Ethics

1 Chronicles 12:32 tells us about the men of Isaachar who understood the times and knew what to do. First I aim to give you an understanding of the times; an overview of what is happening in the fields of contraception, infertility treatments and genetics now. Second I will look at biblical principles that are relevant to the whole discussion and then apply them to some of the key questions that arise.

Recent Developments

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act

The use of donor sperm to treat infertility has been possible since the 1940s but it was not until 1978 that the first IVF live birth occurred as the result of collaborative work by Robert Edwards and Patrick Steptoe.

As a consequence a Committee of Enquiry was set up under Dame Mary Warnock resulting in the Warnock Report in 1984. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act effectively enacted its proposals in 1991. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority is a group of lay people and health professionals which oversees the running of the Act and advises on future directions the law should take.

In brief the current legal status concerning IVF treatment and surrogacy are as follows:

1. Surrogacy in itself is not illegal but surrogacy arrangements are not enforceable in law. Commercial interest (save refunding of expense) is illegal.
2. Embryos can be created for fertility treatment but no more than three can be replaced in the womb at any one time.
3. Excess embryos can be frozen for future use and used for research but must be destroyed by the age of 14 days.
4. Embryos can be created for research from the eggs of living or dead donors, but a specific licence is required for any research project.

The HFE Act in its presumption that the human embryo can be disposed of or experimented upon legally sanctioned the following procedures:

1. Abortifacient 'contraceptives' (ie those that act after fertilisation) 
2. Freezing of embryos for fertility treatment 
3. The use of embryos for fertility, contraceptive and genetic research. 
4. Genetic testing and disposal of abnormal embryos.

What we think of this depends primarily on how we view the human embryo.

Medical Ethical Codes

The Declaration of Geneva (1948) stipulates that doctors 'should maintain the utmost respect for human life from the time of conception' and in like manner the International Code of Medical Ethics (1949) says that a doctor 'must always bear in mind the obligation of preserving human life from the time of conception until death'.

The Declaration of Helsinki (1975) says that in biomedical research 'the interest of science and society should never take precedence over considerations related to the well-being of the subject'. 'In any research upon human beings, each potential subject should be adequately informed of the aims, methods, anticipated benefits and potential hazards for the study...' and 'the subjects should be volunteers'. 'It is the duty of the doctor to remain the protector of the life and health of that person on whom biomedical research is being carried out'.

Embryo research and disposal violates these principles and highlights the fact that, in the view of medicine and society, human embryos do not now have the status of human beings.

If we view the embryo as worthy of respect we will find ourselves having reservations about much of what society and the law regards as admissible.

Contraception

The use of abortifacient contraceptives (those that often act by preventing the implantation of an already fertilised egg) is commonplace. Many regard them as part of the 'full range of family planning services' which doctors entering the field are obliged to supply.

The Contraceptive Service's Emergency Contraceptive Pack was launched amid media publicity on 11 February this year. The poster, leaflet and 'credit card' campaign is advocating emergency 'contraception' up to 72 hours after unprotected intercourse, and the IUCD up to five days after. While both these devices may act by preventing fertilisation taking place, the later they are applied the more likely they are to be preventing implantation of an already fertilised egg.

Fertility Treatments

There are about 2 million infertile couples in the UK; about one in nine being affected. The causes of infertility are male in 25%, female in 45% and unknown in 30%. Treatment depends on diagnosis and a variety of tests can be carried out to assess sperm numbers, function and quality and ovarian function and fallopian tube patency.

Treatments include artificial insemination by husband or donor sperm, intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), ovarian stimulation with drugs, fallopian tube surgery, in vitro fertilisation (IVF) and gamete intrafallopian transfer (GIFT).

The HFEA regulates mainly IVF and GIFT and has reported that over 21,000 'test-tube' babies have so far been born in Britain using the techniques pioneered in Cambridge in 1978. A quarter of the total have been born in the last two years. Multiple birth rates are higher than ever with 1,774 twins, triplets and quadruplets (a third of all births) in the last 15 months. Overall 18.5% of IVF patients become pregnant and 15% have live babies. The treatment costs about £2,000 per cycle and over 300,000 embryos have so far been produced. In other words about 280,000 have either been used for research or have died before birth.

Over 3,000 unclaimed frozen embryos were destroyed in mid 1996 when their 5 year expiry date ran out.

Prenatal diagnosis

Diagnosis of genetic diseases by amniocentesis (at 16 weeks) and chorion villus biopsy (8 weeks) are now commonplace in Britain and as a result the number of Down's Syndrome children alone being born in England and Wales fell from 764 in 1989 to 615 in 1993. 92% of cases diagnosed prenatally now end in abortion.[1] A massive review of antenatal screening has called for the establishment of 35 screening centres throughout Britain so the practice is likely to become even more common.[2]

Fifty-five couples have now had pre-implantation genetic diagnosis at the Hammersmith Hospital and almost 100 babies have been born after the procedure world wide. 'Treatment' licenses are being granted to two other London Hospitals, University College London and Guy's/St Thomas's.

The procedure which involves identification of potentially affected embryos after in vitro fertilisation is most commonly used for cystic fibrosis, but 'success' has also been achieved with Tay Sachs disease, Rh D blood typing and X linked disorders such as Duchenne muscular dystrophy and Lesch Nyhan syndrome. The new centres will offer identification of embryos with thalassemia and sickle cell disease.

Although the diagnosis of dominant disorders is more difficult, nevertheless Marfan's syndrome and familial polyposis coli have been identified. In principle, providing the basis of a molecular disorder is known, mutation detection is possible. Only normal embryos are implanted.[3]

The Human Genome Project

The Human Genome Project is an international collaborative project with the aim of unravelling the 100,000 genes in the human genome by the year 2,004. It will cost £3bn and is being led by Francis Collins of the US Institute of Health in Washington. Information on more than 8,000 disorders is already available on the internet and rates of identification of 600 genes per day are possible with computerised technology. The knowledge base that the project promises to create has potential use in the screening, prevention and treatment of genetic disorders.

‘In the last eight years... about 30 major gene therapy companies have been launched, three major gene therapy journals have been established, more than 200 human gene therapy protocols have been approved and over 2,000 patients have received gene therapy. As yet, however, only a handful of patients with rare conditions have benefited....’ So began a major review of the status of gene therapy in the British Medical Journal.[4] While the future holds promise, there is a very long way to go, and the inevitable result is that more and more effort is being directed to prenatal search and destroy strategies.

The US Task Force on Genetic Testing is concerned that, as the human genome project progresses, the number of genetic tests being developed could overwhelm institutional review boards.[5]

Cloning

A Chicago physicist plans to open a human cloning clinic within the year and hopes to produce the first human clone within 18 months. Dr Seed, who says he will move abroad if prevented from operating in the US, says that cloning will enable humanity to become 'closer to God'.

While there is little doubt that it could be done, many feel that an 18 month timescale is overly optimistic. It took 277 attempts to produce Dolly the sheep.

President Clinton banned federal funding for human cloning last year and proposed a law forcing a five year moratorium on research in the field. However the legislation has yet to be enacted and has not even cleared the initial stages of Congress review.[6]

A teacher of reproductive law at Chicago-Kent School of Law has said that laws currently being drafted in the US to prevent human cloning are full of legal loopholes. Ms Lori Andrews warned clones from donated eggs are not true clones because of the presence of mitochondrial DNA. Also such laws may not prevent the creation of headless human donors for organ donation since it could be argued that such beings are not fully human.

In February 1998 a bill to ban human cloning was shelved in the Senate because of differences over what constitutes a human life that is entitled to legal protection.[7]

Meanwhile 19 members of the Council of Europe have signed an agreement in Paris to prohibit ‘any intervention seeking to create a human being genetically identical to any other human being, whether living or dead, by whatever means’.[8]

In the UK the Human Genetics Advisory Commission (HGAC) and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) have issued a consultation paper inviting responses on therapeutic cloning to create human tissue or organs to prevent disease. The paper can be viewed on the internet at www.dti.gov.uk/hgac and submissions closed on April 30, 1998.

Sir Colin Campbell and Ruth Deech, chairpersons of the HGAC and HFEA respectively, are drawing a clear distinction between reproductive cloning (creating genetically identical ‘human beings’) and therapeutic cloning (whereby ‘embryos’ are created for therapy or research).[9]

Under the 1990 Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act it is legal in Britain to experiment on and destroy embryos up to14 days old. Cloning by nuclear replacement could reprogramme embryonic cells to produce tissues or organs genetically identical to those of existing human beings, thus avoiding rejection after transplantation. Other potential areas of benefit include research on ageing, cancer, infertility, congenital disease and miscarriage.[10]

Future Possibilities

Advances in genetics have already yielded technology useful in medicine and elsewhere. First there is the production of therapeutic human proteins and enzymes such as insulin from bacteria, adenosine deaminase from insect larvae, blood clotting factor 8 from hamster cells and (probably in the near future) factor 9 from sheep.

