Why not cloning?
1/1/2003 12:00:00 AM - Cal Thomas
It is the 30th anniversary month of the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision, which, along with subsequent rulings, allows abortion on demand at any time and for any reason. Having already decided, with the support of academics, clergy and journalists, that certain categories and stages of life are not entitled to the protection of law, why are so many appalled, outraged and surprised when cloning arrives at the door?
Cloning is the unnatural fruit- there will be many more- produced when the root of the tree of life has been pulled out of its nurturing soil and replanted into a soil of situational ethics that serve the temporal interests and feelings of humanity. What was it a few people said in 1973 about a slippery slope? We have slid a long way since then, and cloning is but a way station where the rest of humanity indulges itself in a slight gasp before resuming the downward spiral.
Whether or not "doctor" and cultist Brigitte Boisselier and her Clonaid operation have, in fact, cloned a girl named "Eve," the horror expressed in some quarters is a little late.
Ross Clark, a father of two, wrote a column in the London Times this week, asking why it's fine to "kill babies" in an abortion, but not to create them through cloning, "Our fear of clinicians in white coats is much greater when they are creating human life than when they are destroying it," he noted. Clark thinks the population growth fanatics don't mind when science kills, but they oppose anything that would add to our numbers. "We are more inclined to support science when it stops births than when it enables them," he said.
This is why pro-lifers favor returning to a uniform life ethic, covering the unborn, the handicapped, the elderly, racial and religious minorities, in short, all human life. Once one category of humanity is declared unfit to live- regardless of the reason- all others become at risk to the whims of society at a given moment. We still recoil at what Hitler did to the Jews, gypsies, homosexuals and the sick, but he was simply ahead of his time. Today, he might be invited to speak at Princeton about his unique form of eugenics. Why Princeton? It is the home of Dr. Peter Singer, the Australian philosopher who believes human life is not sacred and can and should be manipulated for whatever end the "healthy" and "fit" determine would serve their current interests. In fact, Hitler might be a candidate for cloning among those who believe his "work" should continue.
Cloning might produce large armies, such as those bred for war by the evil Saruman in "The Lord of the Rings." Clone wars might remove any sense of morality or immorality about war since those who are killing, or being killed, would be the fruits of soulless technology and of no greater value (but less expense) than an airplane or tank.
Some members of Congress, including many who have lost any moral standing on this issue because of their support of abortion through all nine months and even during delivery (known as "partial birth abortion"), now express shock and outrage over the latest cloning news. They are too late to be taken seriously. Having allowed the process to begin and failed to do anything to stop it, they may pass a law in hopes of slowing down the inevitable, but they will not succeed.
Western culture has told God that we don't need or want Him. It has told history that we will neither learn from it nor care. It worships at the shrine of The Self, and in so doing it has produced a type of "Rosemary's baby" that will be impossible to control absent a revival of the things that once mattered most about life.
After 40 million (and counting) aborted babies in the United States, who, or what, is going to stop cloning? And on what grounds?