In my post about the Fox All Star cloning debate, in which I bemoan the fact that no one seems to think that they even have to offer a reason why human cloning is a Bad Thing, reader "Joe" writes:

The reason to be against human cloning is quite clear, which may be why some people don't think they need to state. What do you do with failures?

If that's your argument, it's an argument against allowing procreation at all, since every pregnancy attempt has the potential for defects. As Professor Reynolds has correctly pointed out (probably on numerous occasions), that's an argument against doing cloning badly--not against cloning per se. We had exactly the same issue with in-vitro fertilization, but somehow the world didn't come to an end, ethically or otherwise, and there are many happy people in the universe who wouldn't exist today if we had banned it.

Certainly it would be irresponsible to attempt to clone a human until we understand much more about the process, and have done it reliably and successfully on something similarly complex (e.g., chimps, which share about 98% of our DNA). And outlawing it will not prevent it--it will simply send it underground where it's even more difficult to monitor or regulate it.

But I'm still awaiting an argument against cloning per se, other than the Leon Kass "ick" factor.

Also, a large number of natural pregnancies end in miscarriage -- usually before anyone even knows there's a pregnancy. Should humanity stop trying, out of sympathy for those who never make it?

The over-riding argument against cloning is simply this. Cloning devalues human life. If the sum total of a person is simply contained a strand of DNA, and we can reproduce that person from one strand of DNA, what is the value of life. Murder is considered more serious than theft because, among other things, you can?t replace the person that has died. If that is no longer the case and we can replace that person, then why would murder be worse than picking a pocket?

On the other hand if the sum total of a person is not contained in a single strand of DNA, what else does it take to make the sum total of a person? Science has not answered that question. Until science is able to answer that question, what business does it have mucking about trying to create a being, not knowing if it will be a complete being?

Cloning proponents seem to think because cloning is possible it must be good. If asked why they will point to the medical benefits to be gained. By that logic the gas chambers of the Holocaust were good. Medical science has benefited from the research the Nazis did in the death camps. However no sane person would allow that death camps, the gassing of innocent people or the attempted destruction of an entire race was good.

The reason proponents and opponents of cloning don?t seem to be able to have a serious debate on the subject is, proponents are arguing for the ends, opponents are arguing against the means. The real disagreement is about rather ?the ends justify the means?. Until that is settled the discussion on cloning is locked into people stating their positions.

A human being is not simply the collection of nucleic acids bonded in 23 pairs in a double helix, we are the sum of our experiences, the people we have met and have influenced our lives. A clone could not be a duplicate of any human being; her experiences would shape her; she would evolve into a totally new individual. Saying that a clone would be identical in every respect to the person it was cloned from is like trying to say that all identical twins are exactly the same as each other.

If for example you somehow cloned Hitler, depending on how the clone was raised would change the person it grew into, it would not pop out of the test tube with a burning desire to enslave and kill Jews or an uncontrollable need to invade Poland.