One of the problems with allowing applied science to get ahead of morality and ethics is that science doesn't ask the question, "Should we do this?" It only asks, "Can we do this?" Current research in the area of human artificial cloning isn't driven by moral and ethical considerations. Curiosity, competition, pride, and profit drive it. One need only recall the smug claims of the Raelien/Clonaid spokespeople of recent times to see that. Just because we can do something doesn't necessarily mean we should.

I don’t know whether you heard the news but the poster child for the modern cloning movement has died -- or perhaps I should better say, the "poster sheep." On Valentine’s Day, 2003, just a little more than three weeks ago, the much photographed Dolly, a cloned Finn-Dorset sheep was put to death - this according to an article by the Associated Press.(1) The AP story said that the veterinarian’s decision to end Dolly’s life was made "after premature aging and disease marred her short existence…." Dolly’s life ended at the age of 6 – about half the life expectancy for her breed – due to "progressive lung disease" according to the Roslin Institute, the Scottish laboratory where she was cloned.

"We must await the results of the post-mortem on Dolly in order to assess whether her relatively premature death was in any way connected with the fact that she was a clone," said Richard Gardner, a professor of zoology at Oxford University and chair of the Royal Society group working on stem cell research and therapeutic cloning.

Also, said Gardner, "If there is a link, it will provide further evidence of the dangers inherent in reproductive cloning and the irresponsibility of anybody who is trying to extend such work to humans."

This recent development is sure to rekindle the public debate about human cloning, which has only recently faded after the unsubstantiated announcement that an organization called Clonaid had successfully cloned several human babies outside this country. This caused a bizarre turn of events since the Raelien religious cult that believes the earth was originally populated by human clones brought here by aliens from outer space owns Clonaid.

In an interesting sidebar to that story, AP reported on January 22, 2003 that a Florida judge had ruled that a Clonaid executive must testify at a hearing on a request by a Miami attorney for a court-appointed guardian for the alleged infant.(2)

On Thursday, February 27 our own House of Representatives passed a bill supported by the Bush Administration that would ban human cloning in the U.S. and impose a ten year prison sentence and up to a $1 million dollar fine on any violators. The bill is currently hung up in the Senate.(3)

With our country about to go to war with Iraq, the subject of human cloning might not seem like a pressing issue to most of us. But as Christians, I remind you that according to 1 Thessalonians 5:21-22, we are to, "…examine everything carefully," to "hold fast to that which is good," and to "abstain from every form of evil." We are also called to be a righteous influence on our society.(4) We must take the time to evaluate this issue, which is what I propose to do in this message.

I don’t pretend to be a scientist, so understand that I am dependent upon written summaries of what I am told is a fairly complicated procedure. In fact, it seems that even the scientists don’t fully agree on a definition of cloning that is totally accurate. For our purpose here however, we’ll use the following definition:

I specify "artificial" cloning here because cloning also appears in nature. More about that shortly.

Summarizing the experiment of Ian Wilmut that resulted in the cloned sheep, Dolly, German scientist, Werner Gitt writes:

Artificial cloning is a kind of DNA "cut and paste" operation, involving reproductive cells (now in conjunction with other kinds of cells) that alters the intended development of a maturing life form due to altered DNA. Presumably, in the still unverified case of cloned humans, the procedure would be something similar, except that it is said that applying what was done with a sheep would present a host of new problems with a human being. Having said that, it is not difficult to imagine that ultimately a cloned human being will be born somewhere in the world if indeed such a one hasn’t already been born.

An important point to make here is that cloning does not create new life. It simply rearranges tissue that is already living. God is still the Sole Proprietor and Giver of life. He alone can create living things.

And along that line I might also say that cloning isn’t really a human invention. I have made the distinction between artificial and natural cloning. You see, God already uses cloning in the reproduction of some living things. When we plant potato tubers, for example, the potatoes that come up next year are actually "clones" of the ones we planted. There is no new combination of hereditary information that comes with pollination as in other plants. Strawberries planted from runners are also clones of the parent plant.

