To Clone or Not To Clone

There was an article in today's Minneapolis StarTribune entitled "Stakes are High in New Debate Over
Cloning." Basically, the GOP in Minnesota is proposing a bill that would ban "human cloning." I put the phrase in quotes because, like many of the terms and concepts that we use (dignity, freedom, right), there is no one clear, univocal idea behind it. The article describes how the law is unclear if human cloning means a complete human person or merely cloning a human cell. If it is the latter, certain types of research, such as stem-cell and therapeutic cloning, both of which can use cells from embryos in the attempt to figure our how to "fix" cells in a patient, might be restricted then as well.

The article's main thrust is largely economic, as it basically looks at what might happen to bio-tech research and engineering in Minnesota if the law passes. Ultimately, the slant largely asks a reader to think about the employment and economic development issues at stake. I am always disappointed that the deeper questions, such as what makes a human human and what are the values behind research into cloning, don't really play a part in such a conversation. So much of our political rhetoric is economically framed. Sometimes I think the new priests are economists, with ideas such as efficiency, confidence and productivity being the true doctrines that frame our culture.

I may be biting off more than I can chew, but:

I want to step back a bit and try and think through the cloning issue within a different frame, one that thinks about value as being grounded in the Christian God. The issue of human cloning at one level is an easy issue. God creates life, meaning the idea or attempt at cloning a complete human is irresponsible, ignoring the created and dependent nature of humans as a whole, spiritual and physical, and unique creature.

The hard part comes when faced with the nitty-gritty about cells, rather than a whole organism. It is thinking about the good that such cloning after years of research, may do to a diabetic or a sufferer from Parkinson's disease. Is it "right" to use stem cells from aborted or discarded embryos for such a greater good? This question is a hard one, no matter what one's moral commitments. On the one hand, being Christian includes a command that one love the neighbor as oneself. But who is the neighbor? Is it the diabetic in front of you? The embryo? Clearly, at some level, both are. On the other hand, this command asks not about consequences. To love the neighbor does not ask you to rationally calculate whether some option will bring about the greatest good in the world (a main tenet of Utilitarianism). Instead, it demands action, it demands that you address the needs of the person that you see as best you can, not knowing or focusing on anticipated outcomes in the process.

One key element in my own thinking about this issue has to do with the potential for and the actuality of life. There is a long tradition in the West, prominent in Aristotle's thought, that makes this distinction. Consequently, to think about cloning also asks about who has the highest actuality of life? This question relates well to Jesus' statement in John's Gospel (10:10) that he has come to bring the fullness of life. In short, connecting actuality of life with fullness suggests that God has called us to gracefully work to help everyone attain a fullness of life. So a further dilemma becomes thinking about what fullness is and how it relates to the potential and actuality of life.

So how might we tie the love of neighbor with fullness of life with potential and actuality?  I suggest that such a line of reasoning is best centered on linking fullness with actuality for what is actual is concrete, it is who we see in our daily life, it is our neighbor. For example, if a loved one suffers from a debilitating disease, we see them lacking the actual fullness of life. We see them suffer. And if human creativity can help partially bring about God's gift of fullness through such research, then we play a part in linking fullness with the actuality of life. And as such, a discarded embryo, say one that was aborted because it had a major genetic defect, had a potential for life that was lacking. To use it as a means to bring about fullness and actuality is to transform this lack of potential into an expression of loving the neighbor.

And notice what I am not trying to defend abortion in this post, which is maybe a little disingenuous but abortion deserves its own post, but instead how we prioritize our love by thinking about potential and actuality of life and how we can use some of the building blocks that are largely potential life to help those with the actuality of life.

Obviously, one concern on the part of Pro-Lifers is that such research might encourage the destruction of embryos. It is to see such use as objectifying life, using it as a means to an end, whereas all life is in itself an end. This argument is compelling in many ways. But it also ignores the fact that unfortunately, tragically, all life does not have the same potential for fullness and actuality. I still remember the day when our doctor asked us whether we wanted to have our fetus genetically tested. Knowing what types of genetic cracks and rips is then supposed to help a parent think about the potential for life of the fetus. With this testing, which raises a whole other can of ethical worms, we were asked to think about the type of life that our child would be genetically pre-disposed to, knowing that there are many horrific, terrible diseases that can kill a baby. So as a result, there will be terminated pregnancies, there will be embryos that will be discarded, that lack much potential for life. And yes, this view raises many more issues (such as possibility of cures for the disorder or ignoring the giftedness of all life), but life is tragic, not all life is genetically created equal. And yes, we must be careful with this view, making sure throughout that we respect life, both its potential and its actuality, while admitting this tragic dimension.

And in the end, because we live in a politically liberal society (and thus not a theocracy) that values the freedom of religion, we can never compel someone to become religious. We can never force someone to accept a particular value system. Women have a right thus to decide what to do with their bodies, hopefully a choice that they will make in consultation with families, friends and conscience. And we as Christians must love and support them, drawing on God's grace no matter our opinion about whether such an act is right or wrong to show them God's love. Abortion is and has always been (e.g. St. John's Wort) a part of the world we live in and to believe that outlawing abortion will end abortion is a chimera, just as much as world peace. Instead, we need to best think about how God calls us to fullness of life, to think about how to love our actual neighbor.

Here's the link: http://www.startribune.com/politics/local/118887039.html