Second, there have been advances in cancer therapy. We know that there are tumour suppressor genes that can be activated, suicide genes that can render tumours sensitive to chemotherapy and oncogene down regulators that can shut off genes which promote cancer growth. Genetic techniques can also be used to produce antibodies against specific cancers.

Third, there have been advances in the production of vaccines.

Fourth, developments in genetic screening have meant that diagnoses of genetic diseases can be made for purposes of reassurance, reproductive counselling, disease prevention and treatment.

Fifth, there are the possibilities of gene therapy, either to change genetically individual cells in the body (somatic cell therapy) or alternatively, to change all the cells in an individual person by changing the genes of a fertilised egg (germ line therapy).

But there are also more sinister uses to which genetic knowledge could be put:

1. The construction of DNA databases on individuals or communities for the use of police, employers, insurance companies and governments (Big Brother).
2. Designer babies to augment intelligence, physical prowess or celebrity features.
3. Genetic engineering may introduce harmful transmissible genes which promote cancer or other diseases.
4. The production of genetically altered bacteria or viruses which are resistant to antibiotics or are particularly virulent.
5. Manipulation of the community's genes by eugenics through controlling reproduction of 'genetically inferior' individuals.
6. Biological warfare.
7. Organ factories producing cloned organs for transplant (eg growing headless humanoids etc).

Biblical Principles

What biblical principles are relevant in these areas of contraception, infertility treatments and genetics. Let's look at five:

1. The Sovereignty of God
2. Effects of the Fall
3. Stewardship and Grace
4. The Sanctity of Life
5. Sexuality, Marriage and the Family

The Sovereignty of God

God is sovereign. It is he ultimately who created human life in his own image (Gn 1:27), who gives children as a gift (Ps 127:3-5; 128:3-4), opens the wombs of the infertile (Gn 30:22; 1 Sa 1:19-20) and 'settles the barren woman in her home as a happy mother of children' (Ps 113:9).

Effects of the Fall

We live in a fallen world as a result of sin (Gn 3) which has affected even our genes themselves. It is apparent from recent research that both ageing and the diseases of later life are under genetic control. The decreed lifespan for man of 120 years after the flood (Gn 6:3) probably exerts its effects via the sloughing of telomeric DNA. In like manner the diseases of later life, again under genetic modulation, are the cause of the normal decreed lifespan of '70 years or 80 if we have the strength'.(Ps 90:10).

While we have to be extremely cautious about making judgements in any individual case (Lk 13:1-5; Jn 9:1-3), the problem of infertility is at least in part the result of sin (Dt 28:15-18). This is especially true in the case of tubal infertility which has resulted from sexually transmitted disease or abortion. We must also be aware of the causes of the current infertility crisis. The current high demand for infertility treatment has been fuelled largely by the falling number of children available for adoption (21,000 in 1975 cf 6,500 in 1990) in turn secondary to the rapid rise in abortion. The increase in solo parents keeping children who would have before been given up for adoption also contributes.

Stewardship and Grace

While God has made us stewards of his creation, thus validating scientific enquiry and application, this must always be exercised for the ultimate good of individual human beings. It follows that while we can (and should) use our God-given skills to help alleviate infertility and genetic disease we must do it according to his revealed standards of right and wrong. The end does not justify the means.

Furthermore we should imitate God in his grace and forgiveness. He is compassionate towards all who suffer, and that obviously includes those suffering from childlessness and genetic diseases. God understands the pain of childlessness (Gn 30:1; Lk 13:34) and according to his sovereign will may choose to alleviate it. Isaac, Joseph, Samson, Samuel and John the Baptist were all born to initially infertile couples.

The Sanctity of Life

We must uphold protection for innocent human life, believing that all human life is made in God's image (Gn 9:6,7). In God's economy the strong make sacrifices for the weak, not vice versa (Phil 2:5-8). The key issue in contraception, infertility and genetics is the status of the embryo. Clearly if we are to treat the embryo as fully human then we would not use those contraceptives, infertility treatments or genetic interventions which would compromise its survival. On the other hand if we come to the conclusion that the embryo does not matter then we will have less objection to these procedures.

