This section contains various updates from the RCN.  Currently the RCN is being reorganized to reflect a politically neutral position on human cloning. 

The Cloning Newsletter: May 2001

"News, reviews and the latest resources and information from the cloning community" 

This is the May Cloning Newsletter from the non-profit Human Cloning Foundation (HCF), and the affiliated Reproductive Cloning Network (RCN). This newsletter goes out to over 1000 people who have registered with the HCF or RCN. If you have received this by mistake, or you do not wish to receive future newsletters from us, please email: ReproductiveCloning@hotmail.com with "unsubscribe" as the subject. You will then be removed from our email list.  Visit our contact page to subscribe for the next Newsletter.

Contents:

Section 1. Introduction (by Roger Moorgate; Primary Administrator of the Reproductive Cloning Network).

Section 2: Latest Cloning News

Section 3: Interview with Randolfe H. Wicker (CEO of the Human Cloning Foundation)

Section 4: Cloning Book Review; "Who's Afraid of Human Cloning" (Author: Prof. G. Pence)

Section 5: Questions and Answers (Edited from statements made by Alonzo Fyfe, author of "Against a Prohibition on Cloning").

Section 6: Human Cloning, Infertility, and Reproductive Freedom (by Mark Eibert).

Section 7: Feedback/Final Comment.


Contributors/Editorial Team:

R. Moorgate (RogerMoorgate@hotmail.com)
R. H. Wicker (Rwicker@gateway.net) 
D. Harris (Dharris@reproductivecloning.net)
A. Fyfe (Hume@aol.com)

We have also republished an exemplary article by M. Eibert in Section 6, and extensively quoted G. Pence in Section 4.

The Human Cloning Foundation (HCF)
http://www.HumanCloning.org

The Reproductive Cloning Network (RCN)
http://www.ReproductiveCloning.net

The Clone Rights United Front (CRUF)
http://www.CloneRights.com

Copyright © 2001. The affiliated members of the HCF/RCN/CRUF network.
This newsletter may be freely distributed, as long as it is not altered in any way. 

To view the previous newsletter/update from March, click on the link below:

http://www.humancloning.org/update1403.htm




Section 1. Introduction (by Roger Moorgate).

"The genie is out of the bottle. We need to make sure it is bottled and disseminated responsibly,'' (Dr. Zavos at the human cloning conference in Rome. March 2001).

When we look back at the present, from a retrospectively advantaged future timepoint, March and April 2001 will almost certainly be seen as pinnacle months in the human cloning timeline. Dr. Zavos and Dr. Antinori (two highly experienced infertility doctors) announced that they intended to use human cloning technology to allow infertile couples to have biologically related children (March 9th 2001):

http://www.HumanCloning.org/update1003.htm

Subsequently US Congressional members proposed a hearing to examine the safety of this proposal:

http://www.house.gov/commerce/hearings/03282001-141/03282001.htm

Which has now resulted in a proposed legislation against reproductive human cloning (see next section). This all seems like a logical progression of events, until you realize that all the members of the Congressional panel had made statements and promises (to make human cloning illegal) prior to scrutinizing any of the testimony or evidence presented at the hearing. So what was the point in Zavos, Pence, Eibert, Wicker (and others) testifying? Could the entire event have just been a charade to prove that both sides of the argument had been "listened" to, before these mis-informed bio-ludites decide that certain infertile individuals (unable to have a child via IVF) do not possess a fundamental human right to reproduce, and propose a law criminalizing this fertility treatment. This law that would criminalize cloning technology, amounts to little more than enforced sterilization for these infertile people. This proposed legislation is taking us closer to Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World" of government controlled reproduction, than cloning ever could. 

"Cloning may be considered as the last frontier to overcome male sterility and give the possibility to infertile males to pass on their genetic pattern,'' (Dr. Antinori, March 2001).




