Flesh of My Flesh: The Ethics of Cloning Humans a Reader

When the world said "Hello Dolly" to the first mammal to be created via cloning, it suddenly became realistic to consider the possibility that humans could also be cloned. The announcement struck a very sensitive spot in the psyche of many people, and the Clinton administration moved quickly to appoint a commission to investigate the issues. The commission, the National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC), after a very brief period of discussion, concluded that there should be a federal law banning the cloning of humans. This book is a collection of essays presenting several sides of the issue, although the majority is opposed to cloning. The weakest arguments are the usual "slippery-slope" variety, where all possible reasons for cloning are rejected. Such arguments fail because humans are generally quite good at establishing limits, nothing really has to be just the first step in an unstoppable process. The most powerful arguments for research into human cloning are scientific ones. The increase in knowledge that would be accrued by conducting research into how a fertilized ovum develops and differentiates into a human would certainly lead to the alleviation of a lot of human suffering. Complete bans on all research in this area are difficult to justify. There is a great deal of emotion in some of the essays in opposition to cloning. For example, on page 37 Leon Kass writes, "The prospect of human cloning, so repulsive to contemplate, is the occasion for deciding whether we shall remain free human beings who guide our technique toward the enhancement of human dignity." In a world of repressive governments, the majority of people struggling in brutal poverty, millions dying of easily treatable diseases, ethnic cleansing and warfare, to state that the cloning of humans is THE threat against human freedom and dignity is absurd. My favorite essays were those who examined the possible advantages of human cloning with an open mind or presented their arguments in a scientific manner. Several contributors' point out that one of the most cited reasons people would have for cloning is unreasonable. It is thought that the sudden death of a child would lead the grieving parents to want to create an identical replacement via cloning. However, this simply would not occur. Identical twins have identical nuclear and mitochondrial DNA, are gestated in the same womb and in most cases grow up in the same environment. And yet, their behaviors as adults are quite different. There are even documented cases where one twin is gay and the other is not. The mathematical theory of chaos is based on the premise that, "small changes lead to large results." It is clear that human development is very chaotic, so any attempt to create a replacement is doomed to failure. Another weak argument put forward in opposition to human cloning is that people created in this way would be considered inferior. In light of the longtime human struggle against racial, ethnic and pol

My son and I bought five anthologies on cloning for his science fair project,including the ones by McGee, Cole-Turner, and McCuen. If you want the ideas of all the world religions (pretty murky) get McGee's. Cole-Turner also has a lot, maybe too much, of religon. McCuen's just isn't very good. I liked FLESH OF MY FLESH because it has pieces in it by my sons hero, Stephen Jay Gould, and the conclusions from the National Bioethics Commission's Report (which condemned cloning). Pence's overview is also excellent. If you're just buying one book with lots of articles, and want the pro-science pieces and not the anti-religion ones, this is the one to go for.

We used this book in my adult class in church, and it changed my mind about a few things. I found the articles on both sides compelling.