The biblical arguments for the worth of prenatal life have already been reviewed in the seminars on abortion and euthanasia and I do not intend to revisit them here in depth. In short we looked at the principles that:

1. Human beings are made in the image of God and are not to be unjustly killed.
2. The Bible recognises all life as equally valuable especially easily exploited groups.
3. The Bible makes frequent mention of, and reference to, prenatal life.

The obvious corollary is that we should not do anything to an embryo which we could not justify doing to another human being. Having said that there has been a variance of views throughout Christian history on the value of very early human life.

First, there have those who have given embryonic life less value on the mistaken basis that the text Ex 21:22-25 makes a distinction between 'formed' and 'unformed' human beings. This was based on a Septuagint mistranslation of the Scripture.

Second, there have been those who have given embryonic life less value on the mistaken belief that the human 'soul' enters the body at some time after conception.

Third, there have been those who devalue embryonic life on the basis that it somehow is not fully made in the image of God; either because it lacks certain human qualities (such as rationality and consciousness) or because it has lost the image as a result of the Fall.

In addition to this there are many other reasons given by secular philosophers and biologists as to why embryos are not 'fully human'. The 'evidence' marshalled against such a belief (with rejoinders) is as follows:

1. Embryos lack rationality or the capacity for relationships (neural crest first appears at 10 days).
   Rejoinder: The value of a human being does not consist in its capacities or attributes but in the fact that it is human. We do not have to know God, it is sufficient that he knows us. The value of an embryo is bestowed by grace.
2. The high mortality of early embryos (40-70% don't reach maturity). Rejoinder: The value of human beings is not contingent on their survival rates, and even if survival rates are low this does not mean that we may act to end their lives prematurely. 
3. Many embryos are abnormal and abort spontaneously.
   Rejoinder: The value of human beings is not contingent on their level of normality, and even if they are abnormal this does not justify us killing them.
4. Sperm and ova are alive but that does not make them human. Why then should an embryo be human?
   Rejoinder: The embryo is a genetically distinct human being; already with a unique genotype and the ability to grow. Sperm and ova are not.
5. Two sperm may form an 'organism' as in a hydatidiform mole.
   Rejoinder: A hydatidiform mole is not a human being since it not formed from the union of a male and female but rather two male gametes.
6. Conception as a process is not complete until the first cell division (or implantation).
   Rejoinder: Yes, but it begins at fertilisation, and we should not interrupt the process at any point once it has begun. 'Life' is a process but that does not justify us ending it. 
7. Not all tissue derived from the fertilised egg ends up in the embryo (ie some is yolk sac etc).
   Rejoinder: Yes, but this makes the embryo something more than a human being rather than something less. We should surely then show the conceptus extra respect in case we damage any part of it which is destined to be part of the complete organism.
8. Twinning. If the fertilised egg can grow into two individuals, was the original pre-split conceptus a third individual or did one of the lives begin after fertilisation? Since it is impossible to conceive of two souls residing in one embryo it cannot be possible.
   Rejoinder: The fact that we cannot resolve the mystery does not mean that we can therefore conclude that the embryo has no value. Christian theology has no difficulty concluding that three persons co-exist in one Godhead so why not two persons in one body?
9. The image of God was lost at the Fall.
   Rejoinder: If so, then why does the command not to kill (Gn 9:6) (which makes reference to the image of God) come after the Fall?
10. The soul enters the body after the time of fertilisation.
    Rejoinder: The Bible does not say this at any point; and soul-body dualism owes more to Greek cosmology than biblical theology. Man has a body and is a soul, rather than the other way round.
11. We don't treat embryos like human beings (eg don't baptise them, mourn their loss etc).
    Rejoinder: Their value is not dependent on what we think of them but what God thinks. 
12. We don't recognise embryos as human because we use IUCDs etc. Rejoinder: Perhaps we should change our behaviour!

I personally am unconvinced by the arguments devaluing the worth of the embryo. Rather I believe that, given the weight of evidence for life starting at fertilisation and in particular, the importance put on the conception of Christ (and the fact that he was made like us - Heb 2:17), we should give the human embryo the benefit of the doubt.

Sexuality, Marriage and the Family

We must uphold the integrity of marriage as a life-long, publicly recognised, heterosexual, monogamous relationship (Gn 2:24; Mt 19:4-6; Eph 5:31-33).

Marriage is the only context in which sexual relations may take place and is also God's provision for the protection, nurture and discipline of children. Children should ideally be raised by their own genetic parents.

