DOCSLIB.ORG

Human Cloning and Moral Status Christopher Alexander Pynes

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Florida State University Libraries Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School 2003 Human Cloning and Moral Status Christopher Alexander Pynes Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected] THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES HUMAN CLONING AND MORAL STATUS By CHRISTOPHER ALEXANDER PYNES A Dissertation submitted to the Department of Philosophy in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Degree Awarded: Summer Semester, 2003 Copyright © 2003 Christopher Alexander Pynes All Rights Reserved The members of the Committee approve the dissertation of Christopher Alexander Pynes defended on 19 June 2003. Michael Ruse Professor Directing Dissertation Michael Meredith Outside Committee Member Peter Dalton Committee Member The Office of Graduate Studies has verified and approved the above named committee members. To my mother, and for all mothers: past, present, and future. iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This dissertation would not have been possible without the guidance of Professors Michael Ruse and Peter Dalton. Michael showed me that getting something written is more important than writing something perfectly; the former is necessary for the latter. Peter Dalton is an exceptional philosopher, and thanks to his guidance I made it through my first few years of graduate school at Florida State. This dissertation has been improved greatly thanks to his thorough comments; I cannot thank him enough, however, the mistakes that remain are all mine. Many people sacrificed so that I could write and finish this dissertation, none more than Darlene Deas. Her loving support throughout the entire dissertation writing process has been nothing less than heroic. It is a wonderful thing to have a new birthday, and 19 June 2003 will always be a special day for us both. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract........................................................................................................................ vii INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1 Participants In The Human Cloning Debate .................................................... 5 Chapter Summaries .......................................................................................... 13 1. THE HISTORY AND BIOLOGICAL FACTS OF CLONING.............................. 16 Introduction...................................................................................................... 16 In The Beginning ............................................................................................. 17 Naïve Cloning .................................................................................................. 21 Toward A Cloning Definition.......................................................................... 26 Classifying The Cloning Issues........................................................................ 36 What Is The Problem With Human Cloning?.................................................. 46 Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 52 2. PHILOSOPHICAL ARGUMENTS AND HUMAN CLONING............................ 53 Introduction...................................................................................................... 53 Consequentialism............................................................................................. 57 Consequentialist Arguments Against Human Cloning .................................... 64 Non-Identity, Wrongful Life, And The Parfit Problem ................................... 82 Deontology....................................................................................................... 90 Categorical Imperative Objections To Human Cloning .................................. 96 Virtue Theory................................................................................................... 102 Virtue Argument And Human Cloning............................................................ 109 Philosophical Arguments Conclusion.............................................................. 114 3. RELIGIOUS ARGUMENTS AND HUMAN CLONING...................................... 116 Introduction...................................................................................................... 116 Dominant Religious Traditions........................................................................ 127 Religious Arguments Against Human Cloning ............................................... 156 Leon Kass’s “Wisdom Of Repugnance”.......................................................... 164 Religious Arguments Conclusions................................................................... 172 v 4. LEGAL ARGUMENTS, PUBLIC POLICY, AND HUMAN CLONING ............. 173 Introduction...................................................................................................... 173 The US Constitution And Research Cloning ................................................... 175 The Limits Of Roe v Wade For Cloning Analysis ........................................... 179 The US Constitution And Reproductive Cloning ............................................ 186 Pynes’s Defense Of Cloning Using Griswold v. Connecticut ......................... 191 Public Policy And Human Cloning.................................................................. 202 Legal Arguments Conclusion........................................................................... 206 5. MORAL STATUS AND A DEFENSE OF HUMAN CLONING.......................... 208 Introduction...................................................................................................... 208 Moral Status And The Cloning Debate............................................................ 209 Potentiality Arguments .................................................................................... 211 Three Single Conditions For Moral Status ...................................................... 220 Mary Anne Warren’s Multi-Criterial Definition Of Moral Status................... 239 Pynes’s Moral Status Definiton ....................................................................... 249 Moral Status Conclusion.................................................................................. 256 CONCLUSION............................................................................................................ 258 Focusing The Debate And Future Public Policy.............................................. 258 BIBLIOGRAPHY........................................................................................................ 260 Articles............................................................................................................. 260 Books ............................................................................................................... 266 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ....................................................................................... 271 vi ABSTRACT The participants in the human cloning debate are as varied as the interests they support: Catholic priests, agnostic biologists, atheistic philosophers, and political leaders have all spoken out since the announcement of Dolly the cloned sheep's birth in February 1997. Currently, many of the participants are talking about different issues, working with different philosophical assumptions, relying on false or misunderstood data, and generally talking past one another. For example, how does the opponent of human cloning who is concerned with issues like “playing God,” human dignity, or moral repugnance converse with a proponent who believes cloning is really about the reproductive rights of individuals? In this dissertation I take on the task of reconstructing and evaluating the arguments for and against human cloning, and finally argue that the disagreement is really about how to define “moral status.” I then provide a definition of moral status that would enable for public discourse on this topic to move in a direction that allows for responsible public policy making in the area of biomedical research. Chapter I deals with clarifying the biological and scientific facts relevant to the human cloning debate. I begin with an introduction about the nature of biological advancement with DNA and trace the biological and philosophical breakthroughs that have given rise to the current technology, which allows for Nuclear Somatic Cell Transplantation, the method developed by Ian Wilmut and his team to create Dolly. I then describe the different meanings that cloning can have in the biological sense. Concluding the chapter I argue for a definition of cloning that is topic neutral with respect to scientific methods and ethical theories. Chapter II evaluates the common moral theories that are used in philosophical arguments against human cloning: Consequentialism (Utilitarianism), Deontology (Kantianism), and Virtue Theory (Aristotelianism). The popular opinion is that vii deontologists would be against human cloning, consequentialists would be for human cloning, and virtue theory would be uninformative in the debate. What I show is that contrary to the popular opinion there are opponents and proponents in each of these moral camps, presenting arguments for and against human cloning. Their arguments are not limited to just the common "means as end" and "harm" debates, but include issues of right, non-identity, and moral status.
Recommended publications
  • The Naturalistic Fallacy and Natural Law Methodology

