Guest post by Joshua May
Suppose you desperately want a healthy child to build a family of your own. As is increasingly common, however, you can’t do it naturally – whether from infertility, a genetic disease you don’t want to pass on, or a non-traditional relationship. If you seek a genetic connection with the child, there are some limitations to the main alternatives: adoption, surrogacy, and in vitro fertilization. You may yearn for more options.
How would you feel about cloning? Take the nucleus of a cell from yourself or a loved one, then put it into an egg that will eventually develop into a baby that shares nearly all the genes of the donor cell. The resulting baby will simply be a kind of ‘delayed twin’ of the donor.
Most people believe this is immoral. There’s a bit more support for therapeutic uses that merely create new tissue, for example. But, at least in the US and UK, people overwhelmingly condemn cloning for the purposes of creating new human lives. In fact, a recent poll suggests there is little disagreement in America over this issue, where human cloning is among the most widely condemned topics (alongside polygamy and infidelity).
That’s what people think, but how do they feel? Controversial bioethical issues often generate intense feelings. Some bioethicists treat cloning in particular as a line in the sand that we mustn’t cross, for fear of sliding down a slippery slope to a dystopia.
Consider Leon Kass, who played a major role in public policy as chair of George W.
The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.