Dowling College
ASC 128C

Presentation Write up

Abortion and euthanasia: two medical procedures which, when first introduced, shocked the theological world. What right do we have as mere human beings to play God? Yet these controversial procedures are openly practiced today. What right do we have to decide if a person should live or die, you may ask. Well, these decisions are made everyday. Is it safe to compare these extensive procedures with human cloning? Should we assume that human cloning will one day be a common medical procedure such as these, offered to those longing for children to raise? Are we blowing our concerns way out of proportion?

As with other controversial issues, there are many reasons put forth promoting the benefits. However, for every benefit there is an argument that is also presented. Ultimately, it is our own personal decisions that we make as human beings that will effect what will transpire. But it is plain to see that the theological ideals of the ages influence these decisions greatly. This is true of human cloning as well, especially since it involves the creating of human beings.

Upon researching this topic, we found that most written opinion is expressed by Christian writers. This is not to say that other religions are not speaking out. In fact, in answering Debbie's question, we would like to point out that all the religions we researched were against human cloning. The only exception to the rule that we could find was the religion of Islam. According to the book Clones and Clones: Facts and Fantasies about Human Cloning, "Islamic scholar Abdulaziz Sachedina suggests that Islam could accept some therapeutic uses of human cloning 'as long as the lineage of the child remains religiously unblemished (page 174).'" The overwhelming majority, however, feel that we have no right to play God, naming dominion and stewardship from our heavenly Father as the reasons why. Buddhists even believe in the natural order of the world and to clone humans would be violating that rule. When reading through chapter four of our text Improving Nature: The science and ethics of genetic engineering, you will find that it states "While Buddhism teaches that humans, unlike other creatures, have the opportunity to realize enlightenment, it does not teach that humanity is superior to the rest of the world." We strongly encourage every one to read through chapter four of this book, as it contains information regarding various religions.

Apologies must be presented to those members of the class that felt we were subjective in our stance. However, we must emphasize the fact that our feelings and beliefs expressed both in our presentation and now mirror those feelings currently carried by the religions we researched. Undoubtedly it was our error to speak so much from our own personal beliefs when presenting the information. But the facts presented to the class were echoes of all that we have researched. We urge each and every one of you to investigate this topic further. Those who do so will see that we presented the facts as we had learned them. Again, we apologize for not putting enough emphasis on the fact that these feelings were the feelings of religions internationally. We are glad to have this opportunity to clear up the confusion.

As per a suggestion mentioned by someone on our evaluation, it is agreed that the growing of body parts without cloning a whole human is an alternative religions (and according to our survey, all of you) would prefer. It seems to make more sense that if we are able to clone humans, then the genetics to clone specific organs should also be in place. Being that many religions have looked at the possibility of this occurrence, we decided to include it in our presentation. It is important to note that some theological thinkers have reviewed the facts and written conclusions based on the belief that the later twin would be killed. From class discussion, however, all are able to see that a clone can be created to donate an organ and still live. Our specific research on this topic shows that the various religions did not have a comment on such circumstances. Unfortunately, the facts we have found show that these religions saw nothing but the worst and did not consider such a possibility.

When reflecting upon the plight of the sterile man, we can sympathize with the fact that a couple would want a child biologically linked to them. Many would argue, as some of you did, that we all have the right to procreative liberty, meaning we all have the right to produce offspring by means of any way possible. However, individuals must realize that the same churches and synagogues fighting against the use of cloning as a reproductive source also disagree with other forms of reproduction. These forms include in vitro fertilization, artificial insemination, abortion, and even contraception. What is commonly expressed is the need for natural order, and for us to tamper with the reproductive system is disrupting what God intended. Also, as already expressed, theologians agree that cloning would disrupt family order. Instead of a mother and father being the combined "creators" of a child, you will have single people being the creator. Such disorder, according to theologians such as Brent Waters, will cause psychological confusion in the child.

Every one, at some point in their lifetime, has to deal with the loss of a loved one. As traumatic as that can be, most of us move on with our lives. There are some, however, that become psychologically scarred from such an incident, especially if the person died in a tragic way. Through the use of human cloning, distraught people would be able to "recreate" those lost. It is under such circumstances that religious thinkers believe people would be misled. It is commonly felt that people in such a hurt state would be enticed to use human cloning as an option for bringing back the lost. People would be under the misconception that the clone would be exactly the same as the one that died. Thus, many new children would be created out of confusion. Dan W. Brock said, "The child they loved and lost was a unique individual who had been shaped by his or her environment and choices, not just his or her genes, and more importantly who had experienced a particular relationship with them. …the appearance of the cloned later twin would be a constant reminder of the child they had lost (Nussbaum and Sunstein,
page 148)."

Human clones may also be created to benefit society. As mentioned in our presentation, people who made enormous contributions to society, such as Einstein, could be cloned. However, the misconception would be that the human clone would be able to accomplish all that the donor did. For example, high expectations would be placed on a clone of Einstein, as society would expect the clone to be a scientific genius as well. The circumstance would thus be unfortunate, as it is a fact that the human clone might not be smart at all. According to much of our research, the clone would have the right to create its own future, though pressured by the society in which it lived. People will regret the decision to clone such dynamic creatures once they realize that the clones cannot live up to the standards of their donor. This misconception, however, is a driving force in the ongoing debate about human cloning.

