1

While watching the Olympics, I flicked channels during a commercial and learned that Rodney Dangerfield has expressed interest in cloning himself.

Just plain weird.

Personally, I am all for banning attempts to clone human beings for reproductive purposes. The evidence to date seems to suggest that animals cloned by nuclear transfer aren't as healthy as they might appear upon first inspection (and that ignores the percentage that are born dead or die in utero).

There are enough new people born all the time already, including a whole lot that don't get the love and attention they need. There's just no point in adding another artificial method of reproduction to the methods in hand, especially one that is inherently risky and that makes the current test tube methods of artificial reproduction seem positively natural by comparison.

2

"No plague of locusts descends, the oceans don’t boil over with frogs, and the apocalypse isn’t ushered in because of our discovery. Eventually, we become convinced that our fears were overrated. Our arguments over cloning the dead become nothing but footnotes in the bioethical literature."

So very true. In less than hundred years, the opponents of cloning and genetic manipulation will seem just as goofy as the people who wanted there to be a man waving a red flag in front of every automobile seem to us.

To go with your Zavos effect, here is another prediction: when cloning and genetic manipulation are everyday commodities so that parents routinely pick the best genes for their future children, Christians will be claiming that both of these good things exist because of Christianity.

This is exactly like today's Christians embrace lots of things that would have horrified most Christians less than hundred years ago: women being allowed to universities, women working outside home and even giving orders to men, automobiles (which let young men and women meet each other unchaperoned by their families) etc.

3

Children, can you spell eugenics? Ah, yes, I knew you could. Now, children did you know that the Fuerher thinks eugenics wonderfully progressive and will be one of the things that will create a brighter and happier future? Oh. By the way, children, be sure to tell me about anyone who disagrees with the Fuerher about these things. I'll be sure to let the appropriate authorities know. Now, it's time for lunch, children, and it's also time to take your Ritalin.

4

One of life's little ironies is how Christians quickly play the Hitler card to oppose cloning and genetic manipulation (even bigger irony is that leftists do the same thing), yet take offense when someone else plays the Inquisition card to oppose modern Christianity. But both plays are equally absurd in the modern world of 2004.

When genetic manipulation becomes commonplace, it will not be imposed by some hitleresque dictator, but it will be voluntarily (and enthusiastically) bought by upper class and upper middle class people, many of them American evangelicals. You know, the same group of people who would gladly send their children to high-quality private schools to give them an edge in life. And as the prices go down, middle class will happily join in.

(I have never read a single argument against genetic manipulation that wouldn't equally well apply against making children go to school or to do athletics. If anyone has any, please share.)

5

Bear in mind, Joe, that genetic manipulation may be the only thing that will save our civilizations from a nanotech holocaust launched by either Islamofascists or the Chicoms. I have a feeling that if we don't start planning on how to harden the body against nerve gas and other chemical weapons, and then nanotech attacks that all it will take is one briefcase of nanobots carrying neurotoxins to make the Western world a footnote in the pages of history.

The one thing that bioethicists can't seem to do is see the forest for the trees. There are some incredibly harmful actions that can be taken, but without genetic manipulation, a few crazy people could quite easily exterminate entire continents in surprise attacks that no one could prevent.

6

"(I have never read a single argument against genetic manipulation that wouldn't equally well apply against making children go to school or to do athletics. If anyone has any, please share.)"

I'll tackle this. It's of special interest to me, because as a gay man, one of things I've had to consider is whether genetic manipulation could someday eliminate gay and lesbian people entirely. (we can argue about whether there is a genetic component to being gay later)

Best argument I can come up with against this practice is the survivability of the human species.

In order for a species to effectively counter and adapt to current and emerging threats to its existence, in the form of diseases, etc., it needs to have a diverse set of genetic material to work with.

The danger genetic manipulation of the human genome is not the manipulation itself, but rather the homogeneous effect the mass marketing of such "treatments" would have on the gene pool. In other words, it would tend over time to give everyone the same set of genes. This is dangerous to the species. It also assumes that a particular arrangement of genes has only one function or purpose.

