[Jadldqys]

As far as I can tell, the visceral fear of cloned armies or Hitler: The Sequel isn't the basis of popular rejection of the idea of cloning nor is it the most compelling argument against it. I see it as a question of dignity: is the exploitation of human cells a violation of human dignity, and by extension, human rights? This question is very similar to the one at the root of the abortion issue except "destruction" is substituted for "exploitation."

The way I see it, the concept of a violation of human dignity presupposes that there is something extra-special about being human that grants us a dignity to be violated. A Christian would say that that something is having an immortal soul, and would define "human" as a being with an immortal soul. This is a simple identification and doesn't explain how dignity enters the question, yet a large amount of people agree that it does simply by ascribing to the belief in basic human rights. A materialist might say that there is no such special quality, but would then have to argue that humans do not have and do not deserve to have basic human rights, in which case the whole issue would be moot anyway. (Then he would jump through a series of utilitarian hoops to show that we can still have rights if we want to, even if we don't deserve them.)

Thus, the question within the question is, "Is a homo sapiens cell human?"
Which can be reformulated into "Does that cell have dignity?" or "Is that cell deserving of basic human rights?"

The similar moral question that intrigues me more is "Should a cell that has the potential of being human be treated as if it had the same value as a human?"

My answer to this question, as anyone's answer would, depends upon what I believe a human to be, which is primarily an aesthetic belief. I believe that "human" is what we use to refer to homo sapiens while emphasizing the fact that we have evolved consciousness (and if not the only consciousness, then the most advantageous and visibly effective one). I call my belief aesthetic because I find the fact that we are animals, have the ability to reflect, and can discuss these questions to be a beautiful thing; it's sort of like cheering for the home team. Since I am such a big fan of Team Human, I am naturally very interested in any potential players. But are they actual players to me? No. Do they deserve special consideration from me? Yes. Why special consideration? For purely aesthetic reasons; I like Team Human the best, and I like things that are similar or somehow related to Team Human. An analogy: You like the Dallas Cowboys the best. You like a t-shirt that says "Dallas Cowboys" on it, too, but not as much as you like the actual team.

A single cell that shares the part of my genetic code that makes me homo sapiens is clearly not a human because a human is multicellular, even though it holds the potential for developing consciousness, my definition of the x variable in being human. At two cells, there is greater potential, and at a billion, even greater potential. However, a tiger, a frog, a tree, a moss, a femur, a kidney, and the polar ice caps all hold a kind of static potential for that special something, the x variable of consciousness, but I would say they have no chance of it developing. It would be a survival disadvantage to attempt the useless enterprise of nursing pebbles and fungi to that mystery breaking point and into consciousness, so we have to have some kind of taxonomic caste system in which we, the brahmin homo sapiens, who have the highest probability of being conscious in the next moment are at the top and the thing or group of things with the lowest chance are at the bottom.

It is in this caste system that the cloning issue and the abortion issue diverge in my thoughts. A prenatal or gestating unicellular homo sapiens, even a cloned one, has a potential that, all circumstances being favorable, will develop into a consciousness within a finite amount of time. A cloned kidney does not. I may have many warm feelings towards that kidney. I may like it a lot. If I am going to die if I do not have it surgically implanted in me, that kidney is not high up enough in the caste system for me to worry about its dignity or autonomy. (I will refrain from discussing abortion.)

If anyone has deciphered this mess of nonsense, they might have seen the implication for another cloning issue here: What about a body engineered to be born (from womb or test tube) without a brain (one of the unfavorable circumstances) and intended to be used solely for its organs? The idea is repugnant to me, but my little ramble depends on my assertion that I am more than the sum of my parts.


[Incidentally, I don't mean to advocate our remaining species-centric. I think our species has developed to a point where we can and should broaden our range of protection and regard in the consciousness caste system without worrying about our own species survival.]

[[Why, yes! I do like to read sci-fi sometimes!]]

::goes outside for a ::