That’s the only explanation I have for all the foofoorah over the cloning announcement by the Raelians and Clonaid about a successful human clone birth. I mean, these guys sound…
That’s the only explanation I have for all the foofoorah over the cloning announcement by the Raelians and Clonaid about a successful human clone birth. I mean, these guys sound like they’re straight off the pages of the Weekly World News — and I say that with all due respect for the heroism of Bat-boy and the tragedy that is Hitler’s Brain in a Jar.
But it’s given religious leaders — who have nothing else to do this time of year, I guess — to pontificate (in some cases literally). Most of this boils down to “‘Tain’t natural!”
Well, as someone who had scarlet fever as a child, who underwent vaccines to (successfully) avoid smallpox, who has received blood during surgery, and who wears glasses, I find arguments about what’s “natural” to usually be highly selective and rarely convincing.
[T]he announcement in itself is an expression of a brutal mentality, devoid of any ethical and human consideration.
So says an announcement from the Vatican, whose stance on scientific issues in the past shows it well understands what “brutal mentality” means. Given that the Vatican regularly says the same things about birth control should put this prounouncement in the correct perspective.
Science must be regulated by firm laws to preserve humanity and its dignity.
So says Ali Abu Hassan, a cleric from Egypt’s religious institutution, Al Azhar University. Since we generally don’t hold much truck with what Al Azhar U. says about human dignity in the context of men and women holding hands together, I’m not sure why AP feels the need to quote this particular gent. But, then, I’m not sure how human cloning somehow fails to “preserve humanity.”
Ayed bin Ahmad Qurani, a “senior Saudi cleric” (which means we should pay attention to all his moral pronunciations, right, since all science should be considered in light of sharia) condemns human cloning “because it will cause an imbalance in the human nature God has created.” The story fails to say what that particular balance is. He also noted that cloning could replace the institution of marriage, which would be “sinful, sinful, sinful.” Since, after all, reproduction of the traditional kind never takes place outside of marriage.
(Actually, I can imagine some religious leaders liking that aspect of it, since it means no need for sex outside of marriage. It divorces, so to speak, sex from procreation.)
Israel’s chief Rabbi Yisrael Meir Lau noted that:
The moment medical science tries to take upon itself duties and areas which are not its responsibility, such as shortening life, cloning or creating life in an unnatural way, we must set down borders in order not to harm the basic belief that there is a creator of the universe in whose hands life and death are placed.
Well here, at least, is a tangential reference to something that I’m sure is a background worry in a number of these statements. The idea that “only God can create a tree” (or a baby) is under threat by scientists! Gads!
Read that again — we must not “harm the basic belief” that God is the creator and holds life and death in His hands. And that’s why we need anti-cloning laws. Sheesh.
Now, I have to admit, I’m with the radio commentator the other day who, tongue-in-cheek, noted that cloning would most likely be used by fabulously wealthy narcissists and presidents-for-life, just the sorts of folks who we don’t want to have reproduced. I think the mentality behind the folks who want to clone a child who has died is also a bit — unbalanced.
But, then, I have problems with a lot of folks reproducing “naturally” that I don’t feel it’s right to pass laws about. Heck, don’t even get me started about child-rearing practices.
Folks have been arguing against “‘Tain’t natural!” for eons, ever since someone suggested cooking a haunch of mastadon over a fire, or that cleaning out a wound, rather than leaving the natural dirt in it, might be a good thing. It doesn’t fly. It doesn’t work. It implies an arbitrary division between humanity and nature (are beaver dams natural?), it falsely elevates natural as good (tse-tse flies and sleeping sickness, anyone?), and it’s usually used only against things that people find uncomfortably new (such as cloning) instead of other “unnatural” things such as clothing, newspapers, and Coca-cola.
The djinn is out of the bottle, folks — or, at least, the bottle is being shaken vigorously to get it out. Better, from a religious point of view (or at least from mine) to elucidate some basic principles that make sense in the battle to regulate or restrict human cloning, than simply to wave “unnatural!” around. Use moral suasion to get folks to make the right choice, rather than robbing them of that choice.
Of all the moral evils out there in the world, certainly there are some causes more worthy of fighting against than human cloning (assuming that it is a moral evil).
Here’s a fun effort —