Human
cloning is a notion that seems to horrify many people. For instance, a
celebrated film, The Boys From Brazil, right, is based on the premise that the
cloning of Hitler would be, for all decent people, an alarming prospect. It
should not be. What should disturb and repel us is the popular prejudice
against human clones and human cloning.
At present in the UK,
human reproductive cloning is illegal. In terms of the Human Reproductive
Cloning Act (2001), "a person who places in a woman a human embryo which
has been created otherwise than by fertilisation is guilty of an
offence". I think this is thoroughly misguided and that the legislation
should be repealed.
The very idea of human
cloning and human clones is shocking to some people and seems to disturb their
normal rational thought processes. Everything that can be done should be done,
some people seem to think, to try to prevent the existence of human clones.
They tend to argue that human cloning should be illegal because it is
unethical, and that it is unethical because it is the production of copies of
individual persons, who should remain unique. Their argument is weak.
Not all unethical
actions should be illegal. Even more so, not all actions that are thought to
be unethical should, for that reason, be made illegal. Some people think that
masturbation is unethical and one suspects that, but for the practicalities of
the law enforcement concerned, they might want to make it a crime. In some
instances at least, adultery is unethical, even if it would be unwise to make
it again, as it once was in Scotland, a crime. Human cloning as a technique
and a form of asexual reproduction is no more inherently unethical than is
normal sexual reproduction, although particular instances of both can
certainly be unethical. However, it does not follow that these particular
unethical instances should be crimes. Even if, as a technique, human cloning
were inherently unethical, it would not follow that it should thereby be made
a crime.
In any case, we should
distinguish between the clones and the cloning. Rape is, and should be,
illegal. We do not, however, say that babies conceived by rape should not be
born. Morally, such babies are no different from other babies. Although
abortion is legally allowable in the event of conception that results from
rape, we do not say it should be legally compulsory. The moral status of
persons as persons is independent of the biological and genealogical pedigree
of their bodies. The law at present in relation to cloning stands in obscene
defiance of this simple but profound truth.
Many of those who are
against human cloning also argue against abortion and stem-cell research on
the grounds of the interests and rights of embryos. Paradoxically, if they
want to be consistent, they should also argue against the present law against
cloning. Not all means to good ends are justified. Even if the prevention of
human cloning were a good end, the present law would be unjustifiable as a
means of producing it.
In any case, cloning
does not involve the copying of individual persons. The central objection to
human cloning is misplaced. Persons cannot be copied. Persons can have bodies,
but bodies are not persons. Cloning relates to the reproduction of bodies by
means of replicating their genes.
Identical twins have
identical sets of genes. They are not in any other sense identical. They are
certainly not physically identical. For instance, they do not have identical
fingerprints. Often, when we get to know them, we realise that even facially,
they are readily distinguishable. Identical twins do not have identical
personalities. Sometimes, they do not even have noticeably similar
personalities. Genes are important but they are nothing like as causally
important as they are commonly thought to be. We are not our genes. There is
more to us than our physical bodies and more to our bodies than our genes.
Identical twins are not identical persons.
People who are twins
should be treated with the same moral respect as other people. Insofar as
people are unique, each individual twin is unique. For instance, we are
uniquely responsible for our own actions. We deserve praise when we do good
things and the opposite when we do bad things. This is so for twins no more or
less than for anyone else. It would be absurd to blame a person for something
that his twin did.
What is true for twins
is true for clones. People whose bodies were cloned from the bodies of other
people are no less people than are other people. Insofar as people in general
are unique, they are similarly unique. They are, for instance, responsible for
their own actions no more or less than is anyone else.
Suppose it were to be
discovered that Hitler had an identical twin called Helmut. If Helmut were
still alive, it would be absurd to blame and punish him for the actions of his
twin. Helmut might be a smashing bloke. There is no reason to assume he would
have the same personality as his twin. Even if he did have the same tastes and
dispositions, he might have made better choices with his life. Twins, no more
or less than anyone else, have freedom of the will.
Suppose that, from some
fragment of Hitler's body, it was possible to form an embryonic human body
with a set of genes identical to Hitler's. I don't for a moment imagine this
is a practical possibility but, for argument's sake, let us suppose it is. If
that embryo were to be allowed to develop in a womb, it would become a
loveable baby and, in time, the mature body of an adult human being. The
person whose body it became would be due as much moral respect as persons are
normally due. The person would be, in the same sense as we all are, unique. He
would be responsible for his own actions.
He, like Helmut, would
not be responsible for Hitler's actions. He, like Helmut, might or might not
be, in character or temperament, like Hitler.
The law against human
reproductive cloning is unethical and irrational. It should be repealed.
Sooner or later, there will be human clones. We should be ready to welcome
them and love them, just as we would welcome and love other babies.
• Dr Hugh V McLachlan
is based at the Centre for Ethics in Public Policy and Corporate Governance,
Glasgow Caledonian University.
Click
here to see
other articles on cloning
