Tuesday, March 10, 2009

If Embryonic Stem Cells are okay, why isn't Cloning?

Maybe I have read too much science fiction, but President Obama's latest order on stem cells seems self-contradictory to me. On the one hand, he endorses the use of embryonic stem cells - a moral issue for those who believe embryos are "human life" where embryos may be created and destroyed to harvest stem cells. On the other hand he condemns the use of stem cells for human cloning.

Obama also said the stem cell policy is designed so that it "never opens the door to the use of cloning for human reproduction." Such cloning, he said, "is dangerous, profoundly wrong, and has no place in our society or any society."
The statement that cloning is "profoundly wrong" is made without any defense or philosophical rationale. He simply assumes it is obvious. But it is not. If you are not worried about "human life" in embryos, how is cloning different from producing twins from current fertility techniques? (*cough* octo-mom *cough*) Can anyone out there explain this to me logically?

Or is it just that to Barack Obama stem cell research "feels right" and cloning "feels wrong"?

2 comments:

quizwedge said...

Wouldn't be surprised at all if it comes down to feeling. I'm still trying to decide if President Obama thinks through the facts and weighs his actions or if he honestly believes that as POTUS he can just will things to happen. I've started to come to the conclusion that it is the latter which scares me. A former coworker (non-Christian) thought it scary that President Bush said that he listened to God and followed his lead. A POTUS that believes he can will things to happen seems scarier to me regardless of your belief in God.

Sean said...

Not to be cynical, but I think this can actually be marked down to his general antipathy for pre-birth life. I would also concur with quizwedge's opinions.