kass, "The Wisdom of Repugnance," in The New Republic, June 2, 1997, p. 23.
2 L. Silver, Remaking Eden (Avon Nooks 1998), pp. 292-3.
3 I. Wilmut, K. Campbell and C. Tudge, The Second Creation: Dolly and the Age of Biological Control (Farrar, Straus and Giroux 2000), p. 9.