2 of 4

Norsigian told the House subcommittee on Health that "cloning advocates are seeking to appropriate the language of reproductive rights to support their case. This is a travesty. There is an immense difference between seeking to end an unwanted pregnancy and seeking to create a genetic duplicate human being. Our opposition to human cloning in no way diminishes our support for a woman's right to … abortion services."

The testimony given by Newman preceded a major fear that Christians have voiced since Sunday's ACT announcement. He said an outright ban is needed in the country because "if the construction of modified or cloned embryos is permitted, there will be little standing in the way of using them for reproductive purposes."

The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity warns that key moral problems are found in ACT's argument that embryonic therapeutic cloning should be allowed but reproductive cloning should not be.

John F. Kilner, president and chief executive officer of the center, wrote in a commentary this week that such reasoning (detailed in the center's position paper, "Human Cloning: The Necessity of a Comprehensive Ban") demonstrates the need for a complete ban on all cloning. He said flaws in ATC's rationale include the facts that:

• The term "therapeutic cloning" is misleading. True "therapeutic" research, he said, has potential to benefit the research subject. But destruction is not beneficial for the cloned embryos.
• Prohibiting reproductive cloning but allowing non-reproductive cloning establishes a requirement to destroy all cloned embryonic human beings before birth.
• Reducing human life to a "thing" to be manipulated is unethical.
• Some people will reject any treatments developed from stem cells (even those obtained without loss of life) because of the offensive cloning-for-research practice.

Many feel that ACT's distinction between therapeutic and reproductive cloning will only result in a slippery slope of permitted research until serious ethical lines are crossed—if they have not been already. Therefore, Christians are arguing, morality must now establish the framework of what is permissible.

"The basic issue is this: Biotechnology offers the world extraordinary opportunities for good and also for ill," Cameron wrote this week. "As its treasure-house of opportunity is explored, we must fervently seek a responsible policy framework that will protect and enhance human dignity and not hazard it to the interests of venture capitalists and mad scientists. We need Congress to draw a line in the ethical sand and begin to build a global coalition for human dignity."

Rapid Senate approval of legislation to ban all cloning is necessary to guard life ethics, according to a statement from Douglas Johnson, legislative director of National Right to Life."This corporation is creating human embryos for the sole purpose of killing them and harvesting their cells. Unless Congress acts quickly, this corporation and others will be opening human embryo farms."

Carrie Gordon Earll, bioethics analyst for Focus on the Family, said in a press release that while ACT claims to not clone humans for birth, other groups will. The line, she said, must be drawn now.

"The pace of science is rapidly passing the social bounds of ethics and morality. It is time for public policy to set reasonable limits to advance the preservation of life and protect human dignity," Earll said.

next page... |  2 of 4

share this page

November (Web-only) 2001, Vol. 45