Human cloning: unethical or an act of mercy?
During public lectures the Cambridge University scientist said he regularly asks his audience if they would be in favour of allowing parents of deceased children, who are no longer fertile, to create another using the mother’s eggs and skin cells from the first child, assuming the technique was safe and effective.
“The average vote on that is 60 per cent in favour,” he said. “The reasons for ‘no’ are usually that the new child would feel they were some sort of a replacement for something and not valid in their own right.
“But if the mother and father, if relevant, want to follow that route, why should you or I stop them?”
~ Cloning scientist Sir John Gurdon justifying the use of human cloning to assist grieving parents who may have suffered the loss of a child, UK Telegraph, December 18
[HT: Laura Loo]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Factory Farmed Fetuses.
Genetically modified, no problems, finest kind.
“Let’s establish a market in humanity”
Gurdon’s ploy to become rich.
Remember Gecko – “Greed is good.”
Does this make Gurdon a capitalistic pig?
At what point will Gurdon and his ilk decide to legally banish the free, so he can sell his services? Try buying natural corn seed anywhere … Monsanto has a lock. No Chris, that could never happen….
“That over there – yeah – that’s a free ranging fetus. Requires a special license, must be purebred, no hereditary diseases, contaminants. Mom, dad exquisite, healthy specimens. Guaranteed not to go off temper like those loose cannons stateside….”
Whoever says mankind wasn’t created by an Intelligent designer has, of course, never met Sir John Gurdon, who can design your child as an identical replacement for your lost one.
(/mocking)
There’s this bizarro conflict of interest proposed, particularly in the wake of the Newtown tragedy, but it needs pointing out – Gurdon hopes to sell/provide services when children die. So strangely, he profits from children dying – just like an abortionist, but from a slightly different angle – the wanted child vs unwanted child. Think about it – more dead children, the more people will want what he’s selling, even if the National Health Service is paying for it.
Many think we’re losing our morality, but actually I think it’s a complete loss of the ability to critically think.
Seriously, if people thought it through, they’d be beating this guy out of town immediately.
They have to realize that the new child IS NOT A REINCARNATION of the first child!!!!! If they realize that, it might be OK. But if they think they are bringing the child back from the grave, this would be a disaster.
Has the world officially gone completely insane, or what?
This just seems really, really emotionally unhealthy for the parents and the kids involved.
I really don’t think humanity should do the cloning thing. Haven’t they ever read a science fiction novel? Naught but trouble lies down that road.
Ah yes, children as commodities.
This is similar to the Australian woman who aborted her twin sons because she wanted a girl to replace the daughter who had died.
As omnipotent women, we can reject “unwanted” children and then insist on being able to have the child of our choice when we want it.
And we believe this is good for children?!
Now I understand why the Catholic Church views in vitro fertilization as intrinsically evil.
This is gravely unjust to children.
That is downright ghoulish. Plus, it’s unhealthy for the grieving family, it’s disrespectful to the memory of the deceased, AND it’s disrespectful to the remains of the deceased! Oh Lord, would you please come in glory already!
@Jack: Yeah, I’m suddenly thinking The Island. Very awful.
The falicy in his question relating to real life is this phrase “safe and effective”. Would I object to “safe and effective” human cloning. No, actually I wouldn’t. I would think God would instill a soul into the newly created human even if we are reusing genetic material. But, over here in the real world, cloning of anything is anything but safe, only marginally effective, and even when it *does* effectively create a copy that copy is usually riddled with health problems. And in order to even theoretically get from here to there (current to “safe and effective”) thousands, probably hundreds of thousands would need to die, be created only to die, or be created with horrific health problems. (Accepting horrific health problems when they happen is worlds different that causing it) That makes even the future theoretical “safe and effective” cloning ethically wrong.
God most certainly would ensoul a new child but unfortunately, in the parents eyes, that child would most certainly be a recreation of the deceased child. They would never allow that child to truly be the child they really are, an individual all their own. How crappy that would be to grow up knowing you were created JUST to fulfill the parents morbid, selfish desires to replace a sibling you never knew.
No… I fully believe we should NOT do human cloning. This world is designed for us to have to endure suffering thanks to Adam and Eve. People need to suck it up and stop acting as if they deserve a child created to, or for, their specifications.
I have no idea why, but I always think of Mewtwo (the Pokemon) whenever anyone mentions cloning in any context.
I think part of the great thing about being human is being unique…nobody exactly like you. While certain traits might be similair, nobody exactly like you. As a Christian, I see this as God’s plan to give us all the ability to be who He wants us to be–play a part in His plan and not just be a recycled cycle of situations/actions, etcetera.
It’s a disrespect to the deceased, a disrespect to humanity, and a disrespect to the uniqueness of each human being and a disrespect to God’s plan for unique humans.