In Part I I attempted to give a brief exposition of the mentality that the medical research establishment has concerning man's control over life and death. I call this period in our history The Age of Frankenstein because it was this very attitude exhibited by the fictional Dr. Victor Frankenstein in the book written by Mary Shelley. I also gave a brief explanation of the principles of the Natural Law concerning human sexuality and the procreative act. In this second and final part I will go into a further analysis of the issue of cloning and the other artificial reproductive issues in the light of God's law.
A Creation of Man
Man in his rebellious fallen nature acts toward his Creator in the same way as Lucifer. Just as Lucifer, Man hates his own limitations. He wants to be God and when given an opportunity will usurp God's rightful position as Lord and Master over his own environment. But man is finite and cannot really create anything. To "create" means to bring into existence out of nothing. Man can only manipulate what God has already created. Please do not misunderstand. I am not saying creativity is somehow against God's will. On the contrary the creative urge in man comes from God. We are made in His image after all. But it is when Man disregards his position as a mere creature and goes against the laws of His Creator that man's fallen nature is truly manifested in rebellion. Therefore, like the devil he apes God. He cannot create out of nothing so he manipulates God's creation and puts it together in new composite inventions. He ultimately can only invent from the things that already exist. So when Doctor Frankenstein was preoccupied with giving life to that which had no life he built a human frame and body out of the human remains found in the Dissection Laboratory, graveyards and the charnel-houses. He infused into his creature the spark of life (according to the story) which comes from lightning. Yet all of these things came from God. He made them but Dr. Frankenstein used them inappropriately.
It would be simple to show how this same rebellious spirit rears its ugly head continually in human history. There is no need to go into details but let it suffice to say that nuclear weapons alone are a perfect example of man's evil inclination to manipulate God's creation into something monstrous.
As terrible as it may seem the more man creates and invents the more inhuman everything becomes. This is not a tirade against technology. However all technological advances as well as anything else man does must be tempered by humility and by a reverent respect for the laws of God. Unfortunately, as long as man has a fallen nature he needs laws to restrain him from acting contrary to true human progress.
Brave New World
The primitive attempts to bring forth life by using God's creation without His permission succeeded in the fictional story of Frankenstein. It took real advances in technology to finally come to the point where medical science could really begin to actually enact the Frankenstein mentality. After all the experimentation and innumerable lives destroyed science now can do to humans what it has succeeded in doing to plants and animals. He has solved the puzzle of DNA and is now able to map segments of a DNA strand knowing what genetic qualities it produces in the creature from which it came. This opens the door to the next level of man's audacity, a new society where the prophetic writings of Aldous Huxley are about to come to pass. Science has become the god of this new generation. The horror of genetic manipulation and manufacturing is just around the corner. It is only a short matter of time before the genes of the zygote will be manipulated to give a child blue eyes, blond hair, make sure it is male or female, and any other number of qualities the parents want. A new breed of genetically superior humans will then begin to be formed who will live in a society that is increasingly godless and amoral.
Often when the above scenario is described the other side of the coin is neglected. That is, in order to produce one genetically altered human being ten to twenty human zygotes will be destroyed. Or they will be allowed to grow into "de-gene-rates"; these are, monsters that are the result of genetic manipulation. These innocent children with human souls will be killed with no more thought than flushing a toilet. They will never be seen as human beings with the right to life, liberty and property. In fact, those God-given rights will be seen simply as the privilege of the superior classes and the rest of humanity will become subservient to them.
In other words, we are headed down the slippery slope of totalitarian control which is the ultimate result of an amoral society. When men are immoral society becomes chaotic and government steps in to suppress the fallen nature of man through coercion.
This genetic manipulation gets worse. As they begin to clone humans they will also secretly attempt to splice human genes with those of other animals in an attempt to create humans with the genetic qualities man admires within the animal world. Thus they will attempt to give a man the ability to run like a cheetah, or to have the eyes of a hawk, or the strength of a lion. H.G. Wells predicted this scenario in his book, The Island of Dr. Moreau. How many monsters will then be created and experimented upon. How many mutant humans will be used for experimentation? When they have served their purpose they will be discarded just as we now do with lab rats and monkeys.
