View and buy Cloudy Horizon art image by Hawaii's nature artist Patrick Ching. The Alaka'i wilderness preserve on the island of Kaua'i is the backdrop for the oil painting.

Page/Link:Page URL:HTML link:The Free Library. Retrieved Apr 19 2020 fromHuman reproductive cloning is not yet a reality, but this has notstopped speculation from scientists, philosophers, and theologians.

Theproblem is that some of the speculation suffers from fundamentalmisunderstandings about the nature of human reproductive cloning. Themisconceptions involved in this discussion center around therelationship between identity and genome. I argue that distinguishingbetween genome and identity is necessary, and doing so requirescontemplating a different set of questions regarding the use of humanreproductive cloning. The Roman Catholic instructions Donum Vitae andDignitas Personae argue for a close relationship between genome andidentity.

After analyzing some of the statements in these documents, theargument for separating genome and identity will be constructed. Oncethe argument for separation is made, additional questions regarding theuse of human reproductive cloning will be raised.Donum Vitae is a document focused on in vitro fertilization and thestatus of the early embryo. Uncharted waters. The embryo is understood to be a person fromthe start. This stance is taken from church teaching and Donum Vitaequotes the following from the Declaration on Procured Abortion:From the rime that the ovum is fertilized, a new life is begunwhich is neither that of the father nor of the mother; it israther the life of a new human being with his own growth.

Counter Attack: Deals (162% of Attack) damage against 3 random enemies and burns them for 3 rounds. Burning damage is (120% of Attack) at the beginning and decreased (24% of Attack) per round. Let’s have a look at our Girls X Battle 2 tier list and build the best Girls team to strike down the enemies in the campaign, league, guild boss battle modes. After playing the Girls X Battle 2 a bit, you may get stuck on high-level stages. Another problem that you may face is who to upgrade first and why. Girls X Battle 2 brings you new idle RPG game style, which contains hundreds of Anime Girls under you command. Girls X Battle 2 is also a game that combines tactics and leisure features. Players not only need to focus on formation of girls, but also need to pay attention to girls’ improvements, additionally with unique gear and antiques to help your girl finish legendary battles. Girls x battle 2 toyo.

Itwould never be made human if it were not human already. Tothis perpetual evidence. Modern genetic science bringsvaluable confirmation. It has demonstrated that, from the firstinstant, the programme is fixed as to what this living beingwill be: a man, this individual-man with his characteristicaspects already well determined. Right from fertilization isbegun the adventure of a human life, and each of its greatcapacities requires time. To find its place and to be ina position to act. The argument made in Donum Vitae is that this position 'isfurther confirmed, if confirmation were needed, by recent findings ofhuman biological science which recognize that in the zygote resultingfrom fertilization the biological identity of a new human individual isalready constituted.'

(3) Roman Catholic bioethicist Thomas Shannonraises several problems with the church's position. He states thatit 'identifies the establishment of the embryos code or genome ascoincident with personhood.

In addition to coming close to a form ofgenetic reductionism, the better description of the establishment of theembryo's genetic code is the establishment of the next geneticgeneration.' (4) Another concern he has is that of individuality.Because it is possible for the embryo to divide early on, formingmonozygotic twins, Shannon believes that personhood cannot be conferreduntil the process of restriction occurs. Beyond this point, the embryocannot divide and form two viable embryos.Biology, however, is an insufficient grounding of human dignity andindividuality.

Donum Vitae argues that humans are also given a soul byGod. Since it cannot be determined when ensoulment occurs, the argumentis made that fertilization is the safe answer. Ted Peters thinks this isdangerous because 'ensoulment cannot be discerned by science. Itcan be discerned only by philosophy.

Ensoulment is metaphysical, notphysical.' (5) Peters analyzes the position presented in DonumVitae and identifies three parts to it.

Ensoulment requires a soul,which comes from God, and the joining of egg and sperm, through theconjugal act of the parents. The third part is also from the parents,genetic material. In other words, fertilization results in a differentcombination of DNA, the DNA of the parents mixing to form a uniquegenome. Peters argues that 'Donum Vitae takes this genomic noveltyto be evidence of the presence of a unique individual, and thusreasonably the condition for ensoul ment.' (6) According to theposition presented in Donum Vitae, reproduction must remain connected tosexuality properly understood. In vitro fertilization and cloning arenot acceptable because they violate the dignity of the embryo byremoving reproduction from the right to be born within the context ofmarriage.In furthering the arguments found in Donum Vitae, the instructionDignitas Personae conflates genome and identity when analyzing humanreproductive cloning.

