At last year's U.N. Conference on Racism in Durban, South Africa, the "Contribution of the Holy See" closed with the disturbing specter of the "risk of a new form of racism," one presented most compellingly by the prospect of human cloning. The Contribution warned that techniques of "artificial procreation, the use of ‘superfluous embryos,' [and] so-called therapeutic cloning … could lead to the creation of a ‘subcategory of human beings,' destined basically for the convenience of certain others." This, they argue, would be "a new and terrible form of slavery. Regrettably, it cannot be denied

that the temptation of eugenics is still latent, especially if powerful commercial interests exploit it."

Cloning is now often referred to as "somatic cell nuclear transfer" (SCNT). To clone, researchers must obtain an oocyte (a woman's reproductive cell) and remove the nucleus (which contains most of the genes, and directions for function). Then, a cell (say, a skin cell) is taken from the body of a different adult. Since it comes from the body it's referred to as a "somatic" cell. The nucleus of this skin cell is removed and injected or "transferred" into the enucleated oocyte. Stimulated with an electrical charge, the combined materials from the two different cells fuse.

The oocyte realizes that it now has a full complement of DNA (instead of the half that it has on its own) and it begins to act as if it's been fertilized. It begins to divide and grow as an embryo. At this point, two things might happen. The embryo could be implanted into a woman's uterus and brought to term. Or it could be used for research. Either way, one has cloned a human.

Currently three pieces of legislation that will determine what, if any, of the above is legal, are competing for votes in the U.S. Senate. One bill calls for a comprehensive ban on human cloning.

Alternative bills try to distinguish between the purposes to which cloning is put. They would permit scientists to use SCNT to create human clones in their labs, to use them for research and as a source of stem cells. This application of cloning is referred to as "research" cloning or "therapeutic" cloning. But it would ban implanting such an embryo in a womb (or carrying the embryo to term), to prevent what some call "reproductive" cloning.

Supporters of "therapeutic cloning" claim that if we are to realize the promise of human embryonic stem cell research (ESC) for the millions of people who suffer from Parkinson's, diabetes, ALS, spinal cord injury, and so on, patients will need embryos that match their own individual tissues. But to create a therapy for a patient, the patient will first need to be cloned and the clone killed to obtain his or her stem cells. Many prominent scientists admit that the therapeutic promise of human ESC research is overstated and several have acknowledged that cloning is not feasible, given the preliminary nature of the work, the low efficiency rates and the high rates of genetic deformity in cloned animals. In addition to all this, astounding clinical successes using the patient’s own adult cells demonstrate that superior alternatives exist.

The current rhetoric surrounding ESC research and human cloning sadly fits the classic understanding of racism, that particular groups of human beings are excluded from the political and moral community on the basis of perceived differences. Physical and other differences between humans are used as markers for exclusion. Philosophical and ideological concepts are often overlaid onto these differences to justify the resulting exclusion and exploitation.

Some philosophers have even attempted to claim that human embryos ought not to be understood as either human or alive. This is the ultimate dehumanization and discrimination, a tactic used to justify violence.

The National Bioethics Advisory Commission, in its 1999 report Ethical Issues in Human Stem Cell Research, noted a broad agreement that "human embryos deserve respect as a form of human life." They go on to recommend that "leftover" embryos can be destroyed for research or used in service of others. In effect, NBAC not only sanctions the systematic destruction of human life, but defines a class of human beings it is morally acceptable to use for our own purposes. Embryos are not the moral equivalent, NBAC argues, of full-fledged persons.

Advocates for cloning are lobbying hard to actually create a new class of human beings whose sole reason for existence is to be exploited and possibly owned, by others.

They have also learned that the way to overcome public opposition to a highly controversial new venture is to cast it in the language of therapy. Cloning advocates and eugenic futurists already anticipate human-animal hybrids, intentionally mutated human bodies developed for use only as parts, and the development of subclasses of human beings to serve as slaves for the rest.

According to Patent Watch, a patent on human reproductive cloning and any "products" created by that process, theoretically including embryos, fetuses and children, was issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in April 2001, and three additional patents on human cloning are pending. Such patents signal the penultimate form of discrimination — ownership of and profit from one group of humans by another.

Finally, apart from the embryos themselves, it will be the bodies of women that bear the greatest burden in the use of these techniques because ova are needed for the research. The practice of cloning would further the trend of thinking of our bodies in market terms.

In the end, the prospect of human cloning urges us to remember that we are neither our own creators nor our own destiny. Nor are we to be the makers, owners, or destiny of others. Hubris may lead some to make "sheep" of others through cloning, to create a subcategory of humans — exploited, enslaved and destroyed for the convenience and profit of a few. But Christians will remember that the differences that are part of the wonder of creation do not erase our essential equality before God. We are all the sheep of His flock. How we treat the least, most vulnerable, most voiceless among us is a measure not of their humanity but of our own. For what we do to them, we do unto Him.