Multiply or Duplicate?
By Dr. Robert W. Evans
Winter 2002 Family Voice

Pushed from the headlines in the wake of September 11, the issues of bioethics once again recaptured the nation’s attention. Researchers at Advanced Cell Technology (ACT) in Worcester, Massachusetts, announced last November that they had successfully cloned the first human embryo.

They stated that they had hoped to coax early embryos to divide into 100 or so cells (what is known as the blastocyst stage of development) and then to isolate the stem cells from these blastocysts. Researchers hope one day to be able to both harness and direct the incredible power of these cells in providing genetically based medical treatments—a pursuit known as “therapeutic cloning.”

One of the embryos produced by ACT progressed to the six-cell stage before it stopped dividing. The remaining two embryos stopped even sooner. Nonetheless, ACT quickly hailed its work as “the dawn of a new age in medicine by demonstrating that the goal of therapeutic cloning is within reach.”

The importance and merit of ACT’s announcement are shaky, but the cultural significance can hardly be overstated. Immediately, Reps. David Weldon (R-Florida) and Bart Stupak (D-Michigan) proposed legislation to prohibit all cloning—a bill now referred to the Senate and expected to be considered in March.

What is Cloning?
But what is cloning? Cloning duplicates a living creature. First, the DNA cell nucleus is removed from the egg of a fertile female and replaced with the DNA nucleus from another cell. Then a small electrical current is run through the egg, beginning cell division.

If the fertilized egg develops into an embryo, it is transplanted into the uterus of a surrogate mother. If all goes as planned, this procedure may result in an offspring that is essentially genetically identical to the cell donor.

Risks and Benefits
Those who try to clone animals cite potential benefits: higher quality meat, milk and fur; the possibility of creating new drugs through genetic manipulation; the production of animal organs suitable for human transplants; and the ability to clone lost pets, among others.

However, the core of the debate is whether or not we ought to duplicate human beings through cloning.

Advocates suggest cloning will cure diseases, provide infertile couples with children, and allow grieving parents to replace a lost child. Recent claims are more grandiose. In the words of a Time magazine article from last year, human cloning will finally provide us with “the meaning of what it means to be human.”

But what about the risks of human cloning? The process results in a high rate of casualties. In cloning Dolly the sheep, the first successful cloned mammal, researchers began with 277 fertilized eggs. Only 29 developed sufficiently to be implanted. Finally, only one sheep was born alive. The estimated cost: approximately $50,000, a measly sum compared to that of cloning a human. And the process poses a high potential for birth defects.

Another risk lies in the possibility of increased genetic diseases. Clones of one person are related. Widespread cloning could lead to incest. In turn, these incestuous relationships could result in increased genetic disorders that result from recessive genes—thus entering into the general gene pool. In addition, cloning raises the possibility of hideous abnormalities. If these mistakes were undetected, a biological ticking time bomb might show up when children grow into adults.

Society discourages marriages between close relatives for a reason: the loss of genetic diversity. The human species needs this in order to survive. If enough people were cloned from the DNA of just a few individuals, a disease that might normally kill a small percentage might decimate a more genetically similar (cloned) population. It would become harder for following generations to find genetically safe partners.

Cloning could also lead to large-scale social control. If human cloning became common, those who understood and controlled it would hold humanity in their hands. Though some claim that science is value-free, scientists are not. In the end, their desires, values and ethics will direct the use of cloning.

Human Commodities
Cloning reduces humanity to a mere commodity. Medical and biotechnological research is utilitarian; it justifies actions according to what seems to produce the greatest good for the greatest number of persons. Supporters of human cloning implicitly believe that a cloned person is useful.

How far will our culture have to slide down the slippery slope before cloned persons serve as “organ warehouses” or form a new class of social slaves? Human cloning raises this question: Should human life be viewed fundamentally as a gift, or as a human fabrication?

Legal concerns also accompany human cloning. Are cloned creatures actually human? Do they possess rights, privileges and protections as persons? In divorce cases, will the clone’s rights be greater than those of the children born naturally? Clones could argue that their birth was truly intended. Will the husband be liable to pay child support to his wife’s clone? Will clones have to pay royalties to their genetic donors?

Finally, human cloning raises many social concerns. It will likely grow in popularity and acceptability among singles, unmarried couples and homosexuals. The public already becomes giddy when another Hollywood celebrity announces she is pregnant, but refuses to disclose the identity of the “father” (a term used today to describe a man’s biological rather than paternal role). Some gay-rights advocates have already argued in Time magazine that homosexuals would have a moral obligation to produce gay children through human cloning. (Research, however, does not support a biological basis for homosexuality.)

A Christian Response
Cloning advocate Dr. Richard Seed, as quoted in Wired magazine (March 1998), said, “Cloning is inevitable, if I don’t do it, someone else will. There is no way you can stop science.”

The International Academy of Humanists suggested, “The potential benefits of cloning may be so immense that it would be a tragedy if ancient theological scruples should lead to a Luddite rejection of cloning.” Certainly, in our secularized, postmodern society, the pressures to clone a human being are immense.

So what does the Bible have to say? It nowhere directly addresses the issue of human cloning. However, the Scriptures clearly answer the following questions:

1. What does it mean to be human?
   The Scriptures plainly teach that we are made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-28). Humanity is unique, for God created only it in His image and likeness.
   
   
2. In what does our humanness consist?
   Our humanness consists in the very fact that God Himself made us in His image and likeness. We are not the product of chance, but of a deliberate, intimate and personal act of God Himself.
   
   
3. When does human life begin?
   The Bible strongly argues that human life begins at conception. The story of Christ’s own human life began when the angel told Mary that she would conceive and bear a son (Matthew 1:18-24; Luke 1:26-38). It may well be that Christ was able to reside in one of Mary’s fertilized eggs because it was already image-bearing in its own nature. In this view, manipulating reproductive cells is not merely tinkering with lifeless tissue; it is experimenting with the very image of God in man.

How should Christians respond to human cloning?

• We acknowledge that seeking cures for diseases like cancer and AIDS is important. However, we must not deface God’s image in humanity in the process.
• Children are an honor and a blessing, but the Scriptures neither promise children nor morally mandate them. Rather, children are a heritage—a gift from God (Psalm 127:3). It seems strange to require anyone—especially God—to give a gift or to specify the precise nature and quality of that gift. Remaining childless may be God’s will for some; others may build their family through adoption.
• Discussions on human cloning begin at the wrong end of the issue. The question isn’t “What is the potential benefit?” But rather, “What does it mean to be human?” and “When does human life begin?” The Christian response to human cloning ought to begin with these fundamental questions.

How You Can Help

Pray for researchers to treat human life with dignity, and not as experimental material.  Praise God for His plan of procreation from the union of a husband and wife—not through cloning.  Act Ask your senators to ban human cloning. U.S. Capitol: 202-224-3121.

In charging Adam and Eve with dominion, and in giving them powers of procreation, God intends that we care for His creation. The world suggests we are the engineers of life; Christians maintain that we are the custodians of life. The world suggests we may replicate life; Christians understand that we are called to repair life. While the world suggests we may play God; Christians insist we must serve God.

We are called to multiply, not duplicate. And this is because human life is begotten, not made.

More from Winter 2002 Family Voice