By framing "humanity" in terms of genetic makeup, though, Smith paints himself into an ethical corner. What if, many years from now, people are able to modify their genes, or the genes of their offspring, such that they deviate far from the human norm? This isn't something I look forward to, mind you, but it features in lots of science fiction. Would a person with wings or gills still be a human being according to Smith? What about a functioning human brain plugged into a computer, or somehow grafted onto a monkey? I assume that Smith would, grimacing, admit that such grotesques still have a "right to life" not enjoyed by, say, cows or dogs, in spite of their physical/genetic distance from what we today consider human. This right must derive from moral intuition, our ability to recognize personhood in our fellow man (or man/monkey hybrid), not from a rationalistic, scientific formula.
Hmmm. Sounds suspiciously like, "I can't define humanity, but I know it when I see it!" This definition didn't work the last time it was tried. Probably shouldn't pull it out again.
In addition, Charles makes an unwarrented assumption, that genetically modified clones would be attributed human status. He asumes that the modifications would all be benign improvements. He fails to consider the possibility that a subclass of human could be engineered to serve as a slave class, strong, moderately intelligent, and servile. History has shown us that the impulse to enslave others is a universal human characteristic. This time, there would be no moral qualms about it, because we could legitimately say that the slaves were born to be slaves. Yes, this is a 'slippery slope' argument, but I have yet to see anybody put up anything even suggesting that this was not a likelihood.
Second, Smith's focus on the fate of embryos misses the whole point of what makes cloning different from abortion, why a vast majority of Americans opposes it. Embryos schmembryos; people are worried about how cloned babies, cloned adults, would affect family life, affect the structure of society, affect the very trajectory of the human race. Implicit in his argument is the following astonishing point: if therapeutic cloning were banned, but reproductive cloning could proceed in a 100% efficient manner (i.e. no loss of manipulated embryos), he would have no reason to oppose it!
Once again, a wrong assumption. The discussion is about therapeutic cloning, since it is acjnowledged that the public is not interested in repoductive cloning. Why bother framing an argument for a moot point?
I remain relatively agnostic about abortion, but I know full well that I'm against reproductive cloning, and I'm joined in that position by a majority of Americans.
OK Charles, why? What is the problem with allowing parents to clone a child who died in a car accident? What is the ethical basis for denying a woman the right to get pregnant by herself, without relying on a donor? You know, privacy and all that?
The only arguments against reproductive cloning continue to be the same ones used against therapeutic cloning.
- Efficacy. We really aren't all that good at it.
- Safety. The failure rate is unacceptibly high.
Both of the above will be corrected by advances in the technology
- The Eeewwwww factor, also known as moral squeamishness.
You'll have to do better than that.
