Printer-Friendly Version

On November 25, 2001, a Massachusetts company, Advanced Cell Technology, announced that it had cloned a human. The following information gives examples of arguments from the pro-cloning camp and then gives rebuttals to these arguments. For many people, the true horrors of human cloning have yet to sink in. Informing others that cloning research cannot take place without the loss of innocent life is a necessity.

If they say:
"Cloned embryos aren't really alive."

You say:
Cloned embryos are alive. If they aren't alive, then how are they growing? If they aren't alive then how are they developing? If these embryos weren't alive, they would be no use to researchers. Attempts to define the beginning of life at a point besides fertilization have proven futile. Every human life begins as a fertilized egg which, if allowed, develops into an embryo and then a fetus and then a newborn and then a toddler and so on.

If they say:
"Cloned embryos aren't really human. This is cellular life, not human life."

You say: This claim is ridiculous. Cloned embryos aren't random collections of cells but living, developing human beings. Since these
	embryos are alive, it follows that they must fit into some classification of species and genus. Living organisms don't start out as one kind of species and then change into another kind of species when they become more developed. And living organisms are also not part of a mystical cellular life “family” until they reach an arbitrary stage of development. From the moment of fertilization, or in this case, nuclear cell transfer, life has begun. If the nucleus that is transferred is that of a sheep, then a new sheep has been created. If the nucleus is human, then human life has been created. A human embryo, however it is formed, is human life, plain and simple.

Some researchers hope to clone embryos to become large enough to produce stem cells. This is considered "therapeutic cloning." Researchers will then remove their stem cells for experiments that end the lives of these human embryos. So, some believe that cloned human embryos are human enough to remove their stem cells for research, but not human enough to join the human family. This logic defies reality.  Life begins at fertilization (wherever that takes place: woman, Petri dish, or test tube), a truth some researchers and politicians would like for us to ignore as they conveniently do.

If they say:
"Cloning is the only way that infertile couples can have children. Shouldn't they be allowed to use science to create life?"

Reproductive cloning would confuse family relationships. A cloned child would have only one parent, who would be its genetic twin. Would the clone be the person's child or sibling? This would also pose great problems of inheritance (What status would the clone have versus other family members?). Finally, cloning could mean more children would grow up in single-parent households, without the benefit of married parents. Not to mention the fact that many homosexual couples would want to clone children with their DNA.

Let’s take a closer look at the pro-cloner’s best argument. Let’s assume reproductive cloning could be done safely, and only look at cases that don’t involve celebrities, and no mass clonings of Hitlers or Einsteins. Let’s look at the infertile couple, Bill and Kathy, who choose cloning over in vitro. Bill and Kathy plan to clone Kathy. They could have chosen to clone Bill. Either way would work.

Some people have argued that cloning is actually preferable to in vitro that uses sperm and egg from outside the marriage – as it means the child is genetically related to at least one parent. However, this presents a new problem: the cloned “daughter” in this case is very closely related – too closely. In fact, she is actually the biological daughter, not of Bill and Kathy at all, but of Kathy’s parents. She is actually Kathy’s biological sister, and Bill’s sister-in-law. As Kathy sees her “daughter” growing up as the spitting image of herself, it is plain to see that the family will go through some very strange experiences. How will the daughter differentiate herself from her mother, who is essentially the same as her? And how will Bill feel as he watches the woman he fell in love with (his wife) grow up as his daughter? The complications boggle the mind, and the ensuing family and personal dysfunctions are virtually assured. The notion that cloning is simply “an alternative to in vitro” is ridiculous. It’s a recipe for a very strange family life, indeed.¹

If they say:
"Experiments in animal cloning have shown us that scientists can eventually have high rates of success with human cloning. Don't you realize that science just needs a little time to figure out how human cloning works?"

You say:
Animal cloning has yet to show high rates of success even though animal cloning experts have been working on their techniques for more than 5 years. The Roslin Institute, one of the leaders in animal cloning, has statistics that show that the success rate for cloning in animals is "typically between 0 and 3 percent." The first sheep cloned, Dolly, was one of 277 attempts at cell manipulation and 29 embryo implants. Dolly was the only sheep of these 277 attempts that was born and survived. The other 276 sheep died at various stages of development. If we applied these numbers to human cloning, could anyone justify the deaths of 276 cloned human embryos, fetuses, and newborns so one human clone could survive?

If science continues down the path of human cloning, thousands of embryonic lives will be lost along the way. Science should continue to aid human life and health, but we should never exploit innocent human life to aid science.

