Human Reproduction by Cloning in Theological Perspective
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Valparaiso University Law Review Volume 32 Number 2 Spring 1998 pp.739-752 Spring 1998 Human Reproduction by Cloning in Theological Perspective Kurt A. Richardson Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/vulr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Kurt A. Richardson, Human Reproduction by Cloning in Theological Perspective, 32 Val. U. L. Rev. 739 (1998). Available at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/vulr/vol32/iss2/16 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]. Richardson: Human Reproduction by Cloning in Theological Perspective HUMAN REPRODUCTION BY CLONING IN THEOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE KURT A. RICHARDSON* I. INTRODUCTION This Article presents a Christian theological perspective on the intent to clone another human being.' The Christian belief in the divine creation of human beings includes, most importantly, our being created in the image of God. Evidently, the outcome of this creation is simply the fully matured human being as we find him or her, together with the capacity to reproduce, and the eventual death of each individual. Having placed human cloning in this theological context, how ought we to regard the scientific prospect of cloning as a method of human reproduction and set to the ongoing debate on the matter? Cloning, unlike the projects of medicine, does not enhance existing individual human lives but rather carries the prospect of replication and (according to 2 "futurology") the possible, indefinite extension of individual human lives. This, of course, is not the divine goal for human beings and should not, in any way, be confused with the hopes of human salvation. The prospect of cloning human beings is now at hand, but the project itself bristles with conundrums that, this Article contends, eliminate it as a legitimate technique for enhancing human reproduction. This Article suggests that cloning, as a proposed technique for the reproduction of whole human organisms, possesses inherent moral flaws and legal contradictions that point to a violation of something basic in the created order. This Article proposes that other D.theol., University of Basel, 1991; Associate Professor of Theology & Ethics; Gordon- Conwell Theological Seminary, South Hamilton, MA 01982 <[email protected]>. The author's scholarly work includes researching and writing regarding the relationship between theology and science. 1. MARTIN EBON, THE CLONING OF MAN: A BRAVE NEW HOPE--OR HORROR? (1978); Ruth F. Chadwick, Cloning, 57 PHIL. 201-09 (1982); MARGARET 0. HYDE & LAWRENCE E. HYDE, CLONING A MAN? CLONING AND THE NEW GENErICS 95-112 (1984); Martin LaBar, The Pros and Cons of Human Cloning, 59 THOUGHT 319-33 (1984); Robert Pollack, Beyond Cloning, N.Y. TIMES, Nov. 17, 1993, at A27; Kathy A. Fackelmann, Cloning Human Embryos: Exploring the Science of a ControversialExperiment, 145 Sci. NEWS. 92, 92-93, 95 (1994); Howard W. Jones et al., Editorial, On Attempts at Cloning in the Human, 61 FERTILITY & STERILITY 423-26 (1994); John A. Robertson, The Question of Human Cloning, HASTINGS CTR. REP., Mar.-Apr. 1994, at 6- 14. 2. See Richard Kadrey, Go Forth and Multiply: G. Richard Seed on Why Cloning Is God's Work, WIRED, Mar. 1998, at 150. 739 Produced by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 1998 Valparaiso University Law Review, Vol. 32, No. 2 [1998], Art. 16 740 VALPARAISO UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 32 technologies, namely, in vitro fertilization (IVF) and gene research, 3 working together will likely supply the reproductive enhancements desired and produce the results that cloning cannot. Further, cloning should be rejected as a method of human reproduction because the procedures for perfecting such a process would inevitably involve morally unacceptable conditions and produce morally unacceptable results. First, the success of cloning can only be determined by observing the entire life-cycle of a cloned human being, and in order to be morally acceptable, this must be done before initiating human cloning in the first place-there is no way to legitimate a "dry run." Second, it is impossible to "place," in the social services sense of the term, a cloned child in a healthy relationship with parents and siblings. II. THE ROLE OF THEOLOGY For Christians involved in the public debate over the cloning of human beings, nature as divine creation functions, either directly or indirectly, as a basic belief. To some extent, they contend that informed religious perspectives must be allowed to participate in the development of a rational and ethical social and legal consensus. And Christians are now becoming more aware that this constructive approach to achieving public consensus .is required in the present context, an approach quite different from the approach taken centuries earlier when Christianity once wielded more social authority. Adherents of Christianity and the adherents of many other religions who hold a doctrine of creation as a part of their