One example that was mentioned in our presentation was the use of supermodels eggs in IVF. Today there are presently over two hundred companies in the nation that are selling "model eggs" to women. Recently a new web site was formed that sells model eggs on the Internet. Ron Harris has formed this website where people cannot only bid on eggs but on sperm. The site is called Ron's Angels and can be found at
http://www.ronsangels.com/ .  Each model has a profile that lists their weight, age, height, measurements, family background, and GPA. Each model also has a written profile. Partof model number 20's profile states, "I am a 20 year old university student, with a desire to assist a loving family in the miracle of childbirth. My passion is academics. I am a physics and math major with a 4.0 GPA. I also enjoy musical composition on my guitar, as well as classical literature and politics." Each profile also contains a picture of the model. Starting bids are $15,000 and range up to $150,000. Traditional clinic charges between $2,500-$5,000, however people feel they are getting what the paid for.

The main concern of the religions that have spoken out is that clones would be created to benefit other people. Rather than cloning individuals for the sake of having children, (which we emphasize again that religions are against this reproductive procedure), clones would be created out of a deep confusion (Nussbaum and Sunstein, page 148). This is also true of clones created for their organs. A clone would be created based on what they have to offer rather than for the mere purpose of having a new person. When reviewing all of these concerns, one sees the need for genetic counseling. However, rabbis and priests internationally would agree that genetic counseling would not be necessary if cloning were not permitted.

Out of curiosity, we decided to include a survey regarding human cloning in our presentation to the class. Out of fifteen people surveyed, thirteen are between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five and are single without children. Two people are between twenty-six and forty years of age, one of which is married and the other is single. Neither one of them has children. Ten people that were surveyed are Catholic and all ten are between eighteen and twenty-five years of age, single and without children. One person is Christian, one is protestant, and one is Lutheran. Three have no religious affiliation.

Three people surveyed believe that we should have the right to clone humans, while eleven are against cloning and one is undecided. Many of the people who stated that they are against human cloning believe that cloning is unnatural and that we as humans do not have the right to fool with nature. Jennifer Poppiti wrote, "I feel it is disrupting nature and is also minimizing a person’s place in the family structure. Its taking away the concrete identity that one holds in the family. It’s just not natural!!" Chrissy Kittilsen wrote, "I do not believe that we have the right to play God or alter the nature of life."

Eleven people polled feel that cloning is not a good form of reproduction. Dr. Perring stated that as of now cloning is not a good form of reproduction but in the future it will be "more satisfactory for many people." Kristy Di Silvio believes that "there are many other ways to get a child." But "sometimes adoption is hard." Debbie is one of four people that feel that cloning is a good form of reproduction. She states, "It will give them opportunity to have a genetically related child and the environment will shape them so different from yourself." Many people that are against cloning for reproduction feel that we have so many other ways to have children so we do not need to clone.

Twelve out of fifteen believe that couples do not have a right to a "replacement child". Three people feel that humans do not have a right to clone a child for a replacement child. Chris Meehan states that "if the technology is there and they have the money" then people should have the right to a replacement child. Dr. Perring believes that this is a "personal freedom." Others feel that as long as the public is aware of the fact that the child will not be the same then people should have this freedom. Many people against cloning for a replacement child feel that this would cause psychological harm. Chrissy Kittilsen stated, "That child will be psychologically inhibited for the rest of its life that they are only here because someone else had died." Kelly Boyle adds, "If their intention is to make a replication I think it would do a great deal of psychological harm."

The question that everyone agreed on was, "Do you agree with the cloning of humans for the benefit of another? Fourteen of fifteen people answered ‘no.’ One person did not choose to answer this question. Additional comments that were added mostly stated that we do not have a right to use a person to benefit another especially if the clone dies. Everyone agreed that we should not bring about one life simply to further another.

We would like to thank everyone who took the time to answer the survey, and for stating their opinions. Cloning, particularly human cloning, is a very controversial topic today. This survey would probably have a very different outcome if handed out to a larger section of the population. We believe that society needs to be informed further on the risks, dangers, benefits and goals of human cloning. Hopefully before human cloning becomes a reality the public will become more informed. As with any controversial topic we all must realize that everyone has their own idea of what is right and what is wrong and there will never be a day when everyone is in agreement on such a controversial topic. A danger that forms from the fact that everyone’s opinion is different is that radical groups have a tendency to act out in harmful ways. For example pro-life activists murdered abortion doctors and people that tried to enter or exit abortion clinics. This is unfair. People have a right to make a choice in society and we as a country must learn to accept these decisions. We do have a freedom of speech though in this country, so please speak about your beliefs and stand behind them, but at the same time respect what opinions others stand behind.

Cole-Turner, Ronald (editor); Human Cloning: Religious Responses; Westminster John Knox Press; Louisville, Kentucky, 1997

Harris, Ron. Ron’s Angels. [Online] available January 16, 1999

Kilner, John F., Rebecca D. Pentz, and Frank E. Young (editors); Genetic Ethics: Do the Ends Justify the Genes?; William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company; Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1997

Nussbaum, Martha C. and Cass R. Sunstein (editors); Clones and clones: Facts and Fantasies about Human Cloning; W.W. Norton and Company; New York, New York, 1998

Peters, Ted (editor); Genetics: Issues of Social Justice; Pilgrim Press; Cleveland, Ohio, 1998

Reiss, Michael J. and Roger Straughan; Improving Nature? The science and ethics of Genetic Engineering; Cambridge University Press; New York, New York, 1996