To my mind enabling unmarried couples or homosexual couples to conceive, or using donated eggs or sperm threatens the public, heterosexual and monogamy aspects of what God has ordained.

Questions of Application

1. Is it right to control fertility at all?

The Catholic position, based on the idea that the main functions of marriage are procreation and child-rearing, is that any control of fertility is wrong. This has its root, in part, in the teaching of Augustine that anything detracting from a spiritual plane is to be avoided. Onan is also cited as a practitioner of contraception who was punished by God.

It is true that contraception has been abused and in large part legitimised the sexual revolution, but:

1. Onan was killed (Gn 38:9) for breaking a specific command of God to impregnate his brother's widow; not for contraception per se. We cannot generalise from this specific example.
2. Children are an extra blessing in marriage not an obligation (Ps 127:3-5). Marriage is complete without them (Gn 2:24) and also has the function of companionship (Gn 2:18). 
3. Sexual pleasure is legitimate in itself and was created for the enjoyment of men and women (Pr 5:15-19; Song 4:16). 
4. Just as there are eunuchs for the Kingdom (Mt 19:11-12) and just as people may choose singleness (1 Cor 7) for the sake of the Kingdom, is it not possible that some couples may choose not to have children, or to delay children so that they can more fully devote themselves to serving God for a period? 
5. Why would God have created infertile periods within the menstrual cycle and not prohibit sex during them if he intended each act of intercourse to result in reproduction?
6. Is not the use of the rhythm method a double standard? What is the difference between using methods of timing, physical methods or hormonal methods to prevent conception?

Despite these objections we must not however avoid seeing that there are arguments against contraception too.

1. The scriptural injunction to go forth and multiply (Gn 1:28); although this is a right not a responsibility (ie. it is something we may do, not something we must do).
2. The association of the sexual revolution with the availability of contraception.
3. Harm to women's bodies by some forms of contraception (Ca breast, venous thrombosis etc).
4. The associated rise in conceptions, abortions and sexually transmitted disease.
5. The demeaning of the status of women (because of sex without strings attached) .
6. Compulsory contraception and sterilisation being used for political ends.

In summary my own view is that fertility control is legitimate provided it happens within marriage for the right motives (ie not just indulgence and a desire to avoid children for selfish ends).

2. Is it right to use methods of contraception that can act after fertilisation?

In my view the answer to this is 'no' in view of the fact that these methods may be destroying an existing embryo. However, not all doctors would hold my position on the status of the embryo (in fact only a third of CMF doctor members). Since there is no biochemical marker for fertilisation (as opposed to implantation) it is impossible to be absolutely sure but we can be reasonably certain about the following:[11]

1. The following are safe as far as the fertilisation position goes:
Male and female sterilisation
The combined OC pill provided that the pill-free interval is never lengthened. For added security the latter could be shortened or if preferred the so called tricycle regimen (in which it is eliminated for three or four pill cycles and then also shortened after the third or fourth packet) might be used.
The injectable Depo-provera given every twelve weeks (for added security shorten to 10 weeks).
Full breast feeding combined with the Depo-provera or progestogen-only pill.
Male and female barrier methods and spermicides.
All methods based on fertility awareness.

2. The following are not safe as far as the fertilisation position goes:
All IUCDs
Emergency contraception pill
Progestogen-only pill (mini-pill)
Norplant (contraceptive implant)

3. Is it wrong to prescribe contraceptives to unmarried couples?

Robert Gurney argued a good case for not doing so in the CMF Student Journal Nucleus in January 1996. The usual objections to his view are:

1. We can't impose our morality.
But: Is it right to help people to fornicate without restraint? (Would we give rubber gloves to a burglar, or a bullet proof vest to an assassin to help them to sin?) Are they not imposing their immorality on us by asking us to participate? Aren't the consequences of fornication (unplanned pregnancy, STDs, emotional hurt, failed marriages) serious and worth preventing for our patients' good?

2. Contraception is necessary to prevent the complications of conception.
But: They can go elsewhere - so why should we help them? Are we responsible for the complications of disregarding our advice?

3. It's necessary to prescribe in order to preserve the doctor-patient relationship.
But: The relationship is being put at risk by them not wanting to follow our advice. If they understand our concern they will respect us and may change.

The prime concern in all these situations must be the welfare of the patient.

