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