Section 2: Latest Cloning News

Cytoplasmic Transfer is not cloning
It was recently reported in the journal "Human Reproduction" that cytoplasmic transfer could be used to transfer healthy mitochondria (small structures that power the cell) into certain infertile women's eggs. This has resulted in 30 healthy children that were "born from three parents". This pioneering work into fertility treatment was conducted at Institute for Reproductive Medicine and Science of St Barnabas, in New Jersey. The 30 children born were actually the first human babies ever whose genetic makeup has been artificially altered. Even though the babies were born healthy (and without this novel technique would not have existed at all), the cytoplasmic transfer technique was condemned as unethical by some opponents, who said it amounted to human cloning (BBC). However, cytoplasmic transfer and nuclear transfer are NOT the same thing, and the genetic makeup of mitochondria does not govern key aspects of the child's development, like intelligence, personality or physical form. These things are predominately determined by nuclear genes, and these genes were not altered in the children. Cytoplasmic transfer is just another pioneering technique, created to help infertile couples, that is being opposed by the bio-luddites. Cytoplasmic transfer is certainly not cloning, as has been suggested, but it is a useful fertility technology for certain women affected with mitochondrial diseases.

Cloning in the news
On the true cloning front, legislation has been introduced into congress (by Senator Brownback, R-Kansas) to ban all forms of human cloning. And not just reproductive human cloning for infertile couples to have biologically related children, but also therapeutic human cloning/embryonic stem cell research. Research that promises to cure a plethora of human diseases including heart disease, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, Diabetes, and may even provide a breakthrough in our search for a cure for cancer. Even if the misinformed forces in government decide to ban reproductive human cloning (a ban which would be unconstitutional, against our fundamental reproductive freedom and amount to little more than forced sterilization for certain infertile individuals), they should not even be considering a ban on therapeutic human cloned stem cell research, and scientists are justly rallying against this legislation.

"DRAWN BY legislation that would make it a federal crime to clone a human or participate in human cloning experiments, representatives from both sides pressed their case before a Senate Commerce subcommittee. Abortion opponents are fighting against creating human embryos that will be killed in order to extract stem cells. Scientists say these stem cells offer the possibility of restoring ailing hearts and perhaps even curing diseases such as diabetes and Parkinson's." (AP)

Even the "anti-reproductive human cloning" Dr. Jaenisch appears to reluctant to ban therapeutic human cloning. "Cloning is an extremely complex area of biology," said Dr. Rudolf Jaenisch (a cell biologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology). "It is premature to ban a technique that is still in the process of evolving." (AP)

Cloning community news
While the Human Cloning Foundation has been running for years, and has over 1,500 registered members, the Reproductive Cloning Network (RCN) is still in its infancy. We are currently looking for volunteers to take on certain key posts in the RCN, these posts include editors to help create next months Newsletter, moderators to help monitor the numerous message boards at the HCF, and web-designers to help build and administer new sections of the network. The only prerequisite is that you are interested in cloning, and wish to help out. Benefits include free (unadvertised) web-space, email-addresses, administrator access, and an automatic Cloning Directory listing for you personal home-page (if you have one). Interested individuals should email Roger Moorgate (RogerMoorgate@hotmail.com).




Section 3: Interview with Randolfe H. Wicker

Original interview questions sent Saturday April 28th, 2001 
From: Julie **** 
To: RWicker@gateway.net 
Subject: My interview questions 
Edited by R. Moorgate 


Dear Mr. Wicker, 

Thank you so much for helping me. I've been doing research on human cloning and I have a lot of information already. However, I find your organization and the work you do fascinating. I read the other interviews that you have answered to and I tried not to repeat or ask the same questions. However, there are some standard questions that I am required to ask you as part of my assignment. I apologize if they are repetitive. 

I read about you in the February issue of Time magazine and it says that you are a spokesperson for the Human Cloning Foundation. What exactly do you do? 

In what way are you involved in your organization? 

Can you tell me some things you feel are important to know about human cloning? 

How has knowing about human cloning influenced your life if it has at all? 

I've researched a lot on human cloning and I still haven't found out if anyone has attempted to clone a human. Has someone attempted to clone a human before? 

