Glenn McGhee, ed., The Human Cloning Debate, Second Edition (Berkeley Hills Books: Berkeley, CA, 2000) Review by Tom W. Miller

Many books and articles have debated the pros, cons, and ethics of human cloning. Glenn McGhee's book, however, is the best of the bunch. Not only does his collection of articles elucidate the variety of opinions about human cloning; it also provides insight as to why people gravitate toward the positions they hold. As McGhee himself, along with Ian Wilmut, explain in their article "A Model for Regulating Cloning," people's attitudes toward cloning follow from the individuals on whom they focus when looking at the cloning process. The "reproductive freedom model" examines the rights of those seeking to clone, such as infertile and gay couples. This point of view generally leads to a certain acceptance of human cloning. The "pediatric model" examines the potential impact of cloning on the cloned child. Those embracing this model usually conclude that cloning would physically and psychologically harm the child and thus should not be done. The authors in The Human Cloning Debate tend to gravitate toward one of these poles. John Robertson, author of "Cloning as a Reproductive Right," is the book's strongest advocate of reproductive freedom. According to Robertson, reproductive freedom, "the freedom to decide whether or not to have offspring," is considered "a fundamental personal liberty" (p. 45). From this basic tenant, Robertson logically concludes that couples have the right to clone embryos to use in in vitro fertilization or as a source of stem cells to help an existing child. As long as the two people intend to rear the child, they should be able to clone themselves or a third party, since the procedure differs little from current embryo and gamete donation. Carson Strong, in his essay "Cloning and Infertility," further supports Robertson's argument for reproductive freedom. Strong responds to opponents who deem cloning an unnecessary and selfish desire of prospective parents. Strong sees genuine meaning in having genetically related children of one's own that rises above mere narcissism. People procreate sexually because they wish to participate in the creation of a person and affirm their mutual love. For some couples, cloning is the only way for them to achieve these two significant experiences. Lawmakers wishing to pass anticloning laws should make exceptions for infertile married couples in order to give them the same freedom that fertile couples have. But Strong does not go far enough, argues Timothy Murphy in "Entitlement to Cloning: A Response to Strong." If cloning is ethically defensible for infertile couples, it should be available to all who wish to have children, including fertile and same sex couples. Strong's description of cloning as a last resort method of reproduction puts a negative connotation on the process. Cloning is simply another method of assisted reproduction, and once it's shown to be as physically safe as other methods, should be made available to everyone. Murphy's article demonstrates the difficulty in drawing a line between "good" and "bad" cloning. Leon Kass, one of the main pediatric opponents of human cloning, points to this inability as a reason to ban cloning in his essay, "The Wisdom of Repugnance." Once human cloning is allowed in one instance, argues Kass, humanity will have no choice but to slide down a slippery slope where anything goes. People should heed their repugnance toward human cloning, which stems from cloning's perversion of the natural sexual order. Cloning will also harm the child no matter how benevolent the caretakers. Because a clone's life is not completely novel, because its genome has been lived, cloning exerts a despotism on the child even in loving circumstances. In a valuable section on religious responses to cloning, other opponents of cloning question whether such a thing a reproductive freedom exists. The whole notion of reproductive freedom, argues John Haas in "A Catholic View of Cloning," presupposes that couples alone create babies. Couples do not make children; they beget them with "the creative intervention of God." To say otherwise would be to degrade babies "as though they were objects, rather than individuals of sublime and inviolable dignity" (p. 283). Parents do not have a "right" to children; instead, babies are a precious gift from God. Moreover, as Munawar Ahmad Anees writes in "Human Clones and God's Trust: The Islamic View," the progenitors of clones would also be degrading themselves in the process. "The human body is God's property, not man's laboratory," argues Anees. "To abuse God's trust will only lead to a travesty of the human essence" (p. 293). It seems unlikely that opponents in the human cloning debate will ever reach a consensus. Not even religious commentators can agree on the propriety of cloning. As Jonathan Cohen notes in his essay "In God's Garden: Creation and Cloning in Jewish Thought," different interpretations of the creation story in Genesis can lead to different attitudes about cloning. If a reader believes that God ordained the structure of the world, then that reader "will likely view human cloning as transgressing that structure" (p. 256). If a person thinks God's task in Genesis was to transform things for the better, then that person could come to accept human cloning if used to accomplish good. McGhee and Wilmut attempt to forge a middle ground between reproductive freedom and pediatric concerns. Once human cloning becomes safe, the authors suggest using an adoptive model to regulate cloning. Reproductive freedom fighters have come to accept the adoption process, despite its restrictions, because they recognize that "the adoption of a child is an unusual way to enter into a family" (pp. 229-230). Along the same line of reasoning, argue the authors, the defenders of reproductive freedom should accept an adoption-like regulation of human cloning. However, I believe that one of McGhee and Wilmut's main premises is flawed. The adoption process evolved not because it's a novel way to start a family but because no genetic tie exists between adoptive parent and child. The child already exists, and society recognizes the need to protect that child and ensure it a minimally nurturing environment in the absence of a natural bond. Cloning, on the other hand, concerns a prospective child-one who may have a genetic link to the people who wish to clone. Defenders of reproductive freedom could argue that procedures like IVF are not regulated, and the same freedom should apply to human cloning. But even if the two sides in the human cloning debate cannot reach a consensus, the debate still has value. Books like McGhee's will help people understand opposing points of view and recognize weaknesses in their own positions. Those favoring reproductive freedom could recognize the difficulty in drawing a line between "good" and "bad" cloning. Those who think cloning could harm the child might accept that a clone could still be a unique individual. Religious opponents of cloning might realize that God's hand will never be absent from the miracle of human procreation, no matter how much science intervenes. The dialogue over human cloning must not lead to the violence that surrounds the abortion debate. Glenn McGhee's book is an important tool in promoting that peaceful dialogue.

Buy The Clone Shopping Network, the new biotech thriller that features human cloning

Back to Tom W. Miller Home

About Tom W. Miller

What's Next

Read an Excerpt from The Clone Shopping Network

Articles on Human Cloning

Reviews of Books about Human Cloning

Links to Human Cloning and More

Email Tom W. Miller