For an example, you can look to wheat. Farmers have been doing their own kind of gene manipulation, in the form of breeding different strains of grain, for millennia. So a farmer may come up with a particular kind of grain that is resistant to a fungus that has been destroying his crops. So he may choose to plant just that type of wheat for his next harvest. This would be a mistake, because while his wheat cannot fall prey to the fungus, it can be killed a different or new plant disease that comes along. And he would lose his whole harvest. If on the other hand, he plants a variety of wheat strains, while he may lose part of his harvest, there is a good chance that another type of wheat may have resistance to this new threat.

Humans work the same way. For example, sickle-cell anemia is a genetic disease. However, it turns out that the same gene that gives you the potential for sickle-cell anemia, will also give you a greater resistance to malaria. Which is probably why it is more prevalent in humans with ancestors who lived in the equatorial zones. If you "correct" the gene for sickle-cell anemia, you also remove the protection against malaria. What are the risks to the human population as a whole? That a few may die from a genetic disease or that all will die from malaria?

If gene manipulation is permitted to take place, it must be in a way that preserves genetic diversity. So that if a new threat emerges, in the form of a disease, or a change in climate, etc., you can have more of a chance that some humans will be able to adapt to it and survive.

So this is why you should not go around willy-nilly "correcting" genetic "mistakes". The judgment of what constitutes a "mistake" is dependent on what a culture thinks is a mistake, rather than what God thinks. This being the case, the "mistake" you correct, whether sickle cell anemia or homosexuality, etc. may in fact be a survival trait.

In my view, humans aren't smart enough to make the decision of what constitutes a mistake. Yes, even if they base their decision on the Bible. You might be able to wipe out gay and lesbian people in one generation on the assumption that we don't reproduce and so are useless drones. Or an "aberration" or "intrinsic evil". But a particular setup of a genome has multiple functions. So don't know whether someday the human species may need the genetic potential that you just destroyed.

7

Patrick,

Interesting post. I think you make a strong point that people are probably not smart or wise enough to manipulate our own genes. 1Co 4:4, "For I am conscious of nothing against myself, yet I am not by this acquitted; but the one who examines me is the Lord." But I wonder whether such analysis is categorically true and does not cut both ways. Surely, if we could isolate a defect like the one that causes diabetes, we should probably correct it. After all, is that not what nature was doing before we discovered insulin. Before the discovery, diabetes was a very rare disease because diabetics rarely survived long and infrequently reproduced. Now, diabetes is a common problem. Therefore, technology inadvertently caused this gene to propagate in an unnatural way. The same could be said of woman who cannot give birth vaginally. In such instances, would we not be undoing something we had done.

Sometimes neutrality is not so simple and sometimes it is not reasonably possible. In such instances, should we not do our best?

8

I'm not sure eliminating genetic potential for homosexuality makes a lot of sense in evolutionary terms. I don't want to sound cruel but, except for the handful who have children with a member of the opposite sex (Gov. McGreevey, for instance, has two daughters), most homosexuals are essentially genetic dead-ends. Because a gay man or woman does not reproduce, any genetic information pertinent to a homosexual orientation fails to reenter the gene pool. This is one of the reasons that I think that genes play a limited role, if at all, in homosexual orientation; living out a purely homosexual life is an automatic selection for extinction.

But back to the original point, am I the only one who just gets shivers at the the thought of cloning the dead? There's a real "Yech" factor here, don't you think?

9

Ilkka,

You are confusing Christian doctrine and intrinsically Christian beliefs with beliefs that people who happen to be Christian have at times held for various reasons. Actually, Christianity was an equalizing force among the sexes when it first spread. Historically, sexual divisions have been nearly universal. People who had never even heard of the Bible created separate sets of rules for woman and men. The Amerindian men hunted and the women farmed. Look it up. Consider this passage from Proverbs 31:

An excellent wife, who can find?
For her worth is far above jewels.
The heart of her husband trusts in her,
And he will have no lack of gain.
She does him good and not evil
All the days of her life.
She looks for wool and flax
And works with her hands in delight.
She is like merchant ships;
She brings her food from afar.
She rises also while it is still night
And gives food to her household
And portions to her maidens.
She considers a field and buys it;
From her earnings she plants a vineyard.
She girds herself with strength
And makes her arms strong.
She senses that her gain is good;
...
She extends her hand to the poor,
And she stretches out her hands to the needy.
She is not afraid of the snow for her household,
For all her household are clothed with scarlet.
She makes coverings for herself;
Her clothing is fine linen and purple.