    The Naturalistic Fallacy and Natural Law Methodology

    The Naturalistic Fallacy and Natural Law Methodology W. Matthews Grant It is customary to divide contemporary natural law theorists-at least those working broadly within the Thomistic tradition-into two main camps. In one camp are those such as John Finnis, Germain Grisez and Robert George, who deny that a natural law ethics need base itself on premises supplied by a methodologically prior philosophical anthropol­ ogy. According to these thinkers, practical reason, when reflecting on experience and considering possible ends of action, grasps in a non-in­ ferential act of understanding certain basic goods that ought to be pursued. Since these goods are not deduced, demonstrated, or derived from prior premises, they provide a set of self-evident or per se nota primary pre­ cepts from which all other precepts of the natural law may be derived. Because these primary precepts or basic goods are self-evident, natural law theorizing need not wait on the findings of anthropologists and phi­ losophers of human nature. 1 A rival school of natural law ethicists, comprised of such thinkers as Russell Bittinger, Ralph Mcinerny, Henry Veatch andAnthony Lisska, rejects the claims of Finnis and his colleagues for the autonomy of natural law I. For major statements and defenses of this position see John Finnis, Natural Law and Natural Rights (Oxford: Oxford University Press, I980); Germain Grisez, The Way of the Lord Jesus~ vol. I, Christian Moral Principles (Chicago: Franciscan Herald Press, I983);. Robert P. George, "Recent Criticism of Natural Law
  • Ethics of the (Un)Natural

    Ethics of the (Un)Natural

    Ethics of the (un)natural Start date 22nd January 2017 Time 10:00am – 16:45pm Venue Madingley Hall Madingley Cambridge Tutor Anna Smajdor Course code 1617NDX055 Director of Programmes Emma Jennings Public Programme Coordinator, Clare Kerr For further information on this course, please contact [email protected] or 01223 746237 To book See: www.ice.cam.ac.uk or telephone 01223 746262 Tutor biography Anna is Associate Professor of Practical Philosophy at the University of Oslo. Prior to that, she was Ethics Lecturer at Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia. She has been offering philosophy courses at ICE for several years on themes related to her research interests, such as 'Ethics of the (Un)natural' in 2016/17. When not teaching at ICE, Anna spends her time at the University of Oslo and collaborating with colleagues at the University of Umeå in Sweden, where she is part of a research project- 'Close personal relationships-children and the family'. University of Cambridge Institute of Continuing Education, Madingley Hall, Cambridge, CB23 8AQ www.ice.cam.ac.uk Course programme 09:30 Terrace bar open for pre-course tea/coffee 10:00 – 11:15 Session 1 – Unnatural practices 11:15 Coffee 11:45 – 13:00 Session 2 – “Our niggardly stepmother” 13:00 Lunch 14:00 – 15:15 Session 3 – The naturalistic fallacy 15:15 Tea 15:30 – 16:45 Session 4 – Reasoning with nature 16:45 Day-school ends University of Cambridge Institute of Continuing Education, Madingley Hall, Cambridge, CB23 8AQ www.ice.cam.ac.uk Course syllabus Aims: To engage students in a critical analysis of the ways in which concepts of nature are used in moral reasoning To explore the degree to which the ‘natural fallacy’ sweeps aside the possibility of reasoning from nature To analyse several key bioethical questions (animal research, conservation, human/animal chimaeras) on which concepts of nature have a bearing Content: This course will analyse the relationship between morality and nature in the context of key bioethical concerns, e.g.
  • Civil Disobedience

    Civil Disobedience

    Civil Disobedience Henry David Toreau Civil Disobedience Henry David Toreau Foreword by Connor Boyack Libertas Institute Salt Lake City, Utah Civil Disobedience Thoreau’s essay is out of copyright and in the public domain; this version is lightly edited for modernization. Supplemental essays are copyrighted by their respective authors and included with permission. The foreword is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution- ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. LIBERTAS PRESS 770 E. MAIN STREET, SUITE 255 LEHI, UT 84043 Civil Disobedience / Henry David Toreau — 1st ed. First printing, June 2014 Cover Design by Ben Jenkins Manufactured in the United States of America For bulk orders, send inquiries to: [email protected] ISBN-13: 978-0-9892912-3-1 dedicated to Edward Snowden for doing what was right “Te most foolish notion of all is the belief that everything is just which is found in the customs or laws of nations. Would that be true, even if these laws had been enacted by tyrants?” “What of the many deadly, the many pestilential statutes which nations put in force? Tese no more deserve to be called laws than the rules a band of robbers might pass in their assembly. For if ignorant and unskillful men have prescribed deadly poisons instead of healing drugs, these cannot possibly be called physicians’ prescriptions; neither in a nation can a statute of any sort be called a law, even though the nation, in spite of being a ruinous regulation, has accepted it.” —Cicero Foreword by Connor Boyack Americans know Henry David Thoreau as the author of Walden, a narrative published in 1854 detailing the author’s life at Walden Pond, on property owned by his friend Ralph Waldo Emerson near Concord, Massachusetts.
  • Ebook Download Old Age, Masculinity, and Early Modern Drama 1St Edition

    Ebook Download Old Age, Masculinity, and Early Modern Drama 1St Edition

    OLD AGE, MASCULINITY, AND EARLY MODERN DRAMA 1ST EDITION PDF, EPUB, EBOOK Anthony Ellis | 9781351914031 | | | | | Old Age, Masculinity, and Early Modern Drama 1st edition PDF Book Non-standard behavior may be considered indicative of homosexuality , despite the fact that gender expression, gender identity and sexual orientation are widely accepted as distinct concepts. Discourse Analysis Online. Historian Kate Cooper wrote: "Wherever a woman is mentioned a man's character is being judged — and along with it what he stands for. Research in the United Kingdom found, "Younger men and women who read fitness and fashion magazines could be psychologically harmed by the images of perfect female and male physiques. Here Press. Gender: laughter. Boxing was professionalized in America and Europe in the 19th century; it emphasized the physical and confrontational aspects of masculinity. And you can see that in the media today. While the causes of drinking and alcoholism are complex and varied, gender roles and social expectations have a strong influence encouraging men to drink. Dandies and desert saints: styles of Victorian masculinity. By mid 17th c. Reasons cited for not seeing a physician include fear, denial, embarrassment, a dislike of situations out of their control and the belief that visiting a doctor is not worth the time or cost. Where plays in the past had, for the most part, used mythological or stereotypical characters, now they involved the lower class, the poor, the rich; they involved all genders, classes and races. Acr North American Advances. The group that had finished would move their pageant away from their platform and the next pageant wagon would move into place.
  • Method: Journal of Lonergan Studies, Vol. 16, No. 1