Dignitas Personae argues that forms of assistedreproduction have to uphold 'three fundamental goods: a) the rightto life and to physical integrity of every human being from conceptionto natural death; b) the unity of marriage, which means reciprocalrespect for the right within marriage to become a father or mother onlytogether with the other spouse; c) the specifically human values ofsexuality,' that is, procreation arising out of the conjugal act asan expression of self-giving love in marriage. (7) Reproductive cloningis not allowed because it violates the second and third goods. Inaddition, cloning is viewed as illicit because it 'would impose onthe resulting individual a predetermined genetic identity, subjectinghim-as has been stated-to a form of biological slavery, from which itwould be difficult to free himself. The fact that someone would arrogateto himself the right to determine arbitrarily the geneticcharacteristics of another person represents a grave offense to thedignity of that person as well as to the fundamental equality of allpeople.' (8) The indictment made by Dignitas Personae is based on aconflation of genome and identity. The characteristics of childrenconceived in marriage are also determined arbitrarily by the conjugalact. Parents cannot control which characteristics they pass on to theirchildren, but even hoping for a boy or a girl is an expression of thedesire to be able to influence the determination of characteristics.

The separation of genome and identity tS necessary becauseconflating the two is dangerous. It does not represent reality andcauses people to focus on unhelpful issues within die context of thedebate surrounding human reproductive cloning. I will present threekinds of examples to support the thesis, To begin with, there areinstances where one genome exists in two different individuals. Commonlyknown as identical twins, monozygotic twins develop from a singleembryo.

In the early stages of development, some of the cells separatefrom the embryo and continue to divide on their own, forming a secondembryo with the same genetic profile as the first. Although monozygotictwins share a common genome, they are distinct individuals with uniquecharacteristics.

These differences occur because people are notdetermined solely by their genotype. DNA does not exist in a vacuum; itinteracts with the environment, and this interaction also plays a rolein shaping development and identity. Although they may share the samegenome, it is virtually impossible for monozygotic twins to share theexact same environment. A brief synopsis of the relationship betweengenes and environment Is probided by Audrey Chapman:Human development features a continuous and ongoing interactionbetween the organism and the environment throughout life thatinfluences expression of genes and the development of the brain.Furthermore, there is a complex relationship between genotypeand environment that influences the manner in which each makesits relative contributions to individual variability. Geneticistshave discovered that a given individual may have the potentialto develop different phenotypes (observable physical traits ofthe genotype), depending on their exposure to certain featuresof the environment. Ibis is termed plasticity. (9)The argument from the example of monozygotic twins has two parts.The first is that it is possible for two individuals to have the samegenome.

Secondly, the genome alone does not account for biologicaldevelopment. Other biological factors and the environment play asignificant role as well.

Both of these points will be revisited later.The former will be nuanced in the third example and the latter will bediscussed in more detail in the context of cloning.While it is possible for two people to share a genome, it is alsopossiblefor an individual to have multiple genomes. Chimerism and mosaicismare two examples of this phenomenon. More than one egg can be fertilizedat a time, and when this occurs, several things can happen. If bothembryos develop and are born, they are known as fraternal twins. (10) Itis also possible, however, that the two embryos combine and result in asingle pregnancy and birth. This is chimerism, and the resultingindividual will have two genetic profiles.

Some of the cells will havethe genome from one of the embryos and other cells will have the genomefrom the other embryo. Mosaicism involves a single embryo, but twogenetic profiles emerge when a mutation occurs in development, and thenew genome is isolated to certain cells, and not the entire embryo. If asingle unique genome is correlated to individuality, twins, chimeras,and mosaics pose a problem. When the relationship between genome andidentity is too close, it could be argued that 'identical twins arehalf-persons and humans who are genetic mosaics are two persons.'

(11) Neither of these statements upholds the dignity of theseindividuals. While monozygotic twins often know that they have a twin,it is possible for chimeras and mosaics to have no knowledge of theirtwo genomes.While the examples of monozygotic twins, chimeras, and mosaics do agreat deal to challenge the close relationship between genome andidentity, they also are limited. These kinds of examples seem to be avery small percentage of the population.

The final example overcomesthis problem, because it is universal. Fertilization is viewed in DonumVitae as the source of genetic uniqueness, but this is not the case. Thecreation of a unique genome can occur regularly inside every humanbeing. Cells divide, and in order for this to occur, the DNA in the cellmust be replicated, so each resulting cell has a copy of the genome. Theprocess is controlled by a series of enzymes. These enzymes replicatethe DNA making very few mistakes, but they do make mistakes.

The mostcommon mistake is when the wrong base pair is added to the synthesizedstrand of DNA. Other enzymes, referred to as 'proofreadingenzymes,' are able to correct these mistakes.

