With the dubious announcement of a cloned birth back on Christmas Day, the debates are again arising about the nature and ethical characteristics of cloning. I have decided to reserve judgement for the present, as I’m not certain what exactly has been created in a cloned birth. Is it a human being? Will it have a soul? (If such a thing, in fact, exists).
What does intrigue me is the sheer volume of people who are against cloning. “We have no right to manipulate human life” is a typical explanation. “Who are we to do God’s work” would be another. My anecdotal survey tells me that the majority of people are against cloning.
Yet a great quantity of those are pro-abortion. In this particular case, I do have a stance, though it is tenuous. I base my slight anti-abortionism on the basis that I don’t believe we know when human life begins. It seems to me that there have been studies showing that fetuses in the womb display characteristics of a human being, such as brainwaves and reaction to stimuli. Then again, the Venus Flytrap reacts to outside stimulus, but would not typically be considered as sentient (though would be thought of as alive). Regardless, I have seen no proof that human life begins upon exit from the womb, except as an arbitrary starting point.
My query is to those who are pro-abortion, yet anti-cloning. What rationale do you use to separate the two? In either case, are we not manipulating human life?