In my interview, I need a description of your working environment (I was supposed to interview a person live but I was not able to get that but I still have to comply with the requirements). The idea is to get a visual picture of your working environment or where the interview takes place. In this case, it would be your work place (at the Human Cloning Foundation). 

Please give me some details about: how the room looks, things in the room, your clothing, etc. 

Can you suggest any other sources--media, places to visit, activities to take part in, or people I can contact--to make me more informed about human cloning? 

Can you tell me what you are currently working on? Has there been any 
new developments in human cloning? 

Thank you for taking time from your busy life to help me answer these questions. I know that you are a busy man so I tried to keep my questions short. 

Sincerely, 
Julie **** 



From: Randolfe H. Wicker 
To: Julie **** 
Edited by R. Moorgate 

Dear Julia, 

First let me congratulate you for having one of life's most important qualities: perseverance. I have so many requests that I would spend my entire life sitting here typing if I answered them all. However, your repeated requests motivated me to respond. I once had a poem which I used to hand out which said, basically, that the world was full of unfulfilled genius and that the one thing in life that was important was perseverance. 

The most important thing about reproductive human cloning is that it is a reproductive right. That means that every human being has the right to decide if they will have children and the manner in which they will have them. 

The most important thing about cloning in general is that the actual technology of human cloning, creating cloned embryos, is actually more important than reproducing through cloning. This technology promises to cure many of the diseases and ailments facing all of us who are living and will give each of us alive today a longer and healthier life. They have just found a way to create brain cells and pancreas cells in mice through stem cell technology (which is based on cloning technology) and will probably soon be able to do the same for human beings. "Knowing about human cloning" has not just influenced my life. It has become central to my life. I cannot explain to you the reasons why. I see this great promising frontier for medicine and science (through stem cell research) and this new capacity for any person to have a later-born twin as a great new opportunity for all humanity. 

To date, we do not know of anyone who has attempted to clone a human being. However, if you go to my Jan. 2001 Update under "Editorials" at www.CloneRights.com you will see that I believe the first child conceived through human cloning will not be identified until many years after the event has happened. The first "publicly identified children" conceived through cloning are going to live lives without privacy like the Dionne Quintuplets, a Canadian group of five children, who were used and abused and exploited and robbed of their childhood by promoters. They recently, finally, got a settlement from the Canadian Government for their suffering. 

You can not only have a description of my working environment, you can have an actual photograph of it, full page, if you can get a copy of the WIRED MAGAZINE from February 2001. It is a small cubicle in the corner of my art deco lighting shop in Manhattan. I am like the "Wizard of Oz" sitting at a computer. On the walls of my office hang pictures of my dear friends and allies in the human cloning movement. There are a couple photos of Shauna Cutl (one as a young beautiful model and the other as an older heavier kidney failure survivor). There is a picture of "patient advocate" Mark Eibert and his wife when they visited me in NYC and also a picture of the twin boys that just joined their family and who are now taking up much of their time. There is a picture of my mother who told me I could clone her if I wished. There are also pictures from Jaramillo of multiple tigers and other endangered species. There is a big blow-up of a photo of my unborn twin brother which will probably be shown on John Stossel's special show on June 29, 2001, and which can be seen in "visuals" at www.CloneRights.com. There is also a picture of Christopher Reeves and his wife. I'm not sure that they support human cloning but they certainly support stem cell research and are my heroes for that reason. You can see that photo in the Wired Magazine story picture. I usually dress casually. However, I have my "television suits" --coats and ties-- hanging nearby, since I never know when I might be instantly called to a major studio to debate some famous personality. 

If you are up to a serious heavy dose of scientific information, please visit the www.ReproductiveClonging.net web site. There you can read all the mindboggling scientific papers about the problems and solutions to human cloning. This is a scientific subject that few people can understand. The real problem is that most people have already made up their minds (against) and are only looking for negative evidence against human cloning. I know of no place other than www.ReproductiveCloning.net where you can find factual and valuable information. You can see the filed testimony of those of us who went to Washington and testified at the House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce. I am currently working on trying to get the American public to, at least, "listen" to the arguments for human cloning. Everyone is very negative and closed minded. It is difficult to be on the cutting edge of so much promise and to see so many people rushing for darkness and trying to deny the truth you are trying to offer. 