    Method: Journal of Lonergan Studies, Vol. 16, No. 1

    VOLUME16 ER 1 SPRING19 METHOD lournalof LonerganStudies VolumeL6 NumberLSPring199S PATRICK H. BYRNE CHARLESC. HEFLINC, JR. MARK D. MORELU Editor Eilitor Editor KERRYCRoNIN ANNE E. C/DONNELL Business Manager Editoial Manager CONTENTS Fredeick E. Crcnoe. 1 Editor's lntroduction BernardI . F. Lonergan 5 "Variations in Fundamental Theology" LouisRoy, O.P. 25 Schleiermacher'sEpistemology IamesSwindal 47 The Role of Cognitive Reflection in Bernard Lonergan's Moral TheologY 67 BooK REvIEws METHzD:lournal of LonerganStudies is published by The Lonergan Institute at Boston College METHoD: lournal of Lonergan Studies aims, first, at furthering interpretive, historical, and critical study of the philosophicaf theological, economic, and methodological writings of Bernard l,onergan. Secondly, it aims at promoting original research into the methodological foundations of the sciencesand disciplines. METHoD is published twice yearly, in April and October, by The Lonergan Institute at Boston College. SuBscRtPrtoNPRICE 1998: $16.00 yearly for individuals, $28.00yearly for institutions (U.S. currency). SUBSCRIPTIoNORDERS must be prepaid in U.S. funds and should be addressed to the Business Manager, Meruoo, Lonergan Center, Bapst Library, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA 02767-3806. Changes of address and other correspondence related to subscriptions and advertising should be sent to the same address. MANUScRIPTSshould be sent to Mark Morelli METHoD, Deparhent of Philosophy, Loyola Marymount University, Loyola Blvd. at W. 80th Street, Los Angeles, CA 9fiX5 or to Kerry Cronin, METHoD,Lonergan Center, Bapst Library, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA 02167-3806.In order to facilitate an early decisioru authors should send three copies of each manurript, double-spaced throughou! including footnotes. Submissions should be accompanied by a short biographical note.
  • Hindu Bioethics for the Twenty-First Century

    Hindu Bioethics for the Twenty-First Century

    Journal of Hindu-Christian Studies Volume 14 Article 9 January 2001 Hindu Bioethics for the Twenty-First Century S. Cromwell Crawford Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.butler.edu/jhcs Part of the Religion Commons Recommended Citation Crawford, S. Cromwell (2001) "Hindu Bioethics for the Twenty-First Century," Journal of Hindu-Christian Studies: Vol. 14, Article 9. Available at: https://doi.org/10.7825/2164-6279.1252 The Journal of Hindu-Christian Studies is a publication of the Society for Hindu-Christian Studies. The digital version is made available by Digital Commons @ Butler University. For questions about the Journal or the Society, please contact [email protected]. For more information about Digital Commons @ Butler University, please contact [email protected]. -- Crawford: Hindu Bioethics for the Twenty-First Century Hindu Bioethics for the Twenty-First Century s. Cromwell Crawford University of Hawaii Introduction focus on these three distinctive features of Hindu bioethics, namely: its medical basis; IN his Cross Cultural Perspectives in its philosophical framework; its ethical Medical Ethics: Readings, Robert Veatch orientation. observes, "The religions of Judaism and Christianity and the secular thought of the Distinctive Features of Hindu Bioethics political philosophy of liberalism in the Anglo-American West are not the only Medical Basis alternatives to a Hippocratic medical ethic."J A unique feature of Hinduism is that a fully In fact, the new pluralistic approach to world fledged system of medicine evolved within .cultures is introducing us to several religious its complex ethos. The historical and philosophical alternatives from outside developments are shrouded in mystery due the Anglo-American West.
  • 'The Supreme Principle of Morality'? in the Preface to His Best

    'The Supreme Principle of Morality'? in the Preface to His Best

    The Supreme Principle of Morality Allen W. Wood 1. What is ‘The Supreme Principle of Morality’? In the Preface to his best known work on moral philosophy, Kant states his purpose very clearly and succinctly: “The present groundwork is, however, nothing more than the search for and establishment of the supreme principle of morality, which already constitutes an enterprise whole in its aim and to be separated from every other moral investigation” (Groundwork 4:392). This paper will deal with the outcome of the first part of this task, namely, Kant’s attempt to formulate the supreme principle of morality, which is the intended outcome of the search. It will consider this formulation in light of Kant’s conception of the historical antecedents of his attempt. Our first task, however, must be to say a little about the meaning of the term ‘supreme principle of morality’. For it is not nearly as evident to many as it was to Kant that there is such a thing at all. And it is extremely common for people, whatever position they may take on this issue, to misunderstand what a ‘supreme principle of morality’ is, what it is for, and what role it is supposed to play in moral theorizing and moral reasoning. Kant never directly presents any argument that there must be such a principle, but he does articulate several considerations that would seem to justify supposing that there is. Kant holds that moral questions are to be decided by reason. Reason, according to Kant, always seeks unity under principles, and ultimately, systematic unity under the fewest possible number of principles (Pure Reason A298-302/B355-359, A645- 650/B673-678).
  • Repugnance” Lens of Gonzales V