4. Which, if any, infertility treatments are admissible?

Those infertility treatments which compromise the survival of the embryo seek to let the end (of a baby) justify the means (of destroying other embryos). This includes any IVF programme which involves:

• experimentation on embryos
• freezing of embryos (since it raises their mortality and many are never reimplanted)
• disposal of embryos
• routine amniocentesis and abortion for handicap
• selective reduction (ie abortion of twins or triplets)

GIFT does not involve embryo destruction since fertilisation does not take place outside the body. IVF may be acceptable if there is no freezing, experimentation or destruction and all embryos are replaced in the womb at the time likely to maximise survival.

Treatments which do not result in embryo destruction are acceptable (ie ICSI, NEST).

Also unacceptable (in my view) are treatments in which gametes come from a third party (ie either eggs or sperm are donated) as these violate the integrity of the marriage bond.

Objections to this view that have been raised are:

1. Didn't God approve of surrogacy/donor gametes in the cases of Hagar, Bilhah and Zilpah?
   Rejoinder: He didn't. These extra wives were taken because of man's impatience and results in all three cases were less than ideal.
2. The use of donor gametes does not involve physical intercourse or the cheating and lust aspects of adultery.
   Rejoinder: Maybe, but they still violate the monogamy principle in marriage which is a spiritual/emotional/social/physical union.
3. God approved of Levirate marriage (Dt 25:5-10).
   Rejoinder: Yes but in this case the original husband was dead thus ending the original marriage.
4. We have accepted donor sperm for years. Surely we shouldn't put the clock back.
   Rejoinder: Why not? Morally there is no difference between donor eggs and sperm.

If these two principles (respect of embryo and marriage bond) were followed then many of the more difficult cases that have emerged from Warnock's Pandora's box would have been excluded already. (eg postmenopausal women conceiving, conceiving from dead husband's sperm etc). This also raises the issue that the needs of the child should be paramount; each conception should be in the context of marriage with the child thus having two parents; one of each sex. Children are not consumer items.

5. Is prenatal diagnosis justified?

Prenatal screening diagnosis may well be justified if it:

1. Enables parents to decide whether or not to conceive if their risk of having a handicapped child is high. 
2. Enables prenatal intervention (surgery, medical treatment) to be carried out to benefit the baby. 
3. Enables preparation of the parents for the arrival of a child with special needs. 
4. Is relatively safe for the baby (whereas ultrasound and maternal blood tests are safe amniocentesis and chorion villus biopsy carry a fetal mortality rate of 0.5-2%). 
5. Will alleviate rather than increase parental anxiety.

If the only purpose of doing prenatal screening is for purposes of search and destroy, then it should not be carried out. Embryos produced as a result of IVF should be reimplanted unless they are obviously not continuing to grow and divide. The vast majority of abnormal ones will subsequently miscarry, but it is God rather than us who makes this decision.

6. What about Gene Therapy?

There are two types of gene therapy (somatic and germ cell) as explained above. Somatic therapy has been successful in a few limited circumstances (eg SCIDS) but the results have been largely disappointing thus far. It is legal in the UK and is being carried out presently. There are possibilities of real benefit.

Germ cell therapy is not currently legal and has not yet been performed in humans, although Polly the sheep is an example whereby the human gene for factor 9 was put into a lamb germ cell. The problem with germ cell therapy is that the results are quite unpredictable and once in, the new genes will be passed to the next generation and be present in all the cells of the body.

Sceptics say that germ cell therapy makes little sense when abnormal embryos can be simply discarded and in practice 'search and destroy' is taking precedence.

7. What about cloning?

There are two methods of cloning: cloning by nuclear fission (effectively artificial twinning) which has been done in humans and cloning by nuclear replacement (ie Dolly the sheep) which has not.

As Christians we believe that all human beings are made in the image of God and, regardless of age or disability, are of infinite worth in his sight. Human diversity is part of his sovereign design.

Cloning by nuclear replacement is asexual reproduction (the clone has only one parent contributing DNA) which violates the principles of Gn 2:24 and also means that the clone has only one genetic parent. Also, the research that is necessary for its development means that embryos will be treated as a means to an end.

There may also be dangers of transmitted genetic illness or early death, especially if the donated material comes from an adult.

Cloning of whole human beings could never be justified but the cloning of certain tissues (eg to produce skin grafts) may well be an acceptable application of the technology.

Summary

The web of possible scenarios here can seem overwhelming but if we work from biblical principles rather than relying on intuition or gut-feeling then we should be able to think through to the answers which best honour God.