Destructive experimentation on human embryos, and even well-developed human fetuses, is now widely practiced in many of the world's most technologically developed (and spiritually senile) nations.
Until now, most governments have simply turned a blind eye to the deliberate killing of embryonic human beings.
Until now, the embryonic children created by in vitro fertilization were created with the intent that at least some would survive to maturity. Each new life began with at least some chance (about two percent, on average) that he or she would selected for implantation and survive to birth. It was only the "excess" or "defective" who were selected to die for the sake of advancing scientific knowledge about embryonic human life.
But on December 19, 2000, the world slid down another section of the slippery slope of our own dehumanization. On that day, at the behest of Prime Minister Tony Blair, the British Parliament passed legislation to allow the cloning of human beings under the strict provision that ALL of these cloned human beings MUST be killed.
This law moves the British government away from being a passive observer of the killing of innocent unborn children into being a direct regulator of the killings. Under the new law, human lives may be created using cloning technology only when the creators agree, under threat of the law, to destroy the embryonic child.
Through this "compromise" legislation, which forbids the carrying to term of cloned children, the government hopes to clear the path for British scientists to be at the forefront of research into eugenic human engineering. In fact, this compromise is a condition that eugenicists gladly embrace—at least for the time being.
These government ordered killings are being disguised as regulations for "therapeutic cloning." But exactly for whom is this scientific research "therapeutic?" Not for the cloned human embryo. Not for the donor of the genes that are cloned. Not for anyone. No, the word "therapeutic" is simply being attached to this dead-end cloning to suggest that this research has some imminent medical value.
Furthermore, it is most notable that these experiments will contribute little or nothing to our understanding of basic biology that could not be learned equally as well from the use of animal tissues. But, then, experiments in human cloning are not really about advancing science at all, though they are being defended under that guise.
The real goal behind the push for human cloning is to further desensitize the public to the manipulation and destruction of human embryos. This is an important step in the eugenicists' march toward establishing complete "quality control" over human procreation. It is another step, in science and in the law, toward the annihilation of that old Judeo-Christian ethic which regards all human life as sacred.
In passing its "therapeutic cloning" law, the British Parliament has clearly rejected the old ethic and is standing squarely on the side of the eugenicists' "new ethic." According to this new ethic, human life is simply "complex biological matter" that can be manipulated—and discarded—at will. It is an ethic that inevitably leads to a totalitarian mentality that seeks to create a utopian "Brave New World" by controlling who is allowed to be born into the world and how quickly the sick and "unfit" are targeted to leave the world.
Do not underestimate the historical importance of this event. In clearing the path for human cloning, the British government has clearly become an advocate of the new ethic built on the premise of defining ourselves as unsacred human animals.
Furthermore, in creating the mandate that all human clones shall be used only for experimental purposes that must end in their destruction, the British government has established a new precedent for human segregation.
Under British law, genetically engineered human beings do not have the same rights and protections as other human beings. This will be an important precedent as eugenicists begin to pursue the recommendations of Joseph Fletcher, among others, regarding the creation of human-animal hybrids and brainless organ donors.
G. K. Chesterton, the British wit who was always a thorn in the side of the early eugenics movement, once quipped: "Morality is like art. Somewhere you need to draw a line."
Chesterton saw to the heart of the matter. In the last fifty years, in vitro fertilization, contraception, abortion, mercy killing, managed health care, and genetic engineering have all blurred the boundaries that once defined society's understanding of procreation and death. Now, with the acceptance of "therapeutic cloning," another line defending a sacred view of human life is being erased. Soon, nothing will stand in the way of the eugenicists' new ethic.
But there is still hope. The old ethic, the view that life is sacred, is still held by the vast majority of "normal" folk. It is long past time for those who believe in the sacredness of life to speak up, to act, and to vigorously resist the advances of this new ethic.
May God save us all. The eugenicists won't; they will only save the "best."