With the possibility of human cloning on the scientific horizon, we are unsure of many details. But there is one phenomenon which we can already measure: the haste with which people make uninformed judgments.
Most people express a visceral objection to reproducing a human from the DNA of a single other human. This is usually accompanied by a vague fear of the "power of technology," which invariably remains undefined.
Reproduction by cloning is the most sophisticated manipulation of nature in history. For its opponents, it is in a different league than all other forms of death and birth control, including in vitro ("test tube") fertilization. It lies on the other side of some imaginary line dividing acceptable medical technology from the unacceptable. But how do the opponents of cloning make this arbitrary distinction?
They suspect a clone would not be a "real human." A cloned human would not be a Xerox copy of another human. Identical twins have the same genetic similarity as a human and his clone, and yet we do not say that only one of a pair of twins is human. Those who envision a basketball team with five Michael Jordans forget that individual identity is determined by a combination of heredity and environment - the old "nature vs. nurture" problem. Clones would have unique mannerisms, personalities and (here's the kicker) souls.
They insist cloning is "playing God." By this, they conjure up images of Dr. Frankenstein, who created life where there was none. Cloning creates life from life. By their logic, in vitro reproduction and even sexual reproduction could be construed as "playing God." Is there any medical technology by which we do not "play God?"
They think reproduction by cloning is not "natural." This objection raises the question of the natural (God-intended) "essence" of reproduction. They define the essential element as the combination of DNA from two people. This understanding is entirely informed (and limited) by current knowledge. A hundred years ago, when DNA was unknown, people thought the essential element of natural reproduction to be the act of intercourse. In vitro conception would have been considered as unnatural and sacrilegious as cloning. A future world in which medicine is so advanced that cloning seems relatively "natural" is already on the tip of my imagination.
They fear cloning denies the "sanctity of human life." Already, some have imagined the possibility of cloning oneself in order to rob the clone of needed organs. This is an irrelevant argument; we must separate the potential abusive application of the technology from the question of whether cloning itself is wrong or immoral. You cannot say that quantum physics is an immoral discipline simply because it allows for the creation of atomic weapons.
And you certainly can't argue against cloning just because you have a bad feeling about it.
Rainbow is a sophomore history major.