    Repugnance” Lens of Gonzales V

    The “Repugnance” Lens of Gonzales v. Carhart and Other Theories of Reproductive Rights: Evaluating Advanced Reproductive Technologies Sonia M. Suter* Introduction .................................................... 1515 I. Constitutional Theories of Reproductive Rights ........ 1520 A. Procreative Liberty and Personal Autonomy........ 1520 1. IVF............................................. 1523 2. Disposition of Embryos ......................... 1527 3. Prenatal Testing................................. 1530 4. PIGD ........................................... 1537 5. Fetal or Embryonic Genetic Modification ...... 1537 B. Nation’s History and Tradition—An Assault on Autonomy-Based Reproductive Rights ............. 1540 C. Privacy of Person and Bodily Integrity ............. 1544 D. Familial and Parental Privacy ....................... 1548 E. Equality Theory .................................... 1556 1. IVF............................................. 1561 2. Testing for and Treating Disease ................ 1562 3. Trait Selection and Genetic Modification ....... 1564 II. Gonzales v. Carhart ..................................... 1566 A. Interpreting Reproductive Rights Through the Lens of “Repugnance” ................................... 1569 1. Lack of Health Exception ...................... 1569 2. State Interests .................................. 1576 a. Protecting the Mother’s Health ............. 1576 b. Protecting Potential Life .................... 1579 * Associate Professor, The George Washington University Law School. B.A., Michigan
  • Princeton Journal of Bioethics Princeton Bioethics Conference Special Publication Presented by the Student Bioethics Forum and FUSION

    Princeton Journal of Bioethics Princeton Bioethics Conference Special Publication Presented by the Student Bioethics Forum and FUSION

    Princeton Bioethics Conference November 20, 2010 PJB Princeton Journal of Bioethics Princeton Bioethics Conference Special Publication Presented by The Student Bioethics Forum and FUSION Dedicated to the discussion and contemplation of issues at the intersection of technology and society. Princeton Bioethics Conference The Princeton Journal of Bioethics Tony Trenga ‘11 Editor-in-Chief Brett Lullo ‘11 Layout Editor Angela Dai ‘13 Bruce Easop ‘13 George Maliha ‘13 Joseph Park ‘13 James Williams ‘13 Alina Yang ’13 Editorial Staff Copyright 2010 by the Princeton Journal of Bioethics. All rights reserved. Cover Design: Jared Serwer ’98 Bioethics Emblem: Darryl Bledsoe ‘98 i The Princeton Journal of Bioethics Princeton Bioethics Conference Foreword We are proud to present the attendees of the Princeton Bio- ethics Conference: Undergraduate Voices on the Intersection of Science, Technical Review Board Policy, and Ethics with this special publication of the Princeton Journal of Bioethics. A joint collaboration of the Student Bioethics Forum, The Technical Review Board was created to review the student writing thereby FUSION, and the Princeton Journal of Bioethics, this issue of the ensuring the accuracy and quality of the Journal. We would like to extend our Journal consists of the papers of the undergraduate students present- appreciation to these professionals who donated their time and expertise to our ing at this year’s conference. The articles we have selected discuss endeavor. topics such as drug addiction and the addict’s accountability, Michael Tooley’s “Abortion and Infanticide,” the ethics of the dissemination Martin R. Eichelberger, MD of nootropics, and life-support and end-of-life decision-making.
  • HUMAN CLONING Papers from a Church Consultation

