Cloning Hypothetical Situation

[Stylteralmaldo]

I have seen many decry cloning as unethical and that the primary reasoning being that during this process, many embryos will be destroyed in the process in creating such a viable option.

However, let’s say a scientist invents a “pill” that allows an unfertilized egg to create a human clone within the mother’s womb. Let us also suppose that human life was not destroyed in order to come up with such option (just for giggles we’ll say this scientist was awarded the peace prize because human embryos were not destroyed during any of this scientists research process).

Would the cloning option still be wrong?

I would say it would still be disallowed because the act of cloning is not consistant with the openness to life through the natural means of the marital act.

 

[1ke]

Stylteralmaldo:

I have seen many decry cloning as unethical and that the primary reasoning being that during this process, many embryos will be destroyed in the process in creating such a viable option.

However, let’s say a scientist invents a “pill” that allows an unfertilized egg to create a human clone within the mother’s womb. Let us also suppose that human life was not destroyed in order to come up with such option (just for giggles we’ll say this scientist was awarded the peace prize because human embryos were not destroyed during any of this scientists research process).

Would the cloning option still be wrong?

I would say it would still be disallowed because the act of cloning is not consistant with the openness to life through the natural means of the marital act.

Cloning is not wrong because embryos will be destroyed in the process. It is wrong for the same reason as IVF and all other artifical conception technologies. It is not a unitive and procreative act of intercourse between spouses.

 

[JimG]

1ke:

Cloning is not wrong because embryos will be destroyed in the process. It is wrong for the same reason as IVF and all other artifical conception technologies. It is not a unitive and procreative act of intercourse between spouses.

Yes, the Church insists that the unitive and procreative aspects must always go together. Artificial contraception defeats the procreative while trying to maintain the unitive. IVF and cloning defeat the unitive while trying to accomplish the procreative.

(But if we view newly created embryos as human beings, it is wrong to destroy them as well, so that is an additional reason that cloning is wrong.)

 

[mong00se]

1ke:

It is not a unitive and procreative act of intercourse between spouses.

neither is doing the dishes…

…sorry about that; I really tried to resist. I agree with you 100%, btw–the way for human life to come into the world is through a unitive and procreative act, which in turn is the meaning of sex.

 

[JimG]

Doing the dishes together could be a unitive act, although not procreative unless it qualifies as foreplay, and you never know. . .

 

[Pug]

Stylteralmaldo:

However, let’s say a scientist invents a “pill” that allows an unfertilized egg to create a human clone within the mother’s womb.

It doesn’t seem quite fair to the young baby to be forced by a pill into doing asexual reproduction of some sort when it ought instead to be left to grow in peace. I mean, should you or I be unwittingly be made to take a pill that will cause us to clone ourselves? Or are you talking about nudging a natural process that produces identical twins or something? I doubt that, however, because twins are not the same as clones.