Do you think this scenario is far fetched? Cloning was thought to be only a matter for science fiction by the majority of people until recently. Did you know that they have created mutant mice and pigs in the laboratory who have certain human genetic properties. There are mice that have human blood qualities, rats that can produce human antibodies and pigs that they are trying to genetically manipulate for human organ transplants. All of this is done in the name of scientific progress and human compassion.
Cloning the Famous?
In the book Jurassic Park and subsequently the movie by the same name dinosaurs were reproduced by cloning the DNA from blood found in prehistoric mosquitoes preserved in resin. The idea in some circles has been to take the DNA of the great men and women of the past and replicate them through cloning.
First of all the idea of somehow reproducing an exact living replica of a famous individual comes from an atheistic/materialist view of reality.
This materialistic concept implies that our humanity does not come from our individual spiritual soul but rather is simply the product of a unique combination of atomic and genetic material. It does not take into consideration that despite the exact genetic makeup of an individual his soul is completely unique and the personality as well as the choices a person makes comes primarily from that person's soul and not from his genetic makeup. That soul would not have some kind of genetic "ancestral knowledge". It would be completely unique and would respond to its environment in a completely unique way. Science could never clone another Abraham Lincoln or another George Washington. They might be able to reproduce the exact body of each of these individuals but the new clone would be its own individual , free to make its own choices.
The other factor that must be taken into consideration is that the environment that helped to solidify the personality of the original person cannot be duplicated for the clone. Environment helps to develop a person's reactions and decision making. Any parent will tell you that the individual personality of each of their children is evident even while the child is in the womb. Nevertheless, environment has a roll to play in the development of that personality. Roman Catholic philosophy and psychology do not put an over emphasis upon environment but the Church recognizes the importance of how one is raised and the effects of conditioning that take place because of environmental circumstances. But the Church also knows that even with identical twins who may have many of the same characteristics they, nonetheless, will exhibit unique individual responses to the exact same circumstances even when raised in exactly the same environment.
The human soul cannot be cloned. Although man may transgress the laws of God and attempt to usurp His position over His creation only God can instill a spiritual soul into genetic material to make it a living human being. Just as a murderer, in his malevolence, causes the soul of an individual to be separated from his body by killing him against the will of God. So in the opposite offense, life manipulation, a "cloner" causes the infusion of a human soul into the human genome at the moment of artificial fertilization because of the same permissible will of God that allows the murderer to freely choose murder against God's specific will. But the scientist who violates God's will by cloning does not create a human soul when the cloned cell is fertilized. He only artificially sets up the conditions that God has established to create human life. Only God can infuse a soul. And that soul, although intimately connected with the unique genetics of that individual human body is still uniquely different and free.
Clones and Slavery
Since we have established that despite the transgression of God's general and specific will His permissive will allows man to artificially put together all the elements of human life so that God will infuse a soul into that which by nature is physically human as the effect of a cause, then we must admit that these human beings have every right that God has given every other human being brought forth through natural reproduction. Trust me when I say that just as the right to life has been taken away from the human baby in the womb so too will "they" attempt to take away the God-given rights of clones and make them slaves by proclaiming that they are mere property of the State that has created them. Their freedom must be proclaimed now. Because if God does not destroyed us before they are replicated, then clones will be enslaved.
Fertilization vs Conception
Recently, the American Medical Association redefined conception as occurring not at fertilization but rather at implantation in the womb. This redefinition was a calculated response to the Roman Catholic position that human life begins at the moment of conception; conception always having been defined as when the spermatozoa impregnates the ovum. In other words, fertilization and conception have always been seen as a single event. The distinction made by the AMA allows them to experiment with fertilized eggs and allow for abortifacient drugs while at the same time justifying their action as working with something that is not yet human. It is simply another way of rationalizing their sinful pride and the audacity they have in playing God.