    HUMAN CLONING Papers from a Church Consultation

    HUMAN CLONING Papers From a Church Consultation Evangelical Lutheran Church in America October 13-15, 2000 Chicago, Illinois Roger A. Willer, editor HUMAN CLONING Papers From a Church Consultation Roger A. Willer, editor Copyright © 2001 Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. Produced by the Department for Studies of the Division for Church in Society, 8765 W. Higgins Rd., Chicago, Illinois, 60631-4190. Permission is granted to reproduce this document as needed provided each copy carries the copyright notice printed above. Scripture quotations from the New Standard Revised Version of the Bible are copyright © 1989 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of Churches of Christ in the United States of America and are used by permission. Cover image © copyright 1999 PhotoDisc, Inc. The figure found on page nine is adapted from the National Institute of Health, Stem Cells: A Primer at <www.nih.gov/ news/stemcell/primer.htm>. ISBN 6-0001-3165-8. Distributed on behalf of the Division for Church in Society of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America by Augsburg Fortress, Publishers. Augsburg Fortress order code 69-1550. This publication may be found online in its entirety as a downloadable PDF (portable document file) at <www.elca.org/ dcs/humancloning.html>. Printed on recycled paper with soy-based inks. Contents Contributors 3 Preface 4 Introduction 5 Section One, The Science and the Public Debate Kevin Fitzgerald Cloning: Can it be Good for Us? 8 Margaret R. McLean Table Talk and Public Policy Formation in the Clone Age 14 Richard Perry Broadening the Churchs Conversation 23 Section Two, Theological Resources Philip Hefner Cloning: The Destiny and Dangers of Being Human 27 Richard C.
  • Inquiry Into the Scientific, Ethical and Regulatory Considerations Relevant to Cloning of Human Beings

    Inquiry Into the Scientific, Ethical and Regulatory Considerations Relevant to Cloning of Human Beings

    Inquiry into the Scientific, Ethical and Regulatory Considerations Relevant to Cloning of Human Beings Submission to theHouse of RepresentativesStanding Committee on Legal & Constitutional AffairsInquiry into Cloning: xiv.iii.2000 by the Research Department of theAustralian Catholic Bishops Conference Executive Summary 1. Human dignity must be accorded to all members of the human family, from the creation of the first cell (through which stage all of us have travelled), until natural death. 2. Human dignity must be the principal touchstone against which policy and law are measured. 3. Human life, of whatever age, and especially the most vulnerable (e.g. those with a voice still to be recognised completely in law - conceptus, embryos and foetuses) must be protected from exploitation. No member of the human family may be exploited, for economic or other gain, so as to become a field for harvesting embryonic stem cells or embryonic germ cells. 4. Human life, of whatever age, and especially the most vulnerable (e.g. those with a voice still to be recognised completely in law - conceptus, embryos and foetuses) must be protected from being produced in order to be sacrificed for the purpose of gaining “scientific information" or otherwise sacrificed `for the benefit of others.’ 5. Law, and the public policy which it purports to reflect, has an educative dimension, a protective dimension, and a regulative dimension, all of which are for the common good of the community. The legislative regulation of artificial reproductive technology must attend to all such dimensions. 6. Medical and scientific research is to be encouraged and supported - but not at all costs.
  • The Wisdom of Repugnance: Why We Should Ban the Cloning of Humans

    The Wisdom of Repugnance: Why We Should Ban the Cloning of Humans

    Valparaiso University Law Review Volume 32 Number 2 Spring 1998 pp.679-705 Spring 1998 The Wisdom of Repugnance: Why We Should Ban the Cloning of Humans Leon R. Kass Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/vulr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Leon R. Kass, The Wisdom of Repugnance: Why We Should Ban the Cloning of Humans, 32 Val. U. L. Rev. 679 (1998). Available at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/vulr/vol32/iss2/12 This Symposium is brought to you for free and open access by the Valparaiso University Law School at ValpoScholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Valparaiso University Law Review by an authorized administrator of ValpoScholar. For more information, please contact a ValpoScholar staff member at [email protected]. Kass: The Wisdom of Repugnance: Why We Should Ban the Cloning of Humans THE WISDOM OF REPUGNANCE: WHY WE SHOULD BAN THE CLONING OF HUMANS LEON R. KASS" I. INTRODUCTION Our habit of delighting in news of scientific and technological breakthroughs has been sorely challenged by the birth announcement of a sheep named Dolly. Though Dolly shares with previous sheep the "softest clothing, woolly, bright," William Blake's question, "Little Lamb, who made thee?"' has for her a radically different answer: Dolly was, quite literally, made. She is the work not of nature or nature's God but of man, an Englishman, Ian Wilmut, and his fellow scientists. What's more, Dolly came into being not only asexually-ironically, just like "He [who] calls Himself a Lamb" 2-but also as the genetically identical copy (and the perfect incarnation of the form or blueprint) of a mature ewe, of whom she is a clone.