The last objection focuses both on the technology of human reproductive cloning and the nature and characteristics of human clones. This “safety objection” holds that reproductive cloning is unsafe for participants and produces children with serious birth defects.

I do not believe that safety concerns are the primary force motivating public and political opposition to cloning and human clones. If safety were the main concern, legislators and regulators would not frequently cite the first four objections to justify a complete ban on reproductive cloning. Nor would advisory committees and councils have devoted countless hours and hundreds of pages to the analysis of the first four objections.

Moreover, if safety were the main concern, federal and state governments would have treated reproductive cloning (a potential treatment for infertility) very differently. Typically, promising but unperfected medical treatments, devices, and drugs are regulated but are not prohibited. Through medical licensing and tort law