KassLeonToward a More Natural Science: Biology and Human Affairs (New York: Free Press, 1985), p. 35.
2.
Cf. Christian BruggerE.“Human Cloning, Theology of the Body And the Humanity of the Embryo,”The Linacre Quarterly71 (2004): 232–244, especially 234. The terminological distinction between reproductive and therapeutic cloning is a semantic ruse, as every instance of human cloning is a true reproductive act. That is to say, the intended purpose of this research is to produce a new human being with human embryonic stem cells. After all, the specific aim of these studies is to assess the regenerative possibilities of totipotent hESCs.
3.
When researchers at Advanced Cell Technology claimed to have used cloned ESCs from a cow to create a nascent kidney, they actually implanted the clone blastocyst into a cow's uterus, allowed the blastocyst to gestate for several weeks until the fetus formed a kidney, and then harvested the new kidney for transplantation. So, rather being than an example of therapeutic cloning, a cloned fetus was killed in order to harvest a nascent organ for transplantation. See LanzaRobert P., ChungHo Yun, YooJames J., WettsteinPeter J., BlackwellCatherine, BorsonNancy, HofmeisterErik, SchuchGunter, SokerShay, MoraesCarlos T., WestMichael D., & AtalaAnthony“Generation of Histocompatible Tissue Using Nuclear Transplantation,”Nature Biotechnology20 (2002): 689–696.
4.
The National Academies, “Guidelines Released for Embryonic Stem Cell Research,” at http://www.nationalacademies.org (emphasis added). The Guidelines also suggest that grafted pig porcine heart valves represent an instance of a porcine–human chimera, whereas a true chimera is an entire organism composed of two genetically distinct types of cells resulting from the fusion of two early blastula stage embryos. The more likely scenario here entails recourse to SNCT, in which the DNA of a human somatic cell is transferred to an animal oocyte, with the distinct possibility that animal mitochondrial DNA could enter the cloned genome, certainly an unintended consequence.
5.
National Research Council and the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies, Prepublication Copy of Guidelines for Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research (Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2005), p. 41. This is available at http://www.nap.edu. This is a good example of the myth of romantic humanism, which puts faith in technological progress to solve human problems and leads to the desire for control over human nature. That this represents a kind of religion is evidenced by the fact that scientists seem to envision themselves as Promethean creators endowed with the capacity to surpass every natural or cultural limitation in order to move us into an open future. See Benedict M. Ashley, Choosing A World-View and Value-System: An Ecumenical Apologetics (New York: Alba House, 1999), pp. 50-51.
6.
FukuyamaFrancisOur Posthuman Future (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2002), p. 7.
7.
PaulJohnIIThe Gospel of Life [Evangelium Vitae] (New York: Times Books, 1995), Chapter III, no. 57.5, p. 102.
8.
Guidelines for Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research (Washington. DC: The National Academies Press, 2005), p. 39(emphasis added).
Guidelines for Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research (Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2005), p. 41.
11.
KassLeonLife, Liberty and she Defense of Dignity: The Challenge for Bioethics (San Francisco: Encounter Books, 2002), p. 17.
12.
AnscombeSee G. E. M.“Modern Moral Philosophy,”Philosophy33 (1958): 1.
13.
See FreyRaymond G.“Act-Utilitarianism,” in LaFolletteH. (ed.), The Blackwell Guide so Ethical Theory (Maiden: Blackwell, 2000), p. 174; David Sobel, “Subjective Accounts of Reasons for Action,” Ethics 111 (2002): 461-492.
14.
From BrockDan W.“Cloning Human Beings: An Assessment of the Ethical Issues Pro and Con,” in NussbaumM. C., SunsteinC. R. (eds.), Clones and Clones: Facts and Fantasies about Human Cloning (New York: and London: W. W. Norton, 1998), pp. 141–164.
15.
PutnamHilary“Taking Rules Seriously,” in ConantJ. (ed.). Realism with a Human Face (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1990), pp. 161–162
16.
TaylorCharles“Lichtung or Lebensform: Parallels between Heidegger and Wittgenstein,” in Philosophical Arguments (Cambridge/Harvard: Harvard University Press, 1995), pp. 39–40.
17.
RatzingerJoseph“Introduction to Christianity: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow,”Communio31 (2004): 481–495; citation at p. 493.
18.
DworkinRonald M.Sovereign Virtue: The Theory and Practice of Equality (Cambridge. MA: Harvard University Press, 2000), p. 452
19.
DworkinRonald M.Life's Dominion: An Argument about Abortion, Euthanasia, and Individual Freedom (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1993), pp. 15–18.
20.
See MacIntyreAlasdair“Hume on Ms' and ‘Ought’,”Philosophical Review68 (1959): 451–468.
21.
RatzingerJoseph CardinalSalt of the Earth: Christianity and the Catholic Church at the End of the Millennium (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1997), p. 230.
22.
DancyJonathanMoral Reasons (Oxford/Cambridge: Blackwell, 1993), p. 237.
23.
See CostelloAndrew“The Thinker,”Philadelphia (March 1994): 74–83.
24.
O'ConnellTimothy E.Principles for a Catholic Morality (New York: Seabury, 1978), p. 172.
25.
Cf. LeePatrickAbortion and Unborn Human Life (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1996), p. 140.
26.
WeissRick, and NelsonDeborah“Teen Dies Undergoing Experimental Gene Therapy,”The Washington Post. September 29, 1999, A1.
27.
See RawlsJohnA Theory of Justice (Oxford: Clarendon Press/Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1972), pp. 46–51.
28.
HareR.M.“Rawls Theory of Justice – I,”Philosophical Quarterly23 (1973): 144–147.
29.
Taken from the National Catholic Register81 (May 22-28, 2005): 10.
30.
HaeckerTheodorSchönheit: Ein Versuch (Leipzig: Hegner, 1936), p. 91; cf. John Saward, The Beauty of Holiness and the Holiness of Beauty: Art, Sanctity and the Truth of Catholicism (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1997), pp. 32-37.
