Cloning is a complicated ethical issue because it involves the possibility of huge advances in medical illness treatment, while raising many questions about the personhood of an embryo-questions which are very familiar to an America steeped in the abortion debate.

Some would argue that it is unnatural for scientists to “play God” and create a human embryo in a laboratory by means other than the unification of a sperm and an egg. I am unconvinced by this argument. Although I understand that it seems somewhat unnatural, as a Christian I understand that God is sovereign over all the occurrences on earth. That humans discover how to mimic what God performs in nature already (i.e., identical twins) does not mean that we are playing God any more than if we put a person on life support while they are in surgery. As Boss points out, “good” and “natural” are not necessarily synonymous. It is often quite good to interfere with the workings of nature to preserve and improve life. On this basis I find that cloning holds many promising medical benefits as it pertains to cloning animals for agricultural and human applications.

However, I am more hesitant when it comes to cloning humans. Research has shown how hazardous it can be to attempt bringing a clone to full term and enabling it to survive after birth. The deformities and illnesses that ensue from most clones is frightening enough in animals. Any attempt to clone humans seems to be out of the question. We certainly do not want to create life knowing full well that it probably wouldn’t survive more than a few days after birth. Neither do we want to do so knowing that it may live a miserable existence if it does survive. There are many children in the world who need good adoptive parents, people are complaining of overpopulation; it seems ludicrous to think that there is any need to clone a human being who likely will not survive.

But I am even more inhibited. As a Christian I value human life as sacred. At this point of my thought life I have not come to a firm conclusion whether I believe that an egg cell in a petri dish that has divided a few times can be considered a human being. But I respect human life such that I am not willing to say that it is not. “Where does life begin?” the philosopher asks. “In the garden of Eden”, is my answer. Since humanity came into existence all of human life is sacred. Whether an embryo is in the womb or in a laboratory, it is part of the continuum of human life that God has chosen to use to reveal himself to the world. Jesus was once an embryo. This thought in itself is reason to pause.

Because of these considerations I am also opposed to human cloning as long as it involves the creation and subsequent destruction of human embryos. I am not concerned with whether or not these embryos are living souls. Such is a mystery that is too deep for me. I am concerned with regarding the potential human life as sacred as it too may have a part in God’s plan for the fullness of time.

To the secularist I would say that if there is no respect for human life in its earliest and most delicate stages, then there is no respect for human life at any point. Just because we can, and science encourages it, does not mean that it is worthy of the dignity of humanity.

I struggle with the argument that cloning is a human right, falling in the jurisdiction of autonomy and reproductive rights. This schema understands that the making and bearing children is a right of the individual to serve herself. I understand the creation of life to be the fruit of love. Hate begets hate and love begets love. When two people love each other they produce a child whom they will love sacrificial for their entire lives. God provides in the schema of love-making, a way to continue loving. This is diametrically opposed to the understanding of reproduction in terms of rights. To have a child is to give of one’s self, it is not a personal therapeutic choice but a sacrificial one.