Any historian will tell you that purple symbolized royalty -- people who are respected, honored, and obeyed -- in the ancient world. For example, the word for prince or princes was "Porphyrogenita," which means "one who is born into the purple." Such is not the portrait of a barefoot and pregnant woman.

Does it make you feel superior to demean other people based upon prejudicial stereotypes?

10

Joe, I didn't see why you thought this was so bad. I don't see anything wrong with this except that it's a dangerous procedure that will likely taking killing many, many embryos to succeed. That's pretty bad, but it's not what seems to be your problem. That seems to be utter disgust with using the abilities God has given us to work within the world he created. I don't see any grounding for it. I've read Leon Kass's paper on why cloning is bad, and the only arguments that don't seem to me to be non sequiturs were related to the fact that they don't have a good handle on how to do this yet and the fact that they don't know how to clone someone without giving the person a lifespan of whatever was left in the natural life of the person who was cloned. Those are contingent facts that may not be necessarily tied to cloning. You seem opposed to the very idea of cloning, but I can't see why. If you have no reasons beyond those of Kass, then I can't follow you in your disgust. Maybe a post on why you think cloning is bad would be good so I could see what your reasons are.

11

Jeremy,

Maybe a post on why you think cloning is bad would be good so I could see what your reasons are.

That's a good idea. I didn't realize until I checked my archives that I had never written a post on why I oppossed cloning.

I think in this case, though, we have two separate issues: cloning and the consent of the dead to use their bodies for this type of research. I doubt that prior to their untimely deaths the two people involved gave their consent for their genetic material to be used to produce clones. Regardless of where we stand on cloning, I think it raises ethical questions about the rights of the dead.

12

J. Michael Matkin wrote:
"This is one of the reasons that I think that genes play a limited role, if at all, in homosexual orientation; living out a purely homosexual life is an automatic selection for extinction."

The same could be said of Down's syndrome, J. Michael. Those who manifest this disorder probably reproduce at a rate even lower than that of homosexuals, yet they persistently appear in each generation. But no one argues that the disease is not genetic; we know that it is. Thus some genetic traits persist even when those who manifest them do not reproduce. I suspect that the next decade will reveal a strong genetic component for homosexuality.

13

"This is one of the reasons that I think that genes play a limited role, if at all, in homosexual orientation; living out a purely homosexual life is an automatic selection for extinction."

You are assuming that the gene for homosexuality (if there is one) only does one thing. You don't know that.

The gene for sickle cell anemia under your logic would also be a genetic dead-end. Yet the gene that is associated with it (NOT sickle-cell anemia itself) provides resistance to Malaria, a survival trait.

The fact that gay and lesbian people have been a part of every culture on the planet for the the whole of recorded human history, in some form or another says a lot as to whether it provides some survival traits. If it was a genetic dead-end, I'd be dead now, not arguing with you. It could even be something quite simple and fundamental, such as the ability of a fetus to physically become male or remain female. The genetic potential for being gay or lesbian (as an identity, not just a behavior) may just be part of every humans make-up. It simply gets triggered by a certain kind of environmental stimulus. But to get rid of it would through the baby out with the bathwater.

JBP says:

"Surely, if we could isolate a defect like the one that causes diabetes, we should probably correct it."

Perhaps, if you can guarantee that in the entire future history of the human race, that the hypothetical gene for diabetes will never be needed in order to combat an unforeseen disease etc.

But you are correct, it can work both ways. By NOT eliminating the gene for diabetes, it's entirely possible that it could leave you vulnerable to a future unforeseen disease, etc. So you do what nature does, hedge your bets by insuring that there are people who both do and do not have the gene.

Like I said earlier, I don't think humans are smart enough to make those decisions. They will anyway but that doesn't mean it's such a great idea.

Incidentally, the dramatic rise in diabetes starting in the 20th century seems to coincide more with the massive increase of our intake of sugar rather than the advent of insulin.

14

JBP:
"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak.... And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home." -- 1 Corinthians 14:34-5

Plus, check out 1 Peter. In fact,one would be hard-pressed to find more than a few books of the Bible that do NOT somehow demean women or accord them lower status. I have a few dozen more if you are interested.

15

Rob,

"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak.... And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home." -- 1 Corinthians 14:34-5

Plus, check out 1 Peter. In fact,one would be hard-pressed to find more than a few books of the Bible that do NOT somehow demean women or accord them lower status. I have a few dozen more if you are interested.

