我看克隆

一、克隆人违背了伦理学的不伤害原则

1、 Human cloning violates the principle of no harm in ethics

伤害了被克隆者。被克隆的是另外一个个体，这个个体是与克隆的原体完全独立的另外一个行为主体，这个主体受到了伤害。受到了什么伤害呢？首先从技术可能性的情况来看，我们无法预知，如果对某一种在功能上与其他基因紧密相连的基因进行干预性改变，生物体内的这种自然的相互牵制的系统会发生何种连锁反应。而根据目前掌握的知识，要想将人类基因组的所有基因重新进行准确的排列，并使之正常的发挥作用，是根本不可能做到的。恰恰是这一点构成了人们反对克隆人的一个重要理据。因为谁也无法排除这样一种风险：克隆技术很有可能导致大量的流产与残障婴儿。

Hurt the clones. The cloned is another individual, which is completely independent of the cloned protoplasm, and the subject is harmed. What harm did you get? First of all, from the perspective of technical possibility, we can't predict what kind of chain reaction will occur in the natural system of mutual control in the organism if an intervention change is made to a gene that is closely related to other genes in function. According to the current knowledge, it is impossible to rearrange all genes of human genome accurately and make them work normally. It is precisely this that constitutes an important argument against human cloning. Because no one can rule out the risk that cloning is likely to lead to a large number of miscarriages and disabled babies.

二、克隆人违背了伦理学的自主原则

2、 Human cloning violates the autonomy principle of ethics

克隆人活动往往发生在下述情况中：比如，某对夫妇在事故中失去了独生子，他们希望他重获“新生”，于是便通过克隆技术再制造一个孩子，其身体中的绝大部分基因组是先前那个孩子的基因组的复制。这样尽管父母在一定程度上满足了某种欲望，但这整个行为方式对于被复制的孩子而言却意味着一种外来的决定，它将该儿童本属于偶然性的那部分自由（所谓自主原则，就体现在这种自由上）剥夺了，而人的一个最重要的本质特性，就体现在他的不可重复的独特性上。德国著名哲学家忧那思说，人的一个特殊的优先权就在于，每个人都有其自身的不可重复的特性。上述的那对夫妇因为太喜欢第一个孩子，就不生第二个孩子，而是克隆第二个孩子，生出的第二个孩子可能与第一个孩子的外形都不太一样，而克隆出来的却与第一个孩子没有太大差别，等于是让他“新生了”。可见第二个孩子完全是为了服从于父母的某种意图，作为父母的一个工具，父母通过他想起他们失去的那个孩子。而被克隆者作为人应享有的独特性便被剥夺了，他的那种不必非要有一个比他大30或60岁的同体同貌者的自由，便被粗暴地践踏了。英国有一个管理人工授精的机构，叫做人工受孕与胚胎学管理局，竟然打算允许患耳聋的父母在试管婴儿的培育中，有权按照自己的意志选择耳聋的胎儿，而淘汰掉健康的胚胎。他们觉得都处于耳聋状态，便有利于交流、培育，而英国皇家聋人研究所的发言人竟然说，这样一种选择是合适的，我们支持这样的选择。假如人们都完全可以按照自己的意志设计和培育后代，那么什么恐怖的事情都可能发生。耳聋的父母选择生下耳聋的胎儿，而这个胎儿很可能希望自己是一个健康人，但这已经做不到了。他作为一个人所天然应有的一种开放的前途的权利被粗暴否定掉了。这当然违背了伦理学的一个最基本的原则。

Human cloning often occurs in the following situations: for example, a couple lost their only child in an accident, they want him to regain "new life", so they create a child through cloning technology, and most of the genome in the body is a copy of the gene group of the previous child. In this way, although the parents satisfy some desires to some extent, the whole behavior means a kind of foreign decision for the copied child, which deprives the part of freedom that belongs to contingency (the so-called principle of autonomy is embodied in this freedom), and one of the most important essential characteristics of man is his unique and unrepeatable nature Sex. According to the famous German philosopher Janus, one of the special priorities of human beings is that everyone has its own unique and unrepeatable characteristics. Because the above-mentioned couple like the first child too much, they will not have a second child, but clone the second child. The second child may not have the same appearance as the first child, but the cloned child does not have much difference from the first child, which means that they "give birth". It can be seen that the second child is totally to obey the parents' certain intention. As a tool of parents, parents think of the lost child through him. And the uniqueness that the cloned person should enjoy as a human being is deprived. His kind of freedom that does not have to have a 30-year-old or 60-year-old identical person is roughly trampled. There is an institution in the UK that administers artificial insemination, called the artificial conception and Embryology administration, which intends to allow deaf parents to choose deaf foetuses according to their own will in the cultivation of in vitro babies, and to eliminate healthy embryos. They feel that being deaf is conducive to communication and cultivation. However, a spokesman for the Royal Institute for the deaf said that such a choice is appropriate and we support it. If people can design and nurture their offspring according to their own will, then anything terrible can happen. Deaf parents choose to give birth to a deaf fetus, and the fetus is likely to want to be a healthy person, but this has not been done. His right to an open future as a man's natural right has been roughly denied. This of course violates one of the most basic principles of ethics.

三、克隆人违背了伦理学的平等原则

3、 Human cloning violates the principle of equality in ethics

在克隆活动中，存在一个设计者与被设计者的关系。在克隆人活动中，未来人类的基因配置是由父母、医生或国家决定的，而个体的人仅仅是前者所决定与创造的结果。我们知道，设计是以设计者为前提的，一个有着设计者与被设计者之别的人类图景，对于平等原则是一种基本的违背。因为人们无法回答凭什么他自己或者任何别的一个人有权作为未来人类特征与品性的设计者。显然这里存在着一种“道德优越感”，似乎我们，或者说一个医生、哲学家、国家的行政长官拥有着一种控制他人的实力。然而这种心态不单是荒谬的，而且在政治上也是非常危险的。

In the cloning activity, there is a relationship between the designer and the designer. In human cloning activities, the future human gene allocation is determined by parents, doctors or the state, while individual human is only the result of the former. We know that design is based on the designer. A human picture with the designer and the designer is a basic violation of the principle of equality. Because people can't answer why they or anyone else have the right to be the designers of human characteristics and character in the future. Obviously, there is a sense of "moral superiority" here. It seems that we, or a doctor, philosopher, or the chief executive of a country, have the power to control others. However, this mentality is not only absurd, but also very dangerous politically.

中国已明确反对克隆人，但对于把克隆技术应用于人体医学技术领域，则给予切实的支持。”

China has clearly opposed human cloning, but it will give practical support to the application of cloning technology in the field of human medical technology. "