I am, at this time, supporting Dr. Zavos and the International Consortium in their efforts to conceive a child through human cloning. The "new developments" include attempts by radical right-wingers like Senator Brownback (R-Kansas) to stop even privately-funded research on "therapeutic cloning". This is an artificial distinction which you will understand if you see Mark Eibert's brilliant presentation to California's "Human Cloning Committee". The highlights can also be gotten under "Update 2001" under "editorials" at www.clonerights.com under the title "Where, When , How?" I hope this gets you an "A". You deserve an "A" just for "perseverance". 

Cloningly yours, 
Randolfe H. Wicker 
Director, The Human Cloning Foundation
Founder, Clone Rights United Front
Administrator, The Reproductive Cloning Network 




Section 4: Cloning Book Review

"Who's Afraid of Human Cloning" (by Prof. G. Pence)

Our review:
Quite literally the best book on the ethics of Human Cloning. Pence (a professor of bioethics) presents a clear, concise and compelling argument advocating human cloning. Pence has an almost mystical ability to open new lines of reasoning and perspective, to examine the controversial issue of reproductive human cloning. The book provides a good background on cloning, and quickly dismantles some of the common misconceptions. Pence then goes into fascinating detail, examining and discussing all the major arguments both for and against allowing human cloning. Is human cloning against the will of god? What about the risk of harm to the child? Will cloning lead us down the infamous "Slippery Slope" to unimaginable horrors? What about our fundamental reproductive freedom and personal liberty? Reading this book is a must for anyone who is interested in the ethics of human cloning.

Other Reviews:
"Who's Afraid of Human Cloning? is a clear, convincing argument for allowing cloning. Pence uses intrepid fact-finding and philosophical imagination to put the cloning debate in context" (Professor G. McGee)

"Gregory Pence has provided a much-needed antidote for the widespread hysteria about human cloning.... This important book now makes possible a sensible public discussion of the subject" (Professor J. Rachels)

You can read yet other reviews, and purchase the book, from Amazon.com:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0847687821/reproductivec-20

Selected quotes from book:
"It is true that ordinary people have a very visceral disgust at the possibility of human cloning. Nevertheless, when the entire English-speaking world has such an instant reaction, that very reaction cries out for explanation. I think that such an emotional reaction is both understandable and explainable. Most of us have seen many examples in science fiction where bad things happen when humans get cloned. Countless movies and novels have created a deep distrust of scientists. Over and over again in print and visual media, fear-mongers have described only the most evil reasons why anyone would want to clone humans. So is it any surprise now that various pundits claim that Hitler-like dictators would use cloning to produce unthinkable automatons..."

"Cloning is not natural, however, nature is not always great. As Tennyson said, real nature is 'red in tooth and claw'. Defenders of the social status quo exaggerate the extent to which the natural is desirable. Actually the status quo which they defend is not natural at all, but merely the man-made form of the artificial society that they understand, i.e., a social artifact they want frozen as if it were human nature itself." 

"...since the time of Socrates, philosophy, at its best, has always been about questioning assumptions. The status quo has decreed that it is unthinkable to clone a human. To which philosophy responds: "Unthinkable? Let's think about that."

"...we keep getting back to the fact that, because of a minority's religious view(s)... infertile people who want children are being denied new ways of trying."
("Who's Afraid of Human Cloning" by Professor G. Pence)




Section 5: Questions and Answers with Alonzo Fyfe

Alonzo Fyfe has been answering your questions, and replying to "statements made" all month on our message boards. Some of the highlights are listed after the Introduction to "Against a Prohibition on Cloning".

