as well as factual beliefs. The following discussion breaks down the arguments surrounding human cloning according to these issues, demonstrating both the complexity of the issues and the points of resonance among the groups.
Issues Involved in Cloning for Reproductive Purposes. As Clonaid advertised and the President’s Council acknowledged, supporters of reproductive cloning favor it because it might “allow infertile couples to have genetically-related children,”59 enable families to avoid genetic disease in their genetically-related children, facilitate the replication of specific persons (such as lost loved ones), or to create ideal transplant donors.60 Likewise, the NBAC recognized that some of the principles that underlie these purposes are a “presumption in favor of individual liberty,” that “human reproduction [is] particularly personal and should remain free
of constraint, ... [and] inquiry.”61 However, reproductive purposes
as a society, we ought not limit the freedom of scientific for a number of other reasons, the idea of cloning for is presently rejected by most groups and organizations,
including the President’s Council and NBAC. Of the groups and individuals in the Ethical and Social Issues section, only Clonaid and Dr. Antinori
reproductive cloning at this time. reproductive cloning, there is a underlying such objections.
Despite the apparent uniformity of views rejecting great deal of variation in the lines of reasoning
contrary to the moral
since they are in opposition
to the dignity
procreation and of
Procreation Without Conjugal Union. According to the USCCB, Donum Vitae62 instructs that “attempts or hypotheses for obtaining a human being without any connection with sexuality through ‘twin fission,’ cloning or parthenogenesis are
Safety. The most agreed upon objection to human reproductive cloning is one of safety. The President’s Council on Bioethics concluded that, “[g]iven the high
procreation should be limited to conjugal unions, is not If accepted, it would lead to a rejection of other forms of
assisted reproduction, such as in vitro fertilization (IVF). individuals listed above, only UCCSB cites the need for a persuasive argument against reproductive cloning.
59 President’s Council on Bioethics, Human Cloning and Human Dignity, July 2002, p. xxvii. (Hereafter cited as President’s Council, Human Cloning.)
60 See, for example, President’s Council on Bioethics, Human Cloning and Human Digni y, July 2002, p. xxvii; “Frequently Asked Questions,” Clonaid, at [http://www.clonaid.com/content.php? content.6], accessed July 9, 2004.
National Bioethics Advisory Commission, Cloning Human Beings, June 1997, p. 72.
62 Donum Vitae, (“The Gift of Life”), which addresses the Catholic view of morality of many modern fertility procedures, was issued in 1987 by the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith at [http://www.nccbuscc.org/prolife/tdocs/donumvitae.htm], accessed July 9, 2004.
63 John Haas, “Begotten Not Made: A Catholic View of Reproductive Technology,” United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Pro Life Activities, June 2003, at [http://www.usccb.org/ prolife/programs/rlp/98rlphaa.htm], accessed July 9, 2004.