Among insects, Aphids can reproduce either sexually or by cloning, as can certain ants, bees, lizards, and crustaceans.

Among humans, identical twins are, in essence, clones, though they differ from artificially produced clones in that both a human father and mother are involved. In twins, the fertilized egg splits in two, and each of these two "daughter" cells develops separately. Yet they have an absolutely identical set of genes.(7)

And by the way, the presence of human twins answers the question of whether or not a human clone, if indeed one were produced, would have a soul. Does a human twin have a soul? No one would dare suggest otherwise. Then so would a human clone.

But of course we aren't talking about naturally appearing cloning that results from the design of a wise Creator. We're talking about artificial manipulation of genetic material to produce cloned human beings. As I will show you, there are significant differences that have important moral, ethical, and Biblical ramifications.

Should scientists go ahead with human cloning experiments with the ultimate aim of creating cloned human beings? Should our government allow it? Should our tax dollars support it? Should we look at it as just another way to populate the planet with humans, or maybe even a way for the childless to have children, or are we staring down the barrel of a loaded gun? We need to ask the question:

As Christians, we must first understand that there is no command in the Bible that says, "Thou shalt not clone human beings." But then again, there is no command that says expressly, "Thou shalt not beat thy wife" or "thou shalt not spit on thy husband." We know these things are wrong however, because of principles that we learn and apply from God's word. The husband is to live with his wife in an understanding way.(8) The wife is to respect her husband.(9) Biblical principles are as important as Biblical commands.

God gives us His principles for pro-creation in Genesis 1:27-28. I’d like you to join me there in your Bibles so you can follow along as I read.

From this basic passage from the book of beginnings, we learn first that man is different from fish and birds and animals. Man is made in the image of His Creator. Therefore, it isn't necessarily reasonable to conclude that what we can do with animals, we can also do with human beings. It is likely that one of the main reasons we have even the suggestion of manipulation of human genes in the laboratory is because increasingly, we don't believe in or honor the Biblical distinction between man and animals. After decades of teaching the chance-driven evolution lie in our schools, many view man as nothing more than a "higher animal." And of course, if man is just an animal ("higher" or not) then it is permissible, in certain instances that seem advantageous, to treat him as an animal. If you can selectively breed animals, for instance, then why not selectively breed humans? Plato suggested it in his Republic. It was behind Hitler's efforts to exterminate Jews, Blacks, Gypsies, and other races of people in an effort to "cleanse" the Aryan race and produce what he considered a "master race.(10) Certainly a developed cloning technology could be used very effectively for such an evil purpose. My point here is that when you see no distinction between man and animals in the presence of a "survival of the fittest" ethic, all kinds of evil becomes possible. Human artificial cloning in the wake of animal artificial cloning is just another example of the progressive loss of the sanctity of human life ethic in our culture.

Secondly, from this passage in Genesis we can probably also conclude that it is permissible to experiment on and/or artificially clone plants and animals. I say that because God has given man "rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky, and over every living thing that moves on the earth." According to Genesis 9:2-3, God allows man to kill and eat plants and animals, but in Exodus 20:13 He forbids murdering humans. While there might be other good reasons that call for caution in this area, I don't see that God forbids the use of plants and animals for the benefit of the human race. We have used cloning techniques in agriculture for many years to the great benefit of mankind.

Thirdly from this passage in Genesis, we see that God's original standard for procreation was male-female reproduction. In the second chapter of Genesis we find the standard of the one-man/one-woman marriage.(11) Just as the Bible defines homosexuality and promiscuity as unnatural and sinful,(12) presumably because they diverge from this standard, it would seem that human artificial cloning might also be wrong for a similar reason. Also, cloning could be sinful because it eliminates the need for parents, marriage, husband and wife, and the home – all fundamental and original parts in the basics of God’s creation.