Whether a person is a believer or not, if they want to quote scripture and be taken seriously they should at least have some knowledge of the context.

The passage is part of a discussion of the proper way to act during their “church services.” Paul is not just throwing out rules because he feels like it. He is addressing certain problems in the church at Corinth.

At the time, it was common practice for informed audience members during a lecture to ask relevant questions. But, as anyone who has been in a college class can confirm, when people who stop the lecture to ask questions which most members of the audience already knows, it becomes a disruption.

Women were generally not as trained in the Scriptures and so they had less general knowledge on the subject than the men. Paul’s admonition is for them to seek out private instruction from their husbands. During that period his stance was rather progressive.

16

And Paul couldn't have addressed the problem of noisy ignorant women with a little inclusiveness? Your weak apologist's explanation of context does not mitigate the blatant sexism of his instructions. Has God's will for women changed since Bible times? Where is the divinely inspired amendment? Paul was progressive?Progressive slave owners let their property earn a little cash on the side, so they were O.K. Sheesh!

17

My essential point, earlier, was simply to bring to remembrance history. There is barely a dime's worth of difference between genetically engineering humans and good old fashion eugenics from days long ago—everything merely comes down to details and technique, but we have been down this road before.

By the way, eugenics was at one time quite the fashion in this country as well, and not just Germany back in the 1930s and 40s. But now it appears to be coming back; but the heart is the same, just a different face.

18

"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak.... And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home." -- 1 Corinthians 14:34-5"

In response to the above tract, Joe says:

"Women were generally not as trained in the Scriptures and so they had less general knowledge on the subject than the men. Paul’s admonition is for them to seek out private instruction from their husbands. During that period his stance was rather progressive"

I don't understand your point. It doesn't say any of this in the Bible so how can it be true? Do you mean to say that Paul didn't mean what he said?

If he didn't mean what he said here then what else didn't he mean to say? Perhaps when he made his pronouncements against gay and lesbian people he was really talking about the weather.

You say:

"During that period his stance was rather progressive"

So do you mean that the way women were viewed back in that age was regressive and primitive? If you think that's the case for women, then why isn't the way they viewed gay and lesbian people also considered regressive and primitive? Why do you throw away the standards they set for women, but not for gay and lesbian people?

So how can you apply these double-standards and cherry-pick which parts of the Bible you choose to believe? What influences your decision to agree with some parts of the Bible and ignore others? Could there be an emotional reason behind it? Say perhaps simple prejudice?

Or do you want to be like Paul and tell me to sit down and shut up? It's interesting that the tradition of asking questions in church is no longer acceptable. It's hard to imagine it taking place in any modern church isn't it? They would call the police and arrest you for creating a disturbance. But perhaps questions should be asked in church more often.

19

Patrick,

I don't understand your point. It doesn't say any of this in the Bible so how can it be true?

Cute. ; )

Do you mean to say that Paul didn't mean what he said?

No, he means what he said. But what he said has to be understood in its proper context. Hermenuetics 101.

If he didn't mean what he said here then what else didn't he mean to say? Perhaps when he made his pronouncements against gay and lesbian people he was really talking about the weather.

He meant what he said about the women in church and he meant what he said when he condemned homosexual behavior.

So do you mean that the way women were viewed back in that age was regressive and primitive?

Yes, I do.

If you think that's the case for women, then why isn't the way they viewed gay and lesbian people also considered regressive and primitive? Why do you throw away the standards they set for women, but not for gay and lesbian people?

Because “gay and lesbian” is simply a label given to people who engage in certain forms of behavior and is not a separate distinct category of human like “woman.”

So how can you apply these double-standards and cherry-pick which parts of the Bible you choose to believe? What influences your decision to agree with some parts of the Bible and ignore others? Could there be an emotional reason behind it? Say perhaps simple prejudice?

You’ve obviously misunderstood. I believe the whole Bible.

Or do you want to be like Paul and tell me to sit down and shut up? It's interesting that the tradition of asking questions in church is no longer acceptable.

We do. It’s called Sunday School.

20

Joe says:

"Because “gay and lesbian” is simply a label given to people who engage in certain forms of behavior and is not a separate distinct category of human like “woman."

