Human cloning is an important issue that continues to loom in the background of gas prices and abortion. Libertarians tend to support “therapeutic cloning” while they agree with conservatives that “reproductive cloning” should be banned. In 2002, when cloning became a hot political issue, libertarians were attacking anyone who would ban therapeutic cloning as anti-science.

Ramesh Ponnuru on Reason in National Review

They liken a ban on therapeutic cloning to the persecution of Galileo, say it is “contrary to the ideals of American freedom and democracy,” claim that it would lead to a “vindictive police state driven by anti-scientific agitators,” and attribute support for it to a “fear of change.” The memory of witch hunts and burnings at the stake for heresy is invoked. Michael Lind writes, “Like most Americans, I do not want to see the United States degenerate into a cross between Amish Pennsylvania and theocratic Iran.” Harvey Silverglate imagines that a ban on cloning, like a ban on abortion, would violate the First Amendment’s guarantees of freedom of religion and speech. He also writes that “as recently as the horrendous events in New York and Washington, we have come to see the inevitable result of intolerance of differences as to issues that touch the ultimate questions of human life and existence.”

The only difference between therapeutic cloning and reproductive cloning is that the former creates an embryo and then destroys it while the latter attempt to help the embryo develop. The irony in the stance of the libertarians is that the moral reason for standing against cloning is that by removing reproduction from the act of love we run the risk of using new human beings as products. Therapeutic cloning does exactly that. New human life is not seen as human. It is a product to be consumed and used. Opposition to such callous use of science is not to be anti-science, but pro-science in the true sense.

Ramesh Ponnuru’s excellent article specifically explores the libertarian bias that writes off all conservative moral arguments as religious or emotional sentimentalism rather than giving the arguments credit for being reasonable. I will also be using this article in my reasons for being pro-life article, which will be located in the library. Meanwhile, Ponnuru’s article is worth checking out.