 |
|
April
24, 2002 12:10 p.m.
A
Weak Argument Against Cloning
Ramesh
Ponnuru.
|
|
 'm
glad that Charles Krauthammer is against cloning and then destroying human
embryos; and if his New
Republic cover story helps to move waverers over to our side of
the issue, I'll be glad for that too. But I don't think his argument makes
sense, because he denies the premise — that human embryos are "persons"
with "intrinsic worth" — that would make sense of it. (He
denies that premise on the basis of no serious argument; indeed, on the
basis of the false claim that no argument is possible in the matter.)
His language doesn't even make sense: He starts the piece by saying, "You
were once a single cell." On his account of the matter, that can't
be true: "I" only came to be as a person after the single-cell
stage of biological development, and thus I never was a single cell.
|
|
None of Krauthammer's
arguments against cloning and destroying embryos work on his assumptions.
Take his "slippery slope" argument, that allowing the destruction
of human blastocysts for research will eventually lead to the destruction
of human fetuses for research. If fetuses aren't persons with intrinsic
worth, there's no reason to be worried about that scenario. If, on the
other hand, they do have attributes that confer on them personhood and
worth — as Krauthammer seems to think — then there's a real
moral distinction between them and blastocysts (again, on Krauthammer's
account). So why can't we arrest our slide at the point of distinction?
In fact, Krauthammer
is willing to take his chances that the slide will be stopped. For him,
the decisive argument against cloning is that it involves the manufacture
of human life for the sole purpose of its destruction. We will regard
that life as though it were a mere thing. It would certainly be bad for
us to start regarding human beings as mere things rather than persons.
But what's so terrible about regarding non-persons, which is what embryos
are according to Krauthammer, as mere things?
Krauthammer believes
that there is a middle ground between treating something as a person and
treating it as a mere thing. Because an embryo is not a person, it can
be destroyed if our reasons are good enough. Because it is not a mere
thing, it cannot be created for the sole purpose of using it in a way
that destroys it. If it's already been created for some other purpose,
though, as the leftover embryos in IVF clinics have been, it can be destroyed.
If there's a point of principle that underlies this set of positions,
I can't see it.
It shouldn't be hard
for proponents of cloning to pick apart Krauthammer's case. All the more
reason for those of us who are convinced that the case against cloning
and destroying embryos is defensible, indeed indefeasible, should make
it clear that his case is not ours — and to hope that Krauthammer,
having reached the correct conclusion and possessing some of the right
premises (you were once a single cell), finds the clearest path
between them.
EXIT
HUGHES
There hasn't been much speculation about whether Karen Hughes's explanation
for her impending resignation — her family, especially her son, wants
to go back to Texas — is legit. That's not because she's a woman
and people buy the family story more readily for women than for men, as
an idiotic Washington
Post story argues. It's because it is simply impossible to imagine
her losing some West Wing war for the president's favor.
Not much should change
with her gone — since she'll only be gone from the White House. She
will still be able to craft Bush's message and offer advice. The one thing
she may not be able to do from Texas is to act as the enforcer. Watch
for more leaks to start coming from the White House, starting late this
summer.
|
<% dim printurl
printurl = Request.ServerVariables("URL")%>