Introduction (by Alonzo Fyfe):

"Back when my wife, Lesley, and I thought we may be having children of our own, we had already decided on the name, if it should be a girl; Theresia. 

Because of a childhood illness, the only way that Lesley can have a child that is biologically hers is through the technology associated with cloning. Doctors had told us this for a long time, but we were slow to accept it. And so we continued to hope, for a while, for a daughter, named Theresia. 

The technology of cloning provides a way fulfilling those hopes, not only for us but for others in our situation. Yet, many are eager to prohibit this. If there were good reason to keep her from having her own biological child, then she would have to shrug and accept it.

But none of the reasons offered against cloning are very good. And some of the reasons we hear for prohibiting Lesley from having her own child are far more frightening than cloning itself could ever become. Because they tell us that our daughter should not exist because she may not be perfect enough for them, or to protect her from discrimination." 

(Extract from "Against a Prohibition on Cloning" by Alonzo Fyfe)

The rest of the article has been published by the RCN: 

http://www.ReproductiveCloning.net/Articles/fyfe.htm


(Please note that the following section is actually an edited list of questions and answers from our message boards, over the month of April and beginning of May)


Q & A on Human Cloning.


"Cloning is wrong because it will result in miscarriages".

Traditional reproduction also results in miscarriages. I know of a woman who had 10 miscarriages. Do you hold that traditional reproduction is also wrong?

And is traditional reproduction safe? Again, every person born through traditional reproduction has some defect (I challenge you to name a single person who is born "perfect"). Babies are born every day with very severe deformities, from spina bifida to Down's Syndrome.

Now, let us say that through research, cloning becomes safer than traditional reproduction. Would you then argue that, in the name of safety, traditional reproduction is to be banned on the grounds that it is "unsafe?"

Or is it that you are using "safe" as a smoke screen.

And, indeed, if you are going to hold that the government shall prohibit people from having a child of their own whenever the child might be "abnormal in some particular way" -- are you in favor of programs that, for example, will prevent diabetics from having children, or those with a genetic susceptibility to cancer.

It seems that you are starting down a very slippery slope whereby the government gets to try to create a "master race" of "perfect beings" by prohibiting any less-than-perfect child from being conceived.


"Cloning would be to expensive for most people to afford, and thus should be prohibited by law."

Would you also argue that a cruise to the Bahamas be prohibited by law on the grounds that "not many people can afford it." There is a long list of items in this world that "not many people can afford" -- that are nonetheless bought and sold every day.


"Cloning is against certain religious principle/tenets"

Eating pork, working during the Sabbath, using contraceptives, charging interest on loans, obtaining a blood transfusion, fighting disease with antibiotics (rather than prayer), are all against the principles or tenets of some religion or another. Freedom of religion allows that one not force upon these people something which their religion forbids. But it also denies them the right to prohibit to us (for example) any peaceful activity (such as the eating of pork, working on the Sabbath, obtaining a blood transfusion, or a shot of penicillin) that our religion may permit.

Such as cloning.


"Cloning goes against nature"

Humans have been acting against nature since we first used fire to cook (and, thereby sanitize) our meat. If you think about it, using antibiotics is "unnatural" -- it defeats nature and charts a course of human evolution other than the one that nature would select for us. It is "playing God" by taking the decisions of life and death out of God's hands and allowing to live those for whom nature (God) would otherwise choose death. Nobody thinks this a sin. Nor is it a sin (against Nature or God) to clone.


"Cloning doesn't help anyone... has no practical use"

Cloning is the only way that Lesley, my wife, can have a child of her own. Of "no practical use?" I don't think so.


"If humans were created in gods image, humans created by humans will be created in who's image?"

All humans (with the possible exception of Adam, Eve, and Jesus) are or were created by humans. You were created by humans. (If you do not understand the nature and likely consequences of sexual intercourse, I am not inclined to go into details here -- look them up).

And just as you, though created by humans, were ultimately created in God's image, our daughter Theresia, though created by humans, will no less be created in God's image.


"Risk of abuse of the technology?"

