|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Last week, APR contacted Alabama state Rep. Phillip Rigsby, R-District 25, to better understand HB380 — a bill he has introduced to outlaw human cloning in the state.
Rigsby’s bill provides specific definitions for what constitutes human cloning and looks to establish the practice of human cloning as a Class C felony under Alabama statute. Importantly, HB380 “does not apply to in vitro fertilization, the administration of fertility-enhancing drugs, or other procedures used to assist a woman in becoming or remaining pregnant,” nor does it outlaw the cloning of “tissues, organs, plants, or animals other than humans.”
Rigsby told APR that he was inspired to write the bill after attending a bioethics conference.
“After attending a conference on bioethics, I researched the cloning law that Alabama had compared to other states. Alabama did not have any statutes that defined or regulated human cloning. HB380 was modeled after legislation passed in other states,” Rigsby wrote in an emailed response.
“My primary concern is the preservation of human dignity and the valuing of human life,” he continued. “Most people believe that human cloning is still movie science fiction. However, genetic scientists have already been successful at cloning other animals. A quick search proves that human cloning is probably not far off.”
Currently, several states — like Arkansas and Michigan — have implemented explicit bans on all forms of human cloning. Other states have partial or indirect bans that outlaw certain aspects of the practice or prohibit the use of state funds for cloning. Rigsby explained why he thinks a total ban on human cloning should be implemented in Alabama.
“I do not want to see the gift of human reproduction to become a commodification of human life, which would diminish the inherent dignity and uniqueness of individuals. There are also ethical and moral concerns that become very blurred when we follow down the path of human cloning. Many questions need to be addressed and answered,” he stated.
“Scientifically, cloning has a well-documented history of inefficiency and risk,” Rigsby continued. “High failure rates, severe genetic abnormalities, and unpredictable long-term health effects make it not only unsafe but also morally indefensible. From a societal perspective, cloning could lead to unprecedented legal and ethical dilemmas. Questions of identity, parental rights, and the treatment of cloned individuals would challenge our existing legal frameworks, creating a host of issues.”
Rigsby believes that the reality of human cloning may not be as distant as some might think and that it could be a viable scientific practice in just a handful of years.
“The first successful cloning was accomplished in a sheep in 1996. Since then, cattle, pigs, dogs, cats, horses, and monkeys have all been successfully cloned. While the process has not yet been accomplished in humans, I would think with science and technological advancement happening at a rapid pace, it may only be a few years until a viable human cloning could be successful,” he wrote.
Rigsby added that he could not imagine any instances of human cloning that might be worth exploring or exempting from his ban.
“HB380 protects human dignity and helps to put guardrails around a quickly developing science. By passing legislation to ban human cloning, we are not rejecting the scientific process—we are ensuring that progress remains grounded in ethics, responsibility, and respect for human life,” Rigsby stated.
“While scientific advancements should be encouraged, they must align with ethical and moral principles, and issues addressing public safety,” he concluded. “By passing this legislation, we uphold the value of human life, protect against exploitation, and ensure that science remains a force for good in our society.”
Rigsby is not alone in calling for a preemptive ban on human cloning. Many medical experts have long rejected the notion of reproductive human cloning, with several articles published in opposition to the practice.
However, an important distinction must be made between reproductive and therapeutic cloning — the former being the wholesale asexual recreation of a human individual and the latter being the use of a cloned embryo to produce embryonic stem cells for the purpose of researching diseases and novel medical treatments.
Several prominent medical organizations, including the American Osteopathic Association, reject reproductive cloning but recognize therapeutic human cloning as an effective and important vein of medical research. Just last year, the French Parliament passed a law authorizing research using human embryos but banning reproductive human cloning, citing the latter as a “crime against the human species.”
While experts make an effort to debate the ethics of reproductive and therapeutic cloning separately, Rigsby’s bill does not, and looks to ban all forms of human cloning entirely. Under HB380, any artificial duplication of a human embryo would be considered cloning, regardless of the intent. Additionally, the shipping, transfer or receipt of genetic material to be used in human cloning would also be considered a violation of the law according to Rigsby’s bill.
HB380 is currently awaiting discussion by the Alabama House Judiciary Committee.
