Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Acknowledgments
- Introduction
- PART ONE FIVE COMMON OBJECTIONS TO HUMAN REPRODUCTIVE CLONING REFLECT, REINFORCE, AND INSPIRE STEREOTYPES ABOUT HUMAN CLONES
- 1 Does Human Reproductive Cloning Offend God and Nature?
- 2 Should Children Be Begotten and Not Made?
- 3 Do Human Clones Lack Individuality?
- 4 Could Human Clones Destroy Humanity?
- 5 Does Human Reproductive Cloning Harm Participants and Produce Children with Birth Defects?
- Summary of Part One
- PART TWO ANTICLONING LAWS ARE BAD PUBLIC POLICY
- PART THREE ANTICLONING LAWS VIOLATE THE EQUAL PROTECTION GUARANTEE AND ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL
- Conclusion
- Notes
- Index
1 - Does Human Reproductive Cloning Offend God and Nature?
from PART ONE - FIVE COMMON OBJECTIONS TO HUMAN REPRODUCTIVE CLONING REFLECT, REINFORCE, AND INSPIRE STEREOTYPES ABOUT HUMAN CLONES
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 26 July 2009
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Acknowledgments
- Introduction
- PART ONE FIVE COMMON OBJECTIONS TO HUMAN REPRODUCTIVE CLONING REFLECT, REINFORCE, AND INSPIRE STEREOTYPES ABOUT HUMAN CLONES
- 1 Does Human Reproductive Cloning Offend God and Nature?
- 2 Should Children Be Begotten and Not Made?
- 3 Do Human Clones Lack Individuality?
- 4 Could Human Clones Destroy Humanity?
- 5 Does Human Reproductive Cloning Harm Participants and Produce Children with Birth Defects?
- Summary of Part One
- PART TWO ANTICLONING LAWS ARE BAD PUBLIC POLICY
- PART THREE ANTICLONING LAWS VIOLATE THE EQUAL PROTECTION GUARANTEE AND ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL
- Conclusion
- Notes
- Index
Summary
The first charge against human reproductive cloning is that it is an expression of hubris. This idea can be expressed in one of two ways: first, that cloning is an offense against God; or second, that cloning is an offense against nature. I will examine each of these variations in turn.
God
The idea that cloning offends God is one of the most commonly asserted arguments in the cloning debate. The California Advisory Committee on Human Cloning summarized the argument as follows:
Reproduction, according to this argument, is solely God's domain. When we take it upon ourselves to create humans through reproductive cloning, we are infringing on the divine domain, “playing God,” as it were. On this view, finite and fallible beings should not make decisions properly limited to the infinite and infallible. Many religious accounts give humans the responsibility for being caretakers of the rest of creation. The cloning of human beings oversteps the limits of this responsibility and runs counter to the responsibility itself.
The media reflect and propagate this common objection. In a fascinating study of American news stories on cloning, Patrick Hopkins documented how the media portray human reproductive cloning as an immoral and dangerous intrusion into the Creator's domain. Frequent references to the novels Brave New World and Frankenstein hammer home the message that arrogant scientists are crossing the line.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Illegal BeingsHuman Clones and the Law, pp. 10 - 16Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2005