There is a similar risk of abuse in all medical technology. Our knowledge of bacteria and anatomy can be used in the development of biological weapons. Really, consider the possible abuses of cloning compared to the possible abuses of immunology.


"People will abandon sexual reproduction in favor of cloning"

Snort. Choke. Yeah, right.


"Each human being is meant to be unique and special."

Cloning does not in any way threaten or weaken the uniqueness of individuals. The only way my wife can have a child of her own is through cloning technology. Trust me when I say that our daughter will be as unique and special as you are. Identical twins are more closely related than Lesley and Theresia would be, but identical twins have never reported any loss of their sense of uniqueness or identity on the grounds that such an identical twin exists. Our daughter, Theresia, I assure you, will have no difficulty understanding that she is quite unique and different from Lesley.


"But why would you want someone exactly like you walking around."

You should be grateful that you do not have an identical twin. For, according to your statements, you would likely find such an experience intolerable -- having somebody exactly like you walking around. Curiously, no actual identical twins that I am aware of have ever reported similar misgivings. 


"If every parent could have a Brittany Spears or Tom Cruise what would our world be like?" 

Actually, this is not a real concern. Right now, if people wanted to, they could have the "perfect" child conceived by the donated eggs of "perfect" parents. However, people don't do this. They prefer to have and raise their own children. And there is nothing about cloning that will change this part of human nature.


"How would you feel if you were one of hundreds of physically identical people?"

Ask any identical twins that go to your school if they feel any less special or unique as a result of having an identical twin. You will discover that they, like you and I, consider themselves as well to be unique individuals with unique and separate lives that cannot be duplicated.


"Human cloning or any type of cloning using nuclear transfer is very inefficient. Literally hundreds of embryos die before an animal is born." 

And if human reproduction generally were just as inefficient (as it is for some species and for some cases among certain humans) would you prohibit it?

What if cloning becomes safer (through research) than traditional methods of reproduction, would you then require cloning in the name of safety?


"A number of defects have occurred as well."

Every human born is defective in some way -- not all of us is perfect. And Hitler provided some very clear instruction over what will happen when the government (or the citizens through their government) assume the right to declare that certain citizens may not have children of their own because the government would consider those children inferior. This is how the government assumes the right to create a 'master race'.

The fact is, none of your objections actually apply to cloning. Which then raises the question that I would like you to ask yourself, 'Why do you REALLY oppose cloning?' It is not because you have become familiar with what is involved in the use of technology and grounded your objections accordingly.

I will agree that it is rude to say assert the ignorance of another so bluntly. But you have not been put in a position, as my wife and I have, of living in a society that denies you permission to have a child of your own, grounded on "reasons" that in fact make very little sense.

How do you normally react when denied something very important to you, by people who give reasons that belie very little understanding of that to which they object? Angry? Frustrated? It is only human. 


"Couldn't a zygote formed from a donor and only one of the parents be used instead of cloning?"

Such a child would be biologically my own, but for my wife it is still the end of her particular branch of her family tree -- that is, it is not HER child. It belongs (in an important sense) to somebody else.


"If you're cloning a child, it will only have one of the parent's DNA anyway"

Yes. Just hers. But this still allows her genes to be carried into the next generation. Without this technology, her family line ends with her.


"Cloning will almost certainly result in people wanting to recreate famous or valuable humans."

Who? Please name even one person who is arguing that cloning should be kept legal because they feel both a strong desire or a right to raise somebody else's clone.

If somebody seeks to have a child who has a good chance of being a great baseball player, they can seek that today, through selective breeding and the donation of sperm and egg. They don't do it.

It may be easy for you to imagine people having such a desire. It is just as easy for me to imagine being 6" tall. But imagination and reality often disagree.

The most common reason to seek cloning is the same reason that my wife has. Not because we are anxious to raise somebody else's (perfect) child. But quite the opposite -- because she would prefer to raise her own child.


"Will cloned children have fewer rights?" 

