"This person's
human dignity is fundamentally violated"? How do you figure that? If, in fact, that person's situation is in no way different than that of an identical twin, then it would seem to me that you are basing this violation on acts performed
before the child was even conceived, much less born. Isn't
Christianity big on the cleansing of
Original Sin?
These people would be treated as less than human simply because of the argument you're making here. This is at worst tautological; at best, it's a specious argument. They will be treated as they will because of the preconceptions of those who will interact with them. Thus, arguments such as these serve to essentially guarantee their ill treatment by claiming irrefutably their 'difference' from other human beings.
Different isn't what an argument says it is. Different is how you feel. If no-one tells you, or tells your friends or others, that you are a clone, you won't feel any different. If the fact is revealed to you years later and there is no social stigma attached, you might feel 'different' - but how so less than maybe an adopted child discovering their origin? What matters is how you were raised and loved; how you were taught, how you were disciplined and exhorted, how well your body functions whether from genetic or teratogenic indicators, and thousands of other things between your parents or guardians and yourself.
The origin of your genetic code, especially if it's verifiably that of one of your parent's, is completely irrelevant to the physiological and emotional development of your personality unless others around you make it relevant. Think carefully before arguing this; it smacks of 'preparing the way for discrimination.' And, lest we think it's argued for charitable purposes, remember that pity can be the worst discrimination of all.
How about if I was cloned because my parents found that their combined genomes carried an incredibly high risk of genetic disease or disorder if merged? What then? Has my 'human dignity' been violated? If these people are anyone I'd want as a parent, they would decide that the health of their child is more important than the presence of the bloodline of one of them; this decision is made every day by those using donated sperm and/or eggs, or those adopting children.
If you ask me (which I know you didn't) the attempt by other humans to decide whether I, as a person, have a soul is far more of a violation of my dignity than anything I can imagine being done to my genome other than intentional destruction.
Although I don't think this is the case here, it bothers me when people argue a position with phrases like '(x) is indeed seriously evil' and then claim that they are simply
reporting on a
higher authority's position. If you are indeed doing so, claim that at the top of the argument and
avoid subjective phraseology. If, however, you are posting something which you believe in no matter what the origin (and you state that people ask you about this, so you must believe in the answer enough to pass it on unless you're a
hypocrite, which you don't seem to be to me), then by your
acceptance and
endorsement, you have
expressed an opinion on the contents.
Finally, posting something here on Everything to inform people of a particular faith what that faith teaches is almost an oxymoron. If you're going to post it here, it's going to be argued here, with you, the poster; we're not going to launch into an email debate with the Holy See, now, are we? Finally, given the highly obviously diverse nature of this place, you must assume that anything you post is going to be evaluated from a large number of viewpoints. Note that Zanth appears quite ready for the discussion, meaning this was indeed considered.
Zanth: Thanks. Sorry for the slightly over the top reaction. I put this here to inform all who join this argument late that Zanth has behaved like a true noder in
/msg-ing for
clarification and disagreement; I'm pleased to have had the quibble!