What passes for moral clarity
Creating a human embryo for the purpose of experimentation and destruction = Good.
Creating a human embryo for the purpose of creating a born human person = Bad.
Also, some argue that Obama’s statements opposing human cloning are misleading. Derrick Jones, spokesman for the National Right to Life Committee, said the administration has left the door open to create, and then destroy, embryos through cloning for the sole purpose of harvesting stem cells.
And he’s right. If a person believes that we ought to worry about it or not, this is what happens. An embryo, quite often a clone, is created and then destroyed. The difference is that we don’t value that bit of cells, not that we don’t agree with cloning. Nothing at all wrong with cloning if the clone is destroyed.
So what is it that makes anyone who approves of the clone and destroy method, disapprove of the clone and birth method? Obama seems to think that the difference is crystal.
“We cannot ever tolerate misuse or abuse. And we will ensure that our government never opens the door to the use of cloning for human reproduction,” Obama said. “It is dangerous, profoundly wrong, and has no place in our society, or any society.”
Wow. No place in any society. Bad, bad, bad.
Why? What does he think a “clone” is? Why is it so clearly wrong to create an embryo and let it live?