Our daughter Theresia will have the same rights as any other child. And if society decides otherwise, to make her a second-class citizen, should we outlaw the birth of blacks and Jews too (because somebody may treat them as second-class citizens with fewer rights)?


"If a family has a long history of heart disease then should they be able to have a heart-disease-free clone? Who gets to be a part of this elite race of superhumans?"

The best tool to use in creating a race of superhumans is not cloning (whose descendents can not be any better than the person cloned), but selective breeding and a government that thinks that it has the right to prevent people from having children of their own whenever the government thinks those children will fall short of the government's concept of perfection.

Do you see the contradiction in your statement? If you wish to prevent cloning because clones may be defective, then you are the one trying to use the law to create a race of superhumans and to outlaw "imperfect" beings. And if you think that governments should not use concepts of perfection to prevent people from having children, then you have no objection to Lesley and I having a child of our own -- even if it may be "defective" in your eyes.


"Alonzo, even though your uses for human cloning may be just, how will the rest of the world use it, surely cloning will be abused?"

Cloning will exist regardless of whether Lesley and I are allowed to have a child of their own. It will continue to be used on animals. It will continue to be perfected. And, as soon as somebody comes along with a desire to abuse it, then they will do so. Regardless of whether or not Lesley gets a child of her own.

Your objection here applies to all fields of medicine. What about research into disease prevention? Somebody, somewhere, is eventually going to use this knowledge to generate biological warfare weapons. Should we stop research into disease, stop working to create innoculations, cures, and treatments, because somebody may abuse that knowledge? No, we should do with cloning what we do with everything else. Allow it to exist where it does good, and fight the abuses.




Section 6: Human Cloning, Infertility, and Reproductive Freedom (by Mark D. Eibert)

Copyright (c) Mark D. Eibert.

The following exemplary article was originally submitted by Mark Eibert to Reason magazine. Mark is an attorney who practices law in San Mateo, California. 

"Congress is considering "emergency" legislation to make it illegal for anyone to use cloning technology to have children. Proponents of such laws say they are justified by a long list of what they call "common American values." Before we outlaw an entire class of children, however, we should set aside the current hysteria, and rationally consider two "common American values" that are being overlooked: motherhood and reproductive freedom. 

Why Would Anyone Want To Be "Cloned"? 
Fifteen percent of Americans suffer from infertility, much of which cannot be cured by current medicine. For example, a Consumer Reports study of fertility clinics showed that IVF and similar technologies work for only 25% of patients. That leaves millions of people who still cannot have children, often because they can't produce viable eggs or sperm, even with fertility drugs. Until now, their only options were to adopt, or to use eggs or sperm donated by strangers. 
In a world blessed by cloning technology, however, viable eggs or sperm would not be needed to conceive children--any body cell would do. Thus, cloning offers infertile couples something everyone else takes for granted--the chance to have, raise and love their own genetic children. 
With cloning, only one parent would contribute DNA, making the child almost a genetic twin. But America already has 1.5 million identical twins--and they are far from identical. They have different brain structures, IQ's, fingerprints and personalities, among other things. 
Moreover, a child conceived by cloning would differ from her parent much more than identical twins differ from each other. The donor egg (which is necessary to cloning) would contribute about 5% of the child's genes. Also, the child would grow in a different uterus (which greatly affects fetal development), and be raised in a different family, decade and world. 
In short, children conceived by cloning would not be "xerox copies" of anyone. They would be babies who would grow up to be unique individuals. That's what makes cloning attractive to millions of Americans who are otherwise unable to have their own genetic children. For them, cloning is about motherhood. 

