Christian views on cloning

Another point of misunderstanding arises in the separation of human reproductive cloning and therapeutic cloning. While most Christians do not support reproductive cloning, therapeutic cloning is a branch of cloning which has garnered slightly more support from certain denominations. Some Christian traditions, such as the United Church of Christ, believe that cloning can be conducted ethically for this purpose, in order to help treat disease and improve the public health, as they do not see the fertilized ovum as constituting a person. Courtney Campbell, director of the Program for Ethics, Science and the Environment at Oregon State University, says, "Some traditions and leading figures in conservative Protestantism who were opposed to human cloning for reproductive reasons have come to see that given the ambiguity about their own views about the status of embryonic life, and given the potential for health benefits, they could be opposed to reproductive cloning, but affirm therapeutic cloning.[2] The main reason, she says, is the tradition of emphasizing the individual choice over central dogma.

Catholic support for therapeutic cloning is conditional on the stipulation that it does not involve any kind of infringement upon human embryos. John Paul II states, "These techniques, insofar as they involve the manipulation and destruction of human embryos, are not morally acceptable, even when their proposed goal is good in itself."[3] Thus, according to the Catholic ethical system, even a good that might come from therapeutic cloning would be morally unacceptable, as it would be the result of an act which, according to Catholics, is itself intrinsically immoral. This, for many Christians, is hard to abide by, for, as one Professor of Christian Ethics states, "Our society is preoccupied with death and the pursuit of health seems to justify anything."[4]

The Church of England put out a statement on the Church's website which reads, "human reproductive cloning was made unlawful by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. Few members of the Church of England would dissent from such a position. However, therapeutic cloning may be thought of as ethical, as it does not result in another human being."[5] Thus, while reproductive cloning is again discouraged, therapeutic cloning is more acceptable.

In a statement given by the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod, on the other hand, therapeutic cloning was rejected as "contrary to the Word of God and our 1998 resolution".[6] For this particular group, therapeutic cloning is assumed to involve the destruction of human embryos, and is therefore against the synod's resolution to "reaffirm and celebrate life" and "protect the sanctity of human life".[6]

Many Christians that do not agree on an exact definition of dignity, which leads some scientists to ignore this concern, seeing it as a vague excuse that some Christians use to justify cloning bans[9] Or, if a definition is agreed upon, it may be challenged as being too weak, so that, according to Steven Pinker, a Professor of Psychology at Harvard University, it is "hardly up to the heavyweight moral demands assigned to it".[10]

The belief in intrinsic dignity, nonetheless, leads the Christians who hold this belief to also argue that if the soul enters the body at the moment when the sperm and the egg unite, producing cloned zygotes that are unlikely to survive is equivalent to murder. Therefore, if one believes, as Catholics do, that the zygotes have souls and are therefore human, in the words of John Paul II, "regardless of the objective for which it was done, human embryonic cloning conflicts with the international legal norms that protect human dignity."[3] Some Christian conservatives even express concern that cloned embryos would have no soul, since it is, in their view, born outside of God's parameters,[11] as its creation is in a laboratory setting rather than natural conception.

Certain Christians also hold that, in the act of creating a human being, his or her dignity is also upheld by the presence of a loving union between the two partners, so that "only when love exists should the creation of other persons be envisaged."[12] Because of this, "divine creation and co-creation are similar".[12] In the act of scientific cloning, however, the embryo is a result of the artificial union of the sperm and the egg, so that "the presence of love between the co-creators does not exist."[12] Thus, according to this view, the dignity of the person is not upheld. Rev. Demetri Demopulos, Greek Orthodox pastor and geneticist, states, "As an Orthodox Christian, I speak out in opposition to any attempt to clone a human being because humans are supposed to be created by acts of love between two people, not through the manipulation of cells in acts that are ultimately about self-love."

Much of the concern related to human cloning stems from a fear of overstepping the bounds of the natural order. Through the act of creating another human being, Christians have also posed the question as to whether this would be too much like playing God.[13] Not only this, but some Christian ethicists argue that human cloning would "create substantial issues of identity and individuality".[4] This could be seen through the confusion of the child resulting from cloning as to who his parents are, what connection he has to his genetic duplicate, etc.

Despite the ethical gray area surrounding the act of cloning itself, most, if not all Christians, still hold that children who may result from the process should be loved and cared for as much as any other child, since they would be considered fully human[12] and therefore reflect the Divine image, as defined by Gaudium et spes, a document of the Second Vatican Council.[8] However, according to Richard McCormick, S.J., cloning disrupts the familial order. It "would involve removing insemination and fertilization from the marriage relationship, and it would also remove one of the partners from the entire process". According to Stephen G. Post, a Catholic journalist, "[removal] of the male impregnators from the procreative dyad would simply drive the nail into the coffin of fatherhood, unless one thinks that biological and social fatherhood are utterly disconnected".[14]