8 I certainly don't subscribe to the view that whatever technology permits us to do we ought to do. Nor do I subscribe to the view that the Constitution necessarily guarantees every individual the right to reproduce through whatever means become technically possible.
9 Rather, my concern is that the very decision to use the law to condemn, and then outlaw, patterns of human reproduction -- especially by appealing to vague notions of what is "natural" -- is at least as dangerous as the technologies such a decision might be used to control.
10 Human cloning has been condemned by some of its most articulate opponents as the ultimate embodiment of the sexual revolution, separating sex from the creation of babies and treating gender and sexuality as socially constructed.
11 But to ban cloning as furthering what some see as culturally distressing trends may, in the end, lend support to strikingly similar objections to surrogate motherhood.
12 Equally scary, when appeals to the natural, or to religious laws, lead to the criminalization of some method for creating human babies, we must come to terms with the inevitable: the prohibition will not be airtight.
13 (2) Just as was true of bans on abortion and on sex outside marriage, bans on human cloning are bound to be hard to enforce. And that, in turn, requires us to think in terms of a class of potential outcasts -- people whose very existence society will have chosen to label as a misfortune and, in essence, to condemn.
14 One need only think of the long struggle to overcome the stigma of "illegitimacy" for the children of unmarried parents. (3) How much worse might be the plight of being judged morally incomplete by virtue of one's man-made origin?
15 There are some black markets (in drugs, for instance) that may be worth risking when the evils of legalization would be even worse. But when what we prohibit takes the form of human beings, the stakes become enormous.
16 There are few evils as grave as that of creating a caste system, one in which an entire category of persons, while perhaps not labeled untouchable, is treated as not fully human.
17 And even if one could enforce a ban on cloning, or at least insure that clones would not be a mistreated caste, the social costs of prohibition could still be high. For the arguments supporting a rigid prohibition of cloning are most likely to rest on, and reinforce, the notion that it is unnatural and wrong to cut the conventional links between marriage and the creation and upbringing of new life.
18 Moreover, a society that bans acts of human creation for no better reason than that their particular form defies nature and tradition is a society that risks cutting itself off from vital experimentation, thus losing a significant part of its capacity to grow. (4) If human cloning is to be banned, then, the reasons had better be far more compelling than any thus far advanced.