John Robertson
John A. Robertson – The Question of Human Cloning
Robertson’s main point: “The most unappealing applications of the technique are highly speculative and could be restricted without also stopping more valid uses.”(158)
These are the main questions regarding the cloning debate:
Is it ok to use for Research?
Is it permissible as a way to give infertile couples the ability to form families?
Can the government forbid cloning and the technology associated with it?
Before we make a decision about whether cloning is acceptable in any of these situations, we must first address the morality behind these actions.
The fear:
“They described hypothetical scenarios in which embryos would be cloned for sale or to produce organs and tissue for existing children who need transplants. One ethicist termed cloning as ‘contrary to human values’; others saw it as ‘an opportunity for mischief’…The Vatican newspaper termed it a step into a ‘tunnel of madness,’ while the United Methodist Church called for an executive order banning cloning in all federally financed institution. A poll a week after the first story reported that 60 percent of Americans opposed cloning.”(154)
The reasons for the fear:
There is something unnatural about the creation of life in a laboratory
The manipulation and destruction of human embryos during the cloning process troubles some
There are unforeseen problems and consequences for intentionally creating identical twins, in particular the twins offspring
Cloning will violate the “uniqueness and dignity” of people
Cloning will create an unattainable expectation on the cloned twin
The technology could be abused - People could sell desirable embryos to the highest bidder. Or clones could be created to harvest organs for existing children
What are the current reasons for demand of cloning techniques:
IVF – the cloning technology would require fewer embryos because it can split the ones that already exist.
Life Insurance – could provide a safety net in case something happens to a child. We can split the initial embryo and freeze it in case the first child dies or needs an organ (unlikely – not impossible, but not likely to happen all that often)
To produce more desirable offspring – He argues that the buying and selling of mass produced desirable children will not occur because people want their own children. Reproduction and our innate drive to reproduce are tied to the survival of our personal dna, it would be highly unlikely someone would intentionally choose to carry on someone else’s if they have another choice.
Robertson’s attack on the destruction of Embryos argument. Pg. 157a
He then argues against the claim that cloning recreates the same person which denies the uniquness and dignity of the person. His main sticking point is that twins which are naturally born are not subject to this discrimination and therefore neither will clones.
“If anything, being a twin appears to create close emotional bonds that confer special advantages. If this is true, then having twins as a result of embryo splitting should be no more harmful to offspring than having twins naturally.”(157)
There are actually two different fears coinciding on this one, but if you imagine the clone not as a recreation of yourself which you ‘expect’ to act and do as you did it takes on a different image. Robertson asks us to view clones as twin brothers or sisters born at a different time, unique individuals in their own right, just your twin. If someone were to tell you that you had a twin brother or sister and you were separated at birth wouldn’t that sound a lot less creepy than recreating yourself…
The reason it is less creepy is because we have experience of twins becoming different people and we accept this. It would be remarkable and unsettling (not to mention impossible) to find two 40 year old twins who did not have individual personalities. It is not the physical similarities that determine the person but their experiences.
“The claim rests on the notion that the later born child lacks the uniqueness or individuality that we deem essential to human worth and dignity, and that human individuality is largely determined by nature or genome rather than by nurture and environmental factors. Because phenotype and genotype do diverge, and because the environment in which the child will be raised will be different from that of his older twin, the child will still have a unique individuality” (157)
He then argues against the fears around cloning as life and health insurance:
“Wanting a child to replace one who has died is not itself unethical. Nor does it become so merely because the new child will be a twin of the first.”(158)
Discussion question: Do you believe that there is nothing unethical with replacing a child?
“Although the parents may hope that the new child will develop and show the same traits as her deceased twin, they should very rapidly learn that the second child is different in some respects and similar in others, and would ordinarily come to treat and accept her as the individual that she is.”(158)
Robertson’s main point: “The most unappealing applications of the technique are highly speculative and could be restricted without also stopping more valid uses.”(158)
These are the main questions regarding the cloning debate:
Is it ok to use for Research?
Is it permissible as a way to give infertile couples the ability to form families?
Can the government forbid cloning and the technology associated with it?
Before we make a decision about whether cloning is acceptable in any of these situations, we must first address the morality behind these actions.
The fear:
“They described hypothetical scenarios in which embryos would be cloned for sale or to produce organs and tissue for existing children who need transplants. One ethicist termed cloning as ‘contrary to human values’; others saw it as ‘an opportunity for mischief’…The Vatican newspaper termed it a step into a ‘tunnel of madness,’ while the United Methodist Church called for an executive order banning cloning in all federally financed institution. A poll a week after the first story reported that 60 percent of Americans opposed cloning.”(154)
The reasons for the fear:
There is something unnatural about the creation of life in a laboratory
The manipulation and destruction of human embryos during the cloning process troubles some
There are unforeseen problems and consequences for intentionally creating identical twins, in particular the twins offspring
Cloning will violate the “uniqueness and dignity” of people
Cloning will create an unattainable expectation on the cloned twin
The technology could be abused - People could sell desirable embryos to the highest bidder. Or clones could be created to harvest organs for existing children
What are the current reasons for demand of cloning techniques:
IVF – the cloning technology would require fewer embryos because it can split the ones that already exist.
Life Insurance – could provide a safety net in case something happens to a child. We can split the initial embryo and freeze it in case the first child dies or needs an organ (unlikely – not impossible, but not likely to happen all that often)
To produce more desirable offspring – He argues that the buying and selling of mass produced desirable children will not occur because people want their own children. Reproduction and our innate drive to reproduce are tied to the survival of our personal dna, it would be highly unlikely someone would intentionally choose to carry on someone else’s if they have another choice.
Robertson’s attack on the destruction of Embryos argument. Pg. 157a
He then argues against the claim that cloning recreates the same person which denies the uniquness and dignity of the person. His main sticking point is that twins which are naturally born are not subject to this discrimination and therefore neither will clones.
“If anything, being a twin appears to create close emotional bonds that confer special advantages. If this is true, then having twins as a result of embryo splitting should be no more harmful to offspring than having twins naturally.”(157)
There are actually two different fears coinciding on this one, but if you imagine the clone not as a recreation of yourself which you ‘expect’ to act and do as you did it takes on a different image. Robertson asks us to view clones as twin brothers or sisters born at a different time, unique individuals in their own right, just your twin. If someone were to tell you that you had a twin brother or sister and you were separated at birth wouldn’t that sound a lot less creepy than recreating yourself…
The reason it is less creepy is because we have experience of twins becoming different people and we accept this. It would be remarkable and unsettling (not to mention impossible) to find two 40 year old twins who did not have individual personalities. It is not the physical similarities that determine the person but their experiences.
“The claim rests on the notion that the later born child lacks the uniqueness or individuality that we deem essential to human worth and dignity, and that human individuality is largely determined by nature or genome rather than by nurture and environmental factors. Because phenotype and genotype do diverge, and because the environment in which the child will be raised will be different from that of his older twin, the child will still have a unique individuality” (157)
He then argues against the fears around cloning as life and health insurance:
“Wanting a child to replace one who has died is not itself unethical. Nor does it become so merely because the new child will be a twin of the first.”(158)
Discussion question: Do you believe that there is nothing unethical with replacing a child?
“Although the parents may hope that the new child will develop and show the same traits as her deceased twin, they should very rapidly learn that the second child is different in some respects and similar in others, and would ordinarily come to treat and accept her as the individual that she is.”(158)
posted by Charles Carlson at
10:06 AM
