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)

Leon Kass

Leon Kass – The Wisdom of Repugnance: Why we should ban the cloning of humans

“Shallow are the souls that have forgotten how to shudder…”(163)

pg. 163b opening concerns

He starts out by arguing that exposure and the media has softened us to the idea of cloning. Not only cloning but sexuality and perversion in general have become blurred terms in contemporary society. Words like, “procreation, nascent life, family, and the meaning of motherhood, fatherhood and the links between generations..” have all lost or changed meaning. This is all a thinly veiled attack on current culture, pg. 161A

We no longer see ourselves as products of our ancestors and of our culture, but we now view ourselves as self made. We custom design our lives, beliefs, ambitions, and priorities as we see fit. Self cloning therefore is just an extension of our ‘narcissistic self-re-creation.’ In our culture as long as something is done ‘freely’ it is moral.

“Enchanted and enslaved by the glamour of technology, we have lost our awe and wonder before the deep mysteries of nature and of life. We cheerfully take our own beginnings in our hands and, like the last man, we blink…”(161)

This is serious business:
“This is not business as usual, to be fretted about for a while but finally to be given our seal of approval. We must rise to the occasion and make our judgments as if the future of our humanity hangs in the balance. For so it does.”(161)

The ‘yuck’ factor:
Kass notes that most people, including those who cloned ‘Dolly the sheep’ say that there is something offensive, grotesque, repugnant and just plain disgusting about the concept of cloning a human. Kass thinks that this feeling should not be ignored when we determine the morality of cloning. Repugnance he claims is the “emotional expression of deep wisdom.”(162) read examples from P. 162

Kass then draws comparisons to other things which we feel the yuck factor with: incest, murder, rape. In all of these situations it is not required to give a rational argument why they are wrong for them to be morally suspect. It does not fully elaborate on the emotional disgust of inbreeding to say that we are afraid of the genetic results. Similarly, an argument against cloning (which has many examples of negative consequences) should not need to provide a rational justification if so many people are revolted by it.

Kass turns away from the repugnance argument for a moment and talks about the importance of sex and reproduction. He notes that through out the mammalian line the natural act of reproduction involves a male and a female of opposite sex. (hello Aquinas)
“Asexual reproduction, which produces ‘single-parent’ offspring, is a radical departure from the natural human way, confounding all normal understandings of father, mother, sibling, grandparent, etc., and all moral relations tied thereto.”(163)

His concerns:

Cloning is perverse –
The idea of selecting which genes to put into a person turns humanity into a manufactured good. “But we…would be taking a major step into making man himself simply another one of the man-made things. Human nature becomes merely the last part of nature to succumb to the technological project, which turns all of nature into raw material at human disposal, to be homogenized by our rationalized technique according to the subjective prejudices of the day.”(165)

“Cloning is inherently despotic, for it seeks to make one’s children (or someone else’s children after one’s own image (or an image of one’s choosing) and their future according to one’s will.”(166)

He makes a damning critique of Robertson on page 166

Conclusion p. 167

Matt Ridley

Matt Ridley – The New Eugenics

Initial Questions: What is a disease and where is the line. Ex, Huntington’s and dyslexia

Main Point: genetic engineering will not damage our moral principle of giving respect to all persons

He is arguing that eugenics is not such as bad thing, and even if it is that will not stop people from trying to improve themselves. “After all, in pursuit of the perfect human being, we have willingly tried every weapon that falls into our hands, from prayer to psychoanalysis to breast implants. Will we-and should we – do the same with genes?”(147)

He then discusses the ‘sad legacy’ of eugenics and explains why we have a negative feeling about the word. He cites examples of Churchill wanting to sterilize the mentally handicapped and the Buck vs. Bell U.S. Supreme Court case which legalized sterilization of low IQ and mentally handicapped. (Buck was only 6 months old, justified over 100,000 forced sterilizations) Famous quote from case: “Three generations of imbeciles are enough!” – Oliver Wendell Holmes.

After discussing these moral atrocities he notes that what makes them atrocities is that they were performed with out the person’s consent. A violation of their autonomy, which we consider immoral. This is important for the current eugenics debate because people who would get the procedures would presumably be volunteering. [M]odern eugenics is about individuals applying private criteria to improve their own offspring by screening their genes.”(147)

Examples of benefits, pg. 148

The fear of the abuse: These types of unnecarry improvements send the message that there is something wrong with the person that has them. Shortness could become a disease. “In a genetically engineered society, the parents of a genetically disable child would feel social opprobrium for not having “done something about it.”(148)

He counters this fear by saying that as a society we still have respect for people who have preventable diseases like Down Syndrome or other prenatal inflictions. Our moral good of the respect for human life is not altered by these individuals and it will continue to be present even if there are less people who possess these ‘undesirable’ conditions.

He then addresses the argument that genetic enhancements will eliminate diversity, he thinks that it will do the opposite. “Far from threatening diversity, genetic engineering may actually increase it. Supposing cosmetic genetic engineering became accepted, musical people might seek out musical genes for their children; athletes might seek athletic genes; etc. It is very unlikely that everybody would choose the same priority.”(148-149)

He argues that if this becomes commonplace and is legalized that it will not become widespread because the only people that will use it are those who are forced to. His reasoning for this is because: “People do not want particular types of children; they just want their own children, and they want them to be a bit like themselves…”(149)

He then concludes with a quote from Jefferson which attempts to place faith in the abilities of humans to make the moral choice and our trust that they will do so. Pg. 149