The process ofproofreading is not perfect either, and because of this, mistakes ormutations can occur and these changes result in a unique genome.Objections can be raised to such an argument. Anticipating andengaging three likely counterarguments will strengthen the originalargument, The first counterargument is that the vast majority ofmutations are silent, that is, they do not affect gene expression andare therefore insignificant. Unique is redefined as functionally unique.The same question can be raised about the unique genome created throughfertilization. Genes that follow a Mendelian inheritance pattern canproduce a phenotype that hides genetic difference. If one parent passeson the dominant allele for a particular trait, and the other parentpasses on a recessive allele, the child's genotype will be mixed,one dominant and one recessive, but the phenotype will be that of thedominant allele.The second counterargument is similar to the first; it changes thedefinition of unique. Mutations are insignificant not because they donot change gene expression, but because a small number of changes do notmake a genome unique.

The first counterargument attempted to account forvariation by modifying the definition of unique to functionally unique.The second challenges the amount of novelty needed to produceuniqueness. I would argue that any change results in a genome that isdifferent from the original. Monozygotic twins likely have differentgenomes because of this, even though they started with the same one. Thefinal counterargument is an extension of the second. There are fewmutations because their occurrence is rare. The human genome isapproximately three billion base pairs long.

It is estimated that thehuman body has ten trillion cells. (12) Almost all of these cellscontain the entire genome, but only parts of it are being activelyexpressed in any given cell at any time. The most important enzymes forDNA replication are a family of enzymes known as DNA polymerase. Recentstudies suggest that the error rate of DNA polymerase is around 10-4.(13) From a statistical perspective, each time the genome is replicated,there would be approximately three hundred thousand errors. This is asignificant difference, but proofreading enzymes decrease the number oferrors substantially.

When proofreading enzymes are included, the rateof error during ON A replication is estimated to be 10-9. (14) In otherwords, there could be approximately three errors per replication. Whilethree appears to be trivial, the differences can compound throughcontinued replication. If uniqueness is the standard, every person hasmultiple genomes.Reproductive cloning is considered an asexual form of reproduction,because it involves neither die union of egg and sperm nor the mixing oftwo genomes. I he clone shares a genetic profile with the person whoprovided the cells to he cloned, but would be a different person. It canbe argued that the closest analog to reproductive cloning would be tothink of identical twins separated by a generation, but even thiscomparison is problematic. As discussed earlier, there is a complexrelationship between genes and environment, and because of this, StephenJay Gould argues that monozygotic twins are more similar than a personand his or her 'clone' would be.

(15)Separating the genome from identity clarifies the analysis of theuse of human reproductive cloning. Assuming it were possible, safe, andlegal to use reproductive cloning, the overall question is whether orhow it should be used. Neil Messer gives a comprehensive list of reasonspeople want to utilize reproductive cloning.

It would allow parents whocannot conceive otherwise the ability to have a child that isgenetically related to them. Cloning using a donor egg could be used toavoid mitochondrial DNA diseases. When a child passes away, cloningcould be used to have another child with the same genome,'replacing' the first child. If a child suffers from aparticular disease, cloning could be used to create a 'saviorsibling,' a child that could donate an organ to the first child.People who have made significant contributions to society could becloned so they can further their work.

Cloning can be seen as a way toachieve immortality. Finally, cloning could be used as a mechanism ofgenetic control, a form of eugenics. (16)It is apparent from the argument presented in this paper that aproper understanding of the relationship between genome and identitynarrows this list. Replacement cloning should not be allowed. A lostloved one cannot be brought back through cloning and people withintellectual, physical, or artistic gifts cannot he duplicated.

Cloningwill result in a different individual, and that person may not have thesame interests. Immortality cannot be achieved through cloning. Theremaining items on the list may deserve further consideration, but theconcerns raised by them are not dissimilar to other forms of assistedreproduction.

Instead, I argue that more attention needs to be given tothe intentions of people seeking to utilize cloning. The intentions ofparents will likely have an effect on the resulting child.

DignitasPersonae argues that cloning is not connected to the self-giving love ofparents, but is it not possible that in trying to avoid disease, cloningcould be utilized as a form of love? Reproductive cloning separatesprocreation from the conjugal act, but it does not violate the otherrequirements stated in Dignitas Personae. The child that is the resultof reproductive cloning can still be understood as a gift from God.