Cloning And The Constitution 
The Supreme Court has ruled that every American has a constitutional right to "bear or beget" children, and to make reproductive decisions without government interference. This includes the right of infertile couples to use sophisticated medical technologies like IVF. As one court explained, "within the cluster of constitutionally protected choices that includes the right to have access to contraceptives, there must be included the right to submit to a medical procedure that may bring about, rather than prevent, pregnancy." 
For many Americans, cloning technology, once perfected, will offer the only way possible to exercise their right to reproduce. As applied to them, cloning bans are the practical equivalent of forced sterilization. Yet, the Supreme Court struck down a law requiring the sterilization of convicted criminals, saying it violated "one of the fundamental rights of man." Surely, disabled citizens (as some courts classify infertile people) have at least as much right to have children as convicted rapists and child molesters. 
There are also limits on government control over who gets born. Legislators cannot decree that certain children are too undesirable or imperfect to be born--that's an unconstitutional eugenics law, where the politicians play God. 
In sum, a legal system where healthy Americans have a constitutional right to abort their children, but disabled Americans are barred from conceiving children, may appeal to many politicians, but it wouldn't survive its first trip to the courthouse. 

Safety--or Pretext--First? 
When the government tries to outlaw the exercise of a constitutional right--like having children--it has the burden of proving that the law is "necessary" to achieve a "compelling state interest" in the "least restrictive way" possible. If it fails, the courts declare the law unconstitutional. 
Philosophical, religious and speculative concerns carry little or no legal weight. That leaves cloning opponents with only one weak argument--that at least in its current primitive state, cloning technology is not yet safe. 
But the "safety" argument is a pretext--an excuse to outlaw something that politicians don't like for other reasons. The proposed laws contain no procedure for determining when cloning has become safe, or for lifting the ban once safety is achieved. Moreover, in a stroke of Orwellian genius, the proposed bans would prevent the very research and human clinical trials needed to make cloning safe. 
Compare this with the treatment of other new medical procedures, hundreds of which are now in animal testing and not yet ready for safe human use. Nobody proposes to ban these treatments, or to discourage researchers from making them safe. Hardly any medical advance in history would have been legal if researchers had had to prove it safe for humans at the earliest stage of animal experimentation. 
In addition, the "safety" argument ignores the issue of who decides how much risk is acceptable for a mother and her baby. In America, that decision is always made by the prospective parents, never by the government--not even where the potential harm is much more certain and serious than anything threatened by cloning. For example: IVF and fertility drugs are legal, even though they create higher risks of miscarriages, multiple births, and associated birth defects. (Indeed, the mother of the septuplets is considered a hero). Individuals with inheritable mental or physical defects, older mothers at risk of having babies with Downs Syndrome, and even AIDS mothers, are all allowed to reproduce, naturally and through IVF, even though they risk having babies with serious defects or illnesses. And although many states once had eugenics laws requiring the sterilization of retarded people (to prevent the birth of retarded children), such laws have long since been repealed or struck down. 

The Real Question 
Philosophers can speculate about the implications of cloning, but for politicians there is only one question: who should decide whether and how an individual can have children? The individual, or the government? Actually, it's a trick question. The Constitution permits only one answer." 




Section 7. - Feedback/Final Comment.

Feedback
If you wish to make suggestions for next months newsletter, or provide feedback in general, a specific page has been set up at the RCN:

http://www.reproductivecloning.net/contact.htm

Final Comment
We, the members of the Committee, sincerely hope you find our Newsletter informative. We anticipate that this information will help you, at least to some degree, see past the hysteria usually associated with cloning. Fears born our of ignorance, misinformation, and ridiculous scenarios of exact Xerox copy clones, and cloned armies of Hitlers. These oft described situations are highly irrational, and completely unfeasible. We hope you will join us in our support of the true outcome of this novel technology; reproductive freedom, and individual choice. We have agreed to fund Dr. Zavos and Dr. Antinori, who wish to conduct research into reproductive cloning for therapeutic purposes, to help infertile couples have biologically related children. We can not fund this research without donations. If you do support reproductive choice, please donate. Your donation will be used to help fund the research, that will eventually allow infertile couples around the world, have the child they so desire. 

http://www.humancloning.org/donate.htm

Copyright © 2001. The Affiliated Members of the HCF/RCN/CRUF Network.
This newsletter can be freely copied and distributed, as long as it is not altered in any way. Mark Eibert's article also has a separate copyright on it