Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 5, Issue 1, pp 33–46 | Cite as

Cloning humans from the perspective of the christian churches

  • R. Cole-Turner
Article
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:

Abstract

The announcement of the birth of Dolly the cloned sheep evoked widespread response from the Christian Churches. These responses are identified, organized thematically, and discussed critically. The churches have viewed reproductive human cloning either with unqualified opposition or with grave suspicion. Some statements have discussed animal cloning, generally granting limited approval, and nonreproductive human cloning, either in opposition or expressing an openness to entertain specific proposals as the technology develops.

Keywords

human cloning ethics religious perspectives 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Ramsey, P. (1970) Fabricated Man: The Ethics of Genetic Control, Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fletcher, J. (1974) The Ethics of Genetic Control: Ending Reproductive Roulette, Doubleday, Garden City, New York.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Church of Seotland (1997) “Motions on Cloning” and “Supplementary Report,” Edinburgh, reprinted in Cole-Turner, R., ed. Human Cloning: Religious Responses, Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville, Kentucky: 138–141.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    United Church of Christ (1997) Statement of the Committee on Genetics, Cleveland, reprinted in Cole-Turner, R., ed. Human Cloning: Religious Responses, Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville, Kentucky: 147–151.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Byers, D. (1997) An Absence of Love, in Cole-Turner, R., ed. Human Cloning: Religious Responses, Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville, Kentucky: 66–77.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction on Respect for Human Life in its origin and on the Dignity of Procreation (1987), reprinted in Pellegrino, E., J. C. Harvey, and J. P. Langan, eds. (1990) Gift of Life: Catholic Scholars Respond to the Vatican Instruction, Georgetown University Press, Washington, D.C., pp. 1–41.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pontifical Academy (October 1997) Reflections on Cloning, available at http://www.vatican.vaGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    United Methodist Church, General Board of Church and Society (9 May 1997) Statement from the United Methodist Genetic Science Task Force, reprinted in Cole-Turner, R., ed. Human Cloning: Religious Responses, Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville, Kentucky: 143–145.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Southern Baptist Convention (1997) Resolution on Genetic Technology and Cloning, Dallas.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Christian Coalition (29 January 1998) Statement by Heidi H. Stirrup, Director of Government Relations.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Executive Committee of the European Ecumenical Commission for Church and Society (June 1998) Cloning Animals and Humans—An Ethical View, Strasbourg.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Meilaender, G. (13 March 1997) Testimony to the National Bioethics Advisory Commission, Washington, D.C., Eberlin Reporting Service, 62–64. Reprinted as “Begetting and Cloning,” First Things 74 (June/July 1997): 41–43.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    National Bioethics Advisory Commission [United States] (9 June 1997) Cloning Human Beings: Report and Recommendations, The Commission, Rockville, Maryland.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    UNESCO (20 December 1996), Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights, available at http://www.unesco.org/ibc/uk/genome/projet/index.htmlGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Comite Consultatif National D’Ethique pour les Sciences de la Vie et de la Santé (France) Reply to the President of the French Republic on the Subject of Reproductive Cloning [Report #54] [English translation] Paris, France: The Comité, 1997 April 22; 26 p. [Online] Available: http://www.ccne-ethique.org/ccne_uk/avis/a_054.htmGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Statement in Defense of Cloning and the Integrity of Scientific Research (20 May 1997) The Chronicle of Higher Education website, http://chronicle.com/che-data/focus.dir/data.dir/0520.97/cloning.htmGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lebacqz, K. (1997) Genes, Justice, and Clones, in Cole-Turner, R., ed. Human Cloning: Religious Responses, Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville, Kentucky: 49–57.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Peters, T. (1997) Cloning Shock: A Theological Reaction, in Cole-Turner, R., ed. Human Cloning: Religious Responses, Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville, Kentucky: 12–24.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hefner, P. (June, 1997) Cloning as Quintessential Human Act, Insights.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Waters, B. (1997) One Flesh? Cloning, Procreation, and the Family, in Cole-Turner, R., ed. Human Cloning: Religious Responses, Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville, Kentucky: 78–90.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cole-Turner, R. (1997) At the Beginning, in Cole-Turner, R., ed. Human Cloning: Religious Responses, Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville, Kentucky: 119–130.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cahill, L. (13 March 1997) Testimony to the National Bioethics Advisory Committee,” Washington D.C., Eberlin Reporting Service, 51.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Paris, P. J. (1997) A View from the Underside, in Cole-Turner, R., ed. Human Cloning: Religious Responses, Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville, Kentucky: 43–48.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Opragen Publications 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. Cole-Turner
    • 1
  1. 1.Pittsburgh Theological SeminaryPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations