The Necessity for Human Cloning and Embryonic Stem Cell Research (ESCR)
Robert Howard Kroepel
Copyright © 2004
We often forget that in the reality in which we exist those of us who are
life forms biologically more advanced than plants are nevertheless killers
of life forms because we eat other life forms, hunting or raising them to
suit our needs, and the rights of those who are hunted or raised and slaughtered
so humans can eat are not taken to the level of the "All life must be protected!!!"
mantra that would include life forms eaten by human beings. Religionists--humans
who believe in the existence of (and the existence of proof of the existence
of) gods, supernatural beings--pretend that it is okay to hunt/raise/slaughter
other life forms for human consumption under the mantra that "God/The Gods
intended it that way!!!" but the fact remains that the baby animals as well
as their parents/adults who are themselves innocent but who are to be killed
for human consumption have no rights other than those granted to them by
human beings, and those rights at present are limited to not being excessively
injured in the hunting/raising/slaughtering processes. Humans are the dominant
life form upon the Earth and thereby control which of the other life forms
are to be human food. Absent proof of the existence of gods and proof of
what the gods want from human beings--i.e., what are the moral guidelines
of the gods inre human cloning--human beings are free to choose what they
want inre human cloning, and so far as human choose to develop ESCs for medical
research, then that is the privilege of human beings.
If other nations/foreign businesses develop medical treatments for currently
untreatable medical diseases/disorders there will be a large number of humans
who claim to be anti-cloning/anti-ESCR who will nevertheless purchase and
use those treatments for themselves and those they love and care about, and
there will be no reasoning religionists and other moralists can offer which
will change that simple prediction. This predictable use of medical treatments
developed through ESCR is proof of why the outlawing of the growing of ESCs
and the continuance of ESCR is useless. Because such outlawing is useless
then US politicians/legislators need to get out front with reality and permit
US companies to engage in the ESCR that may provide medical treatments for
US as well as foreign citizens and also provide profits for US companies and
their stockholders. One advantage of such action will be the potential control
of the quality of the medical treatments developed through ESCR, so treatments
potentially dangerous/unsanitary/etc. can be eliminated from US consumption.
There is no slippery slope argument herein, because by majority rule US
citizens will decide what limits will be acceptable inre ESCR/cloning.
A right is a justification--a reason--for an action.
A right is either (A) seized by an individual or (B) granted by an
So long as no human being can produce proof of the existence of gods, then
gods are not to be considered as an authority inre the granting of human
rights, and, therefore, human rights are either seized or granted by human
Rights are generally considered to be the freedom of life, limb, liberty,
and property. Thus, a person either seizes or is granted the rights to his
An individual can be considered to have been injured when he is denied his
rights to life/limb/liberty/property.
The US Constitution provides a definition of who is a legal person entitled
to rights, particularly the rights to US jurisdictional due process and equal
US Const. 14th Amend.:
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and
subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and
of the State wherein they reside.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges
or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive
any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor
deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The phrase "All persons born ..." defines and thereby specifies who is a
legal person (A) entitled to be a US citizen and thereby (B) entitled to
US due process and equal protection.
Within the phrase "All persons born ..." is the definition/specification
of a legal person to be a "person born," which is an adult human life form,
which is one of three human life forms.
Inre "All persons born..." being the legal definition/specification of who
is a legal person entitled to US due process and equal protection, the first
section of the US Const. 14th Amend. can be summarized and restated thus:
All persons born ... and living a US jurisdiction are legal persons
entitled to US due process and equal protection under the law.
Thus, only born persons [who are living within a US jurisdiction] are granted
rights to life/limb/liberty/property by the US Constitution.
There are three forms of human life:
1. The Adult.
2. The Gamete.
3. The Zygote.
In the sequence of the development of human life, human life forms developed
from earlier life forms which developed from nonlife forms, thus human life
began a long time ago, and we who are alive today are the products of an
unbroken chain of ancestors leading back to the first life forms.
In the sequence--the cycle--of human reproduction, first is the adult, who
produces the second of the sequence, the gametes--human eggs, human sperm,
which when fertilized become the third of the sequence, the zygotes, embryos,
fetuses, unborn babies, which when born become adults who begin again the
sequence/cycle of human reproduction.
There is no defense against the claim that there are three human life forms,
and among them are the human gametes--the human eggs and sperm.
Human beings currently champion the defense of the rights of adults and zygotes
but not the rights of gametes.
Human adults can seize rights for themselves and thereby justify their actions,
and those rights can be granted by other adults functioning as authorities,
but human gametes and human zygotes cannot seize rights for themselves, including
the "Right to life!!!", and, therefore, their rights must be granted by other
human beings, by human adult life forms.
Human sexuality has two forms:
1. Reproductive sex in which one of the intentions is to reproduce.
2. Recreational sex in which one of the intentions is to not reproduce.
Human gametes are sacrificed in recreational sex, and few, if any, humans
are willing to complain that the rights of gametes are violated by recreational
sex and to demand that (A) all human recreational sex is to be outlawed (except
for infertile human beings) or (B) that all human gametes, all human eggs
and sperm, not used for reproductive sex are to be harvested and stored for
future fertilization, and that when (fertile) humans engage in recreational
sex they therefore must harvest their eggs/sperm.
By not championing the rights--the "Right to life!!!"--of human gametes humans
have therefore made a choice inre the rights of human life forms: One human
life form, the human gamete, is not worthy of being granted the "Right to
life!!!" when humans engage in recreational sex and do not harvest their
gametes for future fertilization.
Having chosen to deny the rights of one human life form, humans ought to
accept the fact that they choose what they will including the rights of and
therefore the fate of human life forms because of their desires, fears and
priorities, and that among those priorities could be the desire for preserving
the human race by causing the conditions in which other human life forms,
the human adult and the human zygote, can continue their existence and opportunities
This priority for the desire for the preservation of the human race being
a proper intention and therefore a proper guideline for human choice,
Scientists are predicting that the Earth's Sun will eventually exhaust its
nuclear fuel and will then expand and explode and thereby cause the destruction
of the Earth and all life forms upon it.
There is the ultimate possibility that when the Earth is about to be destroyed
by the death of the Sun that humans may need to create a line of humans who
can withstand the rigors of space travel in the quest to prolong human life
by exploring the stars to find a new home for the human species, and at that
time, when faced with extinction or extension, humans will choose to extend
human life and thereby to engage in the human cloning that will produce the
physical and mental characteristics needed for space exploration for and
adaptation to the new planet(s)/moon(s) which will be the new home(s) for
the human race.
If the gods do not exist, or otherwise have chosen/choose to not intervene
in human affairs, then humans will make the choice for life that life forms
make when faced with extinction v extension, and nothing religionists say
against the choice for life/extension at that time will be worthy of consideration,
so, while we are here in the beginning of our future, we should envision what
our offspring will do and help them to do it sooner and better by continuing
ESCR and human cloning to learn sooner than later what are the natural relationships--principles--among
biological cells, organs, and organisms and which of those principles can
be useful in developing the human life forms which will be needed in the future
for preserving and extending the human race.
There are times when the visions of those who can envision the future and
who intend to use those visions for the benefit of the human race must be
The 'will' of any group of people who cannot envision the future destruction
of the Earth by the death of the Sun must be ignored in favor of the ESCR
which eventually will yield the principles of biology that will be needed
to prolong human life in the rigors of space and any new planet/moon which
could be the new home for the human race.
The ultimate principles which will produce the choice for ESCR/cloning will
be the essence of the law and the proper intent to benefit the human race.
The essence of the law is that no man should injure another;
all the rest is commentary. (Attributed to Thomas Jefferson)
When 'injury' is defined as causing a threat or actual loss of life, limb,
liberty, or property, and when 'innocent' is defined as not intending to
injure another individual who does not intend to injure any other individual
who does not intend to injure him,' then the essence of the law can be restated
The essence of the law is that no man should [be allowed to]
injure [cause a threat of or actual loss of life/limb/liberty/property of]
another [innocent man]; all the rest [of the law] is commentary.
Surely the preservation/extension of the human race must have a higher priority
than the rights of individuals and the preservation of their lives, and to
this extent, to this extension, the proper intent inre ESCR/cloning should
be the preservation/extension of the human race.