Beyond these considerations in Genesis, there is a very important passage in Proverbs 14:15-16 to consider.

One of the problems with allowing applied science to get ahead of morality and ethics is that science doesn't ask the question, "Should we do this?" It only asks, "Can we do this?" Current research in the area of human artificial cloning isn't driven by moral and ethical considerations. Curiosity, competition, pride, and profit drive it. One need only recall the smug claims of the Raelien/Clonaid spokespeople of recent times to see that. Just because we can do something doesn't necessarily mean we should.

But there are other issues. As Christians we know from the Bible that prenatal life is precious in God’s sight and that He is very much involved in it. Passages like Psalm 139:13-16 and Jeremiah 1:5 make this very clear. For the same reason that abortion of humans is wrong, artificial cloning is also wrong, because cloning results in abortion. In the Dolly experiment there were 277 cell fusions. These resulted in 29 that were implanted. The rest were destroyed. 13 sheep became pregnant. 12 miscarried. Finally one little lamb survived. As one ethicist put it, "It took 277 trials and errors to produce Dolly the sheep, creating a cellular body count that would look like sheer carnage if the cells were human."(13) Surely the artificial cloning of a human being is not worth that kind of slaughter. One wonders just how long a righteous God would allow it to go on.

Another issue is that we don’t know all we need to know about what happens to a clone produced from the DNA of an adult donor. It had been suspected that DNA taken from an adult donor and implanted into an egg cell might carry with it the effective age of the donor. In essence, the clone would be born pre-programmed with the genetic maturity of the donor. This would cause the clone to grow old prematurely. This is what many are waiting to find out in the post-mortem on Dolly the sheep. Would cloning, in effect, produce children young in appearance but prematurely "old" genetically, subject to all the diseases and ailments of old age?

I have already pointed out that cloning departs from the Genesis standard of the home. It is very easy to see that cloning could be done to the exclusion of the family and our culture is already reeling from the effects of that. Children need a mom and a dad to love, nurture, and raise them.(14) Just ask orphaned children in the care of the state what their biggest dream and desire in life is. They want someone to adopt them! As I pointed out earlier, there is already a court case pending to determine who will have custody of the supposedly cloned babies claimed by the Raeliens.

Then again, there is one group in particular that is pushing the idea of cloning. Care to guess who it is? I’m speaking of the homosexual community. Cloning humans, if it becomes possible and legal, would allow homosexual "couples" to have biological children identical to them - a development that would certainly allow an unnatural proliferation of that sexual perversion.(15)

Then there is the issue of child exploitation. If men succeed in producing human clones, the offspring won’t be born full-grown. They will be born as infants and raised as children.

There is already talk of cloning to produce human "spare parts." Need a heart, liver, or kidney? No problem. Just have yourself cloned, lock the child in some laboratory somewhere away from the love and concern of other human beings, put him or her on some kind of growth stimulant, raise him like a plant, then when the time is right, "harvest" the organ. Think of the potential of cloning as a "cash crop." As horrendous as it sounds, I remind you that we already dismember half-born infants for the sake of human expediency. Butchering artificially cloned people, as long as its done out of the public eye like abortion, might not raise that much protest – especially when its done with the pseudonyms, "health" and "choice" attached.

My Bible says that children are a gift of the Lord and a reward.(16) Increasingly, the culture in which I live believes that children are fully expendable throwaways. Whether they live or die is determined according to the whim of those who are said to "own" their "tissue." (Isn’t that one of the standard arguments for ending pre-born life? "It’s my body!") It is ironic that those who promote abortion refer to the unborn child as "pregnancy tissue" belonging not to another human being whose life is precious, but to the mother, giving her the sole right to remove it on a whim. It isn’t hard to imagine the same logic applied to a cloned human being.