Theargument is not that cloning should replace other forms of reproduction,including adoption, but rather that the resulting child is an individualdeserving of respect and dignity. It is possible for cloning to upholdthe unity of marriage as well. Couples could use nuclear DNA from oneparent and mitochondrial DNA from the other parent, allowing bothparents to be genetically related to the child.The resulting child, the clone, also deserves attention. Will therebe psychological concerns that other children do not face? (17) Theseconcerns stem from whether clones will be treated differently by peoplebecause of the manner in which they were conceived, but there could beother unforeseen consequences.

Unless people distinguish between genomeand identity children born as a result of human cloning may be subjectto unfair expectations, such as excelling in the same things theirparents did. Savior siblings might have to wrestle with questions aboutthe reason for their existence. Continued use of terminology used in thediscussion of human reproductive cloning can contribute to this problem.The child that would result from utilizing human reproductive cloning isreferred to as a clone.

Using the word 'clone' evokes sciencefiction fantasies that arose out of the conflation of genome andidentity. Changing the language used in both the description and ethicalanalysis of human reproductive cloning is necessary in order to furtherthe distinguishing of genome and identity.(1.) A version or this paper was presented on March 25, 2011 at theLutheran School of Theology at Chicago for the third annual StudentSymposium on Science and Spirituality of the Zygon Center'sReligion and Science Student Society.

The author would like to thank theCenter for Theology and the Natural Sciences Lib Croup for theirfeedback.(2.) Joseph Ratzinger, 'Donum Vitae: Instruction on Rspect forHuman Life in Its Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation,'Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,(accessed March 3,2010).(3.) Ibid.(4.) Thomas Shannon, 'The Roman Catholic Magisterium andGenetic Research: An Overview and Evaluation,' in Design andDestiny: Jewish and Christian Perspectives on Human GermlineModification, ed. Ronald Cole-Turner (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2008), 66.(5.) Ted Peters, The Stem Cell Debate (Minneapolis: Fortress Press,2007), 32.(6.) Ibid, 33.(7.) William Levada, 'Instruction Dignitas Personae on CertainBioethical Questions,' Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDF-Dignitas-Personae.pdf (accessed January9, 2011).(8.) Ibid, sec. 29.(9.) Audrey Chapman, Unprecedented Choices: Religious Ethics at theFrontiers of Genetic Science (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1999),117-118.(10.) Peters, The Stem Cell Debate, 41-42.(11.) John Bryant and John Searle, Life in Our Hands: A ChristianPerspective on Geneties and Cloning (Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press,2004), 58.(12.) Junjie Qin, 'A Human Gut Microbial Gene CaralogueEstablished by Metagenomic Sequencing,' Nature, no. 464 (2010):59.(13.) Thomas A Kunkel and Scott McCulloch, 'The Fidelity ofDNA Synthesis by Eukaryotic Replicative and Translesion SynthesisPolymerases,' Cell Research, no 18 (2008): 148.(14.) Ibid.(15.) Stephen Jay Gould, 'Dolly's Fashion andLouis's Passion: Ruminations on the Downfall of a King and theCloning of a Sheep', in Ethical Issues in Human Cloning: CrossDisciplinary Perspectives, ed. Brannigan (New York: SevenBridges Press, LLC, 2000), 39.(16.) Neil Messer, The Ethics of Human Cloning (Cambridge: GroveBooks Limited, 2001), 9-10.(17.) Bryant and Searle, Life in Our Hands, 161.Braden Molhoek Ph.D. Student, Ethics and Social Theory, GraduateTheological Union.

Share this article

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Raleigh, N.C., May 5, 2010 - Ham Studios is proudto announce that Murky Horizon is now available for download on theXbox 360. Murky Horizon takes two popular and addictive gamegenres, Tower Defense and Dual-stick shooters, and combines themtogether to create something fresh and innovative. 'I always lovedboth of these genres and was amazed how smoothly they fittogether,' creator David Markham said. 'I feel combining themfilled the short-comings of both genres and created somethinggreater than both.' Murky Horizon takes traditional elements likepower-ups and upgradeable turrets, and introduces features rarelyseen in either genre like four-player coop and pitch-blacknightfall. In Murky Horizon players defend a bunker from waves offlesh-eating lizards. As day turns to night, the game grows morechallenging and players must use flashlights and flares to spotincoming enemies. Murky Horizon is available now for download onthe Xbox Live Indie Games service for 80 Microsoft Points.

To celebrate the release, Ham Studios is giving away 5 freecopies of Murky Horizon.

For more information please visit http://www.hamstudios.com

About Ham Studios: Ham Studios is a new indie game studiocreated in 2009 by David Markham to make innovative games for theXbox 360, Windows PC, and iPhone.

###

For more information or to request an interview contact MurkyHorizon@hamstudios.com

Feel free to publish any text or media contain in this pressrelease or on hamstudios.com