1 February 2001

Cloning now legal - under Whose law?

Arjunanatha dasa

I heard with horror a few days ago that the House of Lords have approved human embryo research (against unanimous condemnation from religious leaders of all faiths).

The idea that it is reasonable to mutilate and kill an embryo (on the basis that its consciousness is undeveloped) is born of a similar scientific logic as that of the Nazis, and stems from taking the unproved as absolute truth, something which scientists are all too ready to accuse religionists of.

What is this great assumption made by the kind of science which treats living beings as so much 'raw material matter'? It is that life is simply a manifestation of electrical, chemical and physical impulses, with nothing immeasurable beyond that.

The fact that current scientific method fails to absolutely prove (or even detect) the existence of a soul leads on to two possible conclusions:

1. that there is no soul
2. that current scientific method is inadequate because it can only measure that which it can control to some degree, and some things are beyond its control.

Logically, conclusion (2) has at least as much validity as conclusion (1), so to assume that there is no soul is a risky venture, especially when the consequences involve terminating a life (a phrase more usually referred to as 'killing'), whatever we may agree life or alive to be.

If the argument is that the young embryo has an undeveloped consciousness and sense of feeling, then to kill a sleeping adult differs from the former only quantitatively, not in basic nature. Both beings are unconscious; both have great potential.

One cannot escape the conclusion that, in their uncouth wrangling over political donations and so on, our parliamentarians are not even considering arguments such as these concerning the basic definition of life and a reasonable standard of human behaviour.

The supposed purpose beyond this research is to alleviate suffering of sick people. Unfortunately, to take an exaggerated and simplified example, if I cut off a man's arm and kill him to save mine, then although my suffering is temporarily alleviated, his is dramatically increased. Those who consider the natural law of action and reaction will appreciate that I will inevitably be liable to suffer further in the future, not only my original suffering, but also an increased amount at least equal to that of the man I killed.

As long as society has no basis other than bodily pleasure, this kind of horror is the inevitable result - the temporary pleasure of the powerful, however much (hidden) suffering is caused to the weak.

We might hope that this repulsive piece of legislation is deemed illegal under the new European Human Rights law before a single experiment takes place. Unfortunately, this is unlikely. The only hope for society lies in the re-establishment of bona-fide religion as its basis, and with it, a proper understanding of the nature of the individual, and his relationship with God.