If they say:
"In a few years we will look back on the cloning debate and realize that it's just like the debate on in-vitro fertilization."

You say:
Reproductive cloning is different from in-vitro fertilization because in-vitro fertilization uses science to join a sperm and an egg to create a unique human life while reproductive cloning uses science to create a genetically identical human who is an exact replica of his or her parent. "Therapeutic" cloning is different from in-vitro fertilization in that the purpose of in-vitro fertilization is to create a child while the goal of "therapeutic" cloning is to create and then destroy embryos for their stem cells. It should also be pointed out that success rates for in-vitro fertilization are much higher than success rates for cloning.

If they say:
"Therapeutic cloning isn't really human cloning because scientists don't intend to place the child in a woman's womb, right?"

You say:
Repeat after me: Therapeutic cloning is human cloning.

The humanity of a cloned embryo is not dependent upon the researcher’s intentions or the location of the embryo whether that is in a lab, a liquid nitrogen tank, or a mother’s womb.  So, an embryo cloned for its stem cells is not less of a human being then one who was cloned to become a child for an infertile couple.  At the time of fertilization (wherever this takes place), this unique human being has identity, dignity, and an inherent right to life.

Scientists who do this embryo-destructive research would like to mislead us and trick us into thinking that cloned embryos don’t become human unless placed in a woman’s womb.  However, if they are being intellectually honest, they know that these cloned embryos are human before they are placed in the womb, while they are in the womb, and after they are delivered.  (reread Scott Klusendorf’s argument about when human life begins in this same e-newsletter).  Whatever the reason, reproductive or therapeutic, cloning humans is experimenting on and manipulating human life.

All human life is sacred and should not be used as a means to an end. Ever.

If they say:
"We should ban reproductive cloning but keep therapeutic cloning legal. Isn't that a fair compromise?"

You say:
In one important way, therapeutic cloning is worse than reproductive cloning.  Misguided attempts at reproductive cloning would lead to the deaths of hundreds of humans.  However, the goal of reproductive cloning research is to keep embryos alive for implantation in a woman’s womb.  The goal of therapeutic cloning is killing the embryos to harvest their stem cells.  Therapeutic cloners only care about the stem cells and not the humans who are being sacrificed for science.

Human life has intrinsic value.  Therapeutic cloning ignores this value.  The cloned embryos are living human beings who will be treated as products and commodities; killed for others’ needs.  Creating and destroying human embryos based on genetic qualities denies their humanity and their value.

If therapeutic cloning is legal, it will be almost impossible to regulate reproductive cloning. Once clones are created, how can law enforcement authorities guarantee that none of these embryos are placed in a woman's womb? How can scientists assure us that all of these clones are being kept in labs that are safely secured?

Do we really want a society that uses science and research as an excuse to experiment on, manipulate, and kill the most defenseless members of the human family?

If they say:
"We need therapeutic cloning to help cure various diseases. Why should this helpful research be stopped?"

You say:
First and foremost, no human has ever been helped by stem cells from human embryos, much less a cloned human embryo. No one is even sure if treatments from these stem cells will work. All of this research and hype is based on possibility not reality.

Research and clinical studies using stem cells from adults and umbilical cords have shown results of which cloning proponents can only dream. Why should scientists be allowed to create life through cloning and then destroy these lives when there are other research avenues that don't compromise ethics and have shown more promising results?

Therapeutic cloning will never save millions of lives. In order for this research to cure millions of people, cloning scientists would need to get their hands on hundreds of millions of human eggs. The researchers at Advanced Cell Technology, who announced the cloning of the first human embryo on November 25, 2001, had enough trouble getting 71 human eggs from women. For good reason, there aren't millions of women who are willing to have their eggs harvested, even for $5,000. Women who decide to "donate" their eggs for research purposes face several physical risks that include bleeding, scarring, and pelvic swelling. The "donation" process requires self-injections of powerful hormones to boost the production of eggs. If these hormones produce too many eggs, they can cause hyperstimulation syndrome, which can lead to strokes.2

This is not quick, simple research by any means, but enormously complex and unproven. No one knows for certain if embryonic stem cells will lead to cures, but we do know that every time stem cells are removed from an embryo, a human life ends.

Reference:
¹ Sections of this answer excerpted from "How to be a Christian in a Brave New World" by Joni Eareckson Tada and Nigel Cameron
² American Medical Association, December 2000 Ethx Bytes, "The Human Egg as 'Gift of Life': Its Price Is on the Rise."

Produced by: Right to Life of Michigan, PO Box 901, Grand Rapids, MI 45909 www.rtl.org