Cloning

Human cloning has become a very controversial subject, which has been lent additional urgency by imminent improvements in technology. Proponents of cloning point out its potential value in providing replacement tissue and organs for transplants or for combating disease. The techniques also make it possible to tackle genetic diseases. However, opponents of cloning argue from a variety of religious and ethical perspectives, claiming that obtaining the material that is to be worked upon can only be achieved through methods that are immoral. This is connected with the widely held belief that it is dangerous for scientists to manipulate genetic material, because it gives humanity power over life that should only be wielded by God (Roger, 25).

Secular arguments about the ethics of cloning may be divided by the level of respect granted to the blastocyst. This division has been at the heart of most political, ethical, and legal debate surrounding the practice of human cloning. In general, one may ascribe to the blastocyst status approximately equal to that of a person, status equal to any other aggregation of cells (e.g., a cheek swab), or an intermediate status supporters have termed special respect. The first generally precludes cloning as an ethical activity; the second permits it. The intermediate position does not preclude research on the blastocyst, even research that destroys the blastocyst, but it does preclude the use of such processes merely for convenience.

Religious commentary on SCNT largely falls into the same three positions as secular argumentation. That is not to say that there is uniformity of opinion within religions, particularly between the various sects of Christianity, which have widely divergent views on the nature of the zygote and blastocyst (Klotzko, 67).

Within Christianity, the Roman Catholic Church and many Protestant denominations are prominent opponents of SCNT on the grounds that it leads to the intentional killing of persons who come into being at the moment of conception. Other Protestant denominations take markedly different views. In particular, Anglicanism, which has long held that personhood is acquired sometime between conception and birth, does not object to the destruction of blastocysts per se. Rather, the Anglican Communion objects to the creation of life for the purpose of its destruction, a clear condemnation of SCNT.

Islamic and Jewish ethics, in their most orthodox forms, have a long history of embracing IVF only when it does not use donor gametes or surrogate mothers. No major cases relating specifically to cloning have come to pass, but many scholars of Jewish and Islamic law suggest that while prior to ensoulment (40 or 120 days depending on the school of law consulted) research leading to the destruction of an embryo may be permissible, the explicit creation of an embryo for such a purpose would be abominable. This position actually echoes the Anglican position, reached by a radically different mode of thinking (Arthur, 85).

Buddhism speaks without a clear voice on this point. Instead, two principles at odds with each other are presented and adherents are left to contemplate them. Given the emphasis Buddhists ...