Moving on now, suppose you lost a child in death. Before you buried him you could take some of his DNA, contact your local "Clone Centers of America" or suchlike and have them produce a child in his likeness. That sounds like a good application for human cloning doesn’t it? Who could possibly say "no" to grieving parents? But think about it. How fair would it be for that child, growing up with the expectations his parents have for him to be "just like" his predecessor? While he or she would be an exact replica of the donor of his DNA, birth characteristics aren’t the only things that make a human being what he is. Environmental and nurture factors contribute as much as 50% to the overall person we are. How would a cloned child feel knowing that he could not be accepted and loved for who he is but rather was judged by a standard he could never attain?

Presuming a cloned child ended up in a family (a dubious hope since there would be no need for a family to produce the child) what about sibling competition between "naturally conceived" children and "engineered" children. Can you imagine the scenario. "Johnny, why can’t you be more like your cloned brother, Felix?" Then there would be that old saw, "He’s your child, not mine!" Only in this case it would be true. What about parental favoritism? "My clone is better than your clone!"

Then again, what about the position of a cloned person in society? Think of the recent uproar over labeling genetically altered foods in the grocery store. Would a similar stigma be placed on genetically altered children? How would society accept a cloned person? With so much ethnic prejudice and racial persecution around the world (always based on supposed "differences") what would stop the clones from being devalued by society and persecuted – especially if there were very many of them and they were perceived as some kind of threat.

And here is another concern: If cloning is done according to the specifications of the donor by a company under the competitive drive to produce a better "product," what happens to all the "rejects"? Will we sell them at a discount? Will we use them for spare parts? Could we use them as human slaves? Will we gas them and put them into furnaces because they don’t make the grade? Whenever man has tried "quality control" with human beings before, it has always ended in holocaust.

And what if someone got a sample of your DNA and cloned you without your knowledge? They could presumably take a tissue on which you blew your nose or a hair from your hairbrush and use your DNA to make a perfect copy of you without you ever even knowing. How would you feel about that?

Artificial cloning of human beings has great potential for evil and very limited potential for good. As a Christian, I believe it is wrong. I will support the politicians who oppose it. I will point out its dangers whenever I have the opportunity. It’s time from clear thinking in this area.

The following words were in a book called, In the Beginning, there was Dolly," by Ingeborg and Josef Cernaj:

"The lamb has always been a symbol of innocence. This changed abruptly in the spring of 1997. ‘Dolly,’ a barely three-month-old sheep, hit the headlines, displacing politicians and pop stars from the front pages of newspapers and magazines. Overnight, the fluffy white ‘lamb of innocence’ had become a symbol of threat to human society through an eerie new technology - cloning."(17)

Now, six years later, the lamb is dead. Will the death be a wake-up call to mankind or will it be quickly brushed aside and dismissed? The shape of the future of mankind may hang in the balance.

Footnotes: (Use your "Back" button to return to your place) 

1. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,78636,00.html
2. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,76330,00.html
3. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,79770,00.html
4. Matthew 5:13-16
5. This simple definition was suggested by Warren E. Berkley at: http://www.geocities.com/w_berkley/clone.htm I modified it with the word "Artificial."
6. Cloning: Right or Wrong? By Werner Gitt, http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3946.asp
7. Ibid.
8. 1 Peter 3:7
9. Ephesians 5:33
10. Darwinism and the Nazi Race Holocaust by Jerry Bergman at: http://answersingenesis.org/docs/4162.asp
11. Genesis 2:24-25
12. Romans 1:26-27
13. Reffrey Kluger, "Will We Follow the Sheep," Time, March 10, 1997, Vol. 149, No. 10, quoted by Mark Roberts.
14. Ephesians 6:4; Titus 2:4
15. Romans 1:26-27
16. Psalm 127:3
17. Ingeborg and Josef Cernaj, Am Anfang war Dolly, Wilhelm Heyne Verlag, München, 1997, 207 pp. As quoted at: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3946.asp