一、克隆人違背了倫理學的不傷害原則

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

傷害了被克隆者。被克隆的是另外一個個體，這個個體是與克隆的原體完全獨立的另外一個行為主體，這個主體受到了傷害。受到了什么傷害呢？首先從技術(shù)可能性的情況來看，我們無法預知，如果對某一種在功能上與其他基因緊密相連的基因進行干預性改變，生物體內(nèi)的這種自然的相互牽制的系統(tǒng)會發(fā)生何種連鎖反應。而根據(jù)目前掌握的知識，要想將人類基因組的所有基因重新進行準確的排列，并使之正常的發(fā)揮作用，是根本不可能做到的。恰恰是這一點構(gòu)成了人們反對克隆人的一個重要理據(jù)。因為誰也無法排除這樣一種風險：克隆技術(shù)很有可能導致大量的流產(chǎn)與殘障嬰兒。

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、克隆人違背了倫理學的自主原則

2、 Human cloning violates the autonomy principle of ethics

克隆人活動往往發(fā)生在下述情況中：比如，某對夫婦在事故中失去了獨生子，他們希望他重獲“新生”，于是便通過克隆技術(shù)再制造一個孩子，其身體中的絕大部分基因組是先前那個孩子的基因組的復制。這樣盡管父母在一定程度上滿足了某種欲望，但這整個行為方式對于被復制的孩子而言卻意味著一種外來的決定，它將該兒童本屬于偶然性的那部分自由（所謂自主原則，就體現(xiàn)在這種自由上）剝奪了，而人的一個最重要的本質(zhì)特性，就體現(xiàn)在他的不可重復的獨特性上。德國著名哲學家憂那思說，人的一個特殊的優(yōu)先權(quán)就在于，每個人都有其自身的不可重復的特性。上述的那對夫婦因為太喜歡第一個孩子，就不生第二個孩子，而是克隆第二個孩子，生出的第二個孩子可能與第一個孩子的外形都不太一樣，而克隆出來的卻與第一個孩子沒有太大差別，等于是讓他“新生了”?？梢姷诙€孩子完全是為了服從于父母的某種意圖，作為父母的一個工具，父母通過他想起他們失去的那個孩子。而被克隆者作為人應享有的獨特性便被剝奪了，他的那種不必非要有一個比他大30或60歲的同體同貌者的自由，便被粗暴地踐踏了。英國有一個管理人工授精的機構(gòu)，叫做人工受孕與胚胎學管理局，竟然打算允許患耳聾的父母在試管嬰兒的培育中，有權(quán)按照自己的意志選擇耳聾的胎兒，而淘汰掉健康的胚胎。他們覺得都處于耳聾狀態(tài)，便有利于交流、培育，而英國皇家聾人研究所的發(fā)言人竟然說，這樣一種選擇是合適的，我們支持這樣的選擇。假如人們都完全可以按照自己的意志設計和培育后代，那么什么恐怖的事情都可能發(fā)生。耳聾的父母選擇生下耳聾的胎兒，而這個胎兒很可能希望自己是一個健康人，但這已經(jīng)做不到了。他作為一個人所天然應有的一種開放的前途的權(quán)利被粗暴否定掉了。這當然違背了倫理學的一個最基本的原則。

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、克隆人違背了倫理學的平等原則

3、 Human cloning violates the principle of equality in ethics

在克隆活動中，存在一個設計者與被設計者的關(guān)系。在克隆人活動中，未來人類的基因配置是由父母、醫(yī)生或國家決定的，而個體的人僅僅是前者所決定與創(chuàng)造的結(jié)果。我們知道，設計是以設計者為前提的，一個有著設計者與被設計者之別的人類圖景，對于平等原則是一種基本的違背。因為人們無法回答憑什么他自己或者任何別的一個人有權(quán)作為未來人類特征與品性的設計者。顯然這里存在著一種“道德優(yōu)越感”，似乎我們，或者說一個醫(yī)生、哲學家、國家的行政長官擁有著一種控制他人的實力。然而這種心態(tài)不單是荒謬的，而且在政治上也是非常危險的。

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.

中國已明確反對克隆人，但對于把克隆技術(shù)應用于人體醫(yī)學技術(shù)領(lǐng)域，則給予切實的支持?！?/p>

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. "