Prove it. These are labels you and your prejudice create in your head that have little to do with reality.

I don't cease to be a gay man if I have sex with women, I've done it, and it makes no difference in my orientation. While others are bisexual, I'm certainly not. And it wouldn't change anything if I only had sex with women for the rest of my life. Nope. Still would be gay.

And women aren't a "distinct" category of human, they are just human. That's should be the point shouldn't it? They might be a human different from you, personally, but thats about it.

It's a cliché but have you ever thought about changing your heterosexuality? Just exactly how would you go about that? Would having sex with a guy do it or would there have to be some other element? Is whether or not you sleep with women all that determines your sexual orientation? Or is it something else? Are celibate people asexual then? Get a clue Joe, it about who you fall in love with, not who your schtupping with at the moment.

To define sexual orientation as just a behavior demeans and degrades both straight and gay people. It characterizes us all as just animals rutting in the dirt. Well I'm sorry if I happen to have a better opinion of humanity than you.

I suspect that in your head that you categorize someone who is gay as really being a straight person engaging in a "sinful" behavior. I think that this is just a smokescreen for good old-fashioned prejudice toward people who are different than you. And don't go blaming the Bible. If you had never read a single word of it I suspect you would still be just as prejudiced. Next of course you will be telling me that proves that being gay is unnatural since most people feel that way.

Well, did you ever stop to think that the reason the idea of someone being gay is unnatural to you is because since you are straight, it would be unnatural? And since most people are straight, wouldn't that be part of the origin of the prejudice? But that "unnatural" response you might have is about you and your feelings, and does not accurately reflect reality.

The question of how "Christians" deal with Gay and Lesbian people is a continuing moral challenge that for the most part they still fail at miserably.

Not because of the particular issue, but because they are unwilling to deal with the fact that it is really the same old issue of prejudice that has always plagued them and the rest of humanity since the beginning of time. Dividing the world into neat little categories of US vs THEM. Or Saved vs Sinners, Jew vs Christian, Catholic vs Protestant. Protestant vs Mormon, black vs white, etc. ad nauseum. It's all bitter fruit from the same tree. Gay vs Straight is just the latest sprouting from that seed.

To paraphrase someone whom I can't remember at the moment, "You will be judged, if by nothing else than simple history, not on how you treat those you love, but by how you treat those you hate." And that doesn't mean by treating people different from you with snide swarmy "compassionate conservatism", or "loving the sinner but hating the sin". What a bunch of horse hockey.

21

"I believe the whole Bible."

A thread dealing with Bible "problems" would be quite interesting.

22

Oengus Moonbones: "There is barely a dime's worth of difference between genetically engineering humans and good old fashion eugenics from days long ago—everything merely comes down to details and technique, but we have been down this road before."

Well, there is barely a dime's worth of difference between modern Christians and the Inquisition. Everything merely comes down to details and technique, but we have been down this road before. Right? Saying it won't make it so.

As for the equivalence of genetic manipulation and nazi horrors, consider the following plausible future scenario. Assume some scientist creates a technique that makes it possible to select the genetically best (by some reasonable criteria) individual sperm cell amongs the many running around under the microscope. This selected sperm is then used to inseminate the egg instead of the traditional, uh, "race" method.

Now, exactly whose rights are being violated here? Does the sperm that does not get selected perhaps have rights? Would using this technique really be the same as shoving phenotypically undesirable people to ovens? Would these two be exactly the same morally, since they both generate the same "ick" in some Christians?

Let's record the Christian answer to this question now, so that in fifty years or so when the above selection is commonplace and routine, the future Christians (who also accept it) don't get to claim that they have always accepted and even invented the technique.

(There is a parallel here to certain modern Christians who claim that their religion has always accepted and advocated equality of sexes, automobiles, painkillers, anesthesia in surgery etc.)

23

Some interesting posts here, including some I thought I'd never see. Did Joe Carter just admit that some verses in the Bible were not intended to apply to everyone for all time???? Can we please get the list of the other versus that don't apply to us today (and the explanations for the exception in each case)?

It's especially interested to see Big Paul get taken down a notch. After all, Paul is the guy who "clearly" tells us that the death penalty for murder is mandated by God. I wonder if it's possible for that passage to be inapplicable to modern civilization as well (where we have seen so many examples of innocent people wrongly sentenced).