Sadly, what we really need is an army of Phils to pointedly correct all the bad journalism relating to therapeutic cloning and stem cell medicine.

Nice piece, though, and thanks for posting it.

[Posted by: Reason at May 13, 2004 1:38 PM]

Unfortunately, this "correction" is itself in need of some correction. Specifically, these two sentences: "There is an enormous difference between reproductive and therapeutic cloning. The latter need not require the production of an entire "replacement human;" it may be possible to grow "replacement organs" on their own, or to develop stem cell lines that can be used to treat a wide variety of illnesses and injuries" I'm sorry, but that's simply not true. Therapeutic cloning does require the creation of a whole human embryo, and whatever you think of the moral status of human embryos (I happen to think it's ok to use them in research) it is dishonest to claim they are not whole human beings: they are developing human organisms, that's plain fact. There is no method currently in existence or on the drawing board that would let you grow organs directly, or that could get you to stem cells without an embryo--a replacement human. Let's not lie to ourselves, folks. We need to argue about human embryos are and are not, rather than pretend they don't exist at all.

[Posted by: Robert M. at May 14, 2004 10:00 AM]

Robert:

Thanks for your comments.

You are, of course, correct in stating that therapeutic cloning requires starting with an embryo, and my assertion that organs might one day be grown "on their own" would require a viable line of stem cells which (at the present) cannot be obtained without an embryo.

However, I don't think it's dishonest to make a distinction between a "developing human organism" and a "human being." As Stephen Gordon pointed out in his comments on the Speculist, it would appear that, for Peggy Noonan (and for many others), these two definitions overlap perfectly.

For me, they do not.

There is a significant difference, in my mind, between a four year old human organism and a four-hour old embryo. Asserting that both are "whole human beings" raises its own set of problems. To wit -- if you think it's okay to kill a four-hour-old "human being" for research, why not a four-year-old human being?

You wrote:
We need to argue about human embryos are and are not, rather than pretend they don't exist at all.

I agree. In my view, they are living human organisms (a biological definition) but not human beings (a developmental/moral definition.)

[Posted by: Phil Bowermaster at May 14, 2004 11:27 AM]

It should be clear that an "embryo" used for stem cell research is a ball of undifferentiated cells. It has no organs, no brain, and certainly no mind. It most certainly is NOT a "whole human being." While I understand there are many who believe it is a human for religious reasons, I suspect most of them are unclear about the biological details, and are thinking about recognizable fetuses. Aside from culture, why should there be more concern over an undifferentiated embryo than sperm and ova, or a flake of skin?

Peggy Noonan is a perfect example of the "Unclear on the concept" issue. For someone this dense, you might have wanted to specifically point out that a reproductive clone would have to gestate for the same nine months, be raised like anyone else and at best would only be as similar to the original as an identical twin raised in a different home. He wouldn't have any memories of the other's life, and if he were going to be a soldier, he'd have to go about it just like everybody else.

[Posted by: VR at May 14, 2004 6:09 PM]

you are so weird. cloning is wrong

[Posted by: shabash at March 17, 2005 11:40 AM]