Copyright 2001 The Denver Post Corporation  
The Denver Post
December 6, 2001 Thursday 2D EDITION
SECTION: DENVER & THE WEST; Pg. B-01

LENGTH: 592 words

HEADLINE: Cloning: What's big deal?

BYLINE: Eric Hubler ,

BODY:
My wife and children flew to see relatives for Thanksgiving  while I stayed in Denver to work.

That's why I'm in favor of human cloning. I think.

The way I see it, if my wife or I died right now, it'd be a  shame but, in the scheme of things, no biggie. (Sorry, honey.)  Both in our late 30s, we are in what we assume to be the early  years of great careers. Neither of us has yet come close to  fulfilling our potential.

Yet we've already lived much longer, and achieved way more,  than most of our ancestors. Anything extra is gravy. (Brown gravy.  White gravy is just creepy.)

If those kids should die, however, it'd be a crime against  humanity. My son digs drawing and just might be another Degas. My  daughter, already a highly skilled pain in the butt, could become  a lawyer and prosecute terrorists.

Suppose a lock of my daughter's gorgeous blond ringlets, or a  swab from my son's potty mouth, stored and then mined for its DNA  in the event of a tragedy, could bring my children back to life.

No, that's not right. The clones wouldn't be Noah and Maddie.  They would be their twins, with their own names, their own  identities, their own lives. They would be no odder, no more an  affront to nature, than any multiple birth.

Is that playing God?

Yeah. So what? Every act of medical intervention is playing  God to some degree. We got past sperm donation and egg donation  and in-vitro fertilization and surrogate motherhood. Remember when  we feared the products of those techniques would be monsters?

Well, they are. They're called children.

Regardless of who carried them as fetuses, my natural  children's clones would be unambiguously the offspring of my wife  and myself. I can imagine no justification for denying them birth  certificates, Social Security numbers or library cards. (Could we  maybe prevent them from getting driver's licenses, however?)

As these hypothetical children grew, they'd see pictures of,  and have questions about, their twins. Answering those questions  would be no harder than answering any of the tough questions kids  pose.

The fear that cloning disrespects the sanctity of life is  misplaced. Like any medical technology, from X-rays to a dentist's  drill, it can be used for good or for evil. Keeping my family  alive, I think I would argue if I were ever in that situation,  would be good.

Besides, we 'play God' every time we take an aspirin or go in  for surgery. Being in favor of medicine but against cloning is  inconsistent.

The only people who have a consistent anti-medicine attitude  are Christian Scientists and a few other like-minded groups.  (There are even Jewish Scientists. That's right - Jewish mothers  who want their boys to grow up to be anything but doctors!) To  them, all medicine is off limits. If our bodies are good enough  for God, then, by God, they're good enough for us.

I disagree with this position but admire its consistency. If  you're going to espouse a belief, then really go for it. If you're  against cloning, you should also be against heart transplants and  Bufferin.

Like everyone else, I'm scared of cloning because of 'The  Boys From Brazil' and a few unsupportive 'Star Trek' plot lines.  In the end, however, I can't see why it'd be any worse than any  other medical miracle.

Columnist Diane Carman is on vacation. Education reporter  Eric Hubler is filling in. He can be reached at 303-820-1592 or  ehubler@denverpost.com.

LOAD-DATE: December 07, 2001