basic beliefs approach ethical issues differently, but all of them consider this fundamental theological tenet when evaluating issues affecting human life. Also, although they may have different traditions of scripture interpretation their basic belief in the divine creation of nature (and even of human nature) affects their judgment in the human cloning debate. The fact of this basic, common belief explains why the notion of nature as the product of a divine act, one that continues and persists through time, has proven to be so resilient. Certainly many in the public debate simply avoid the question of human beings as the creation of God, but as this Article contends, this doctrine of creation, functions, on a general level, as the "best explanation" of the cosmic system that we have. Additionally, the influence of informed religious beliefs is growing and is indicated in many ways, not the least of which is the many inter-disciplinary arrangements between theology and science. 3. Edward M. Berger & Bernard M. Gert, Genetic Disordersand the Ethical Status of Germ- line Gene Therapy, 16 J. MED. & PHIL. 667-83 (1991); W. French Anderson, Human Gene Therapy, 256 ScI. 808-13 (1992); Andrea Bonnicksen, Genetic Diagnosis of Human Embryos, HASTINGS CTR. REP., July-Aug. 1992, at $5-S11. https://scholar.valpo.edu/vulr/vol32/iss2/16 Richardson: Human Reproduction by Cloning in Theological Perspective 19981 CLONING IN THEOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE 741 It is difficult to underestimate the significance of the Christian belief in the divine creation of human nature in understanding how informed Christians will engage in the debate over human cloning. For many scientists, medical professionals, and interested observers who are religiously committed, this theological doctrine provides the "best explanation" for human existence. Precisely this point is very important in the debate about human cloning. The notion that human beings are not self-explanatory connects closely with the notion that human beings are not self-generating, that is, nothing about human mental activity determines the processes essential to reproduction. Human beings cooperate with these processes whether we are speaking of humans who sexually reproduce or of humans who scientifically enhance their capacities to reproduce and who then successfully bring newborns to term. At the heart of the doctrine of creation is the identification of male and female humans as beings created in the image of God. This doctrine is the source not only of the notion of the incalculability of human value, but also of human responsibility to the entire created order. Human responsibility incrementally increases with the expansion of knowledge, a fact which places, and has always placed, man at the "center" of this order. Other creatures simply do not reflectively interact with their environments in this way. In some regrettable cases, humans have mismanaged and thus destroyed their environments, while in others, they have reasonably managed and thus sustained and renewed their environments. The capacity of humans to produce or re-produce living things repeatedly reintroduces the doctrine of a Creator of this comprehensive order. The sense that human beings cooperate with this order is directly connected with the impulse to identify their ethical entailments of such responsibility. The sense that human beings are agents, who cooperate on a massive scale with the processes they find in their environments, places ethical considerations very high on the agenda when considering the application of scientific knowledge and technology to the created order. Christians rather straightforwardly offer an account of why this must be so. Perhaps the oddest development in the recent publicity of human cloning as a reproductive alternative is Dr. Richard Seed's appeal to the theology of creation and in particular to the human being as embodying the image of God.4 Equally odd is his contention that cloning is somehow part of the destiny of man, and thus the fact that man is made in the image of God and remade in the resurrection makes cloning a sort of way station on mankind's spiritual pilgrimage. This theologically uninformed declaration by this scientist irritates 4. See Kadrey, supra note 2, at 150, 182. Produced by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 1998 Valparaiso University Law Review, Vol. 32, No. 2 [1998], Art. 16 742 VALPARAISO UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 32 theologians as much as the uninformed, yet socially influential statements about nature by theologians irritate scientists. The resurrection of the body is central to the notion of salvation and of life after death in a new heaven and a new earth. Although an extensive modem tradition re-interprets the Christian doctrine of resurrection in immanent terms, this strategy has been notoriously lame on matters of the beginning and end of human nature. Thus, it is best to maintain the transcendent referent: resurrection is a future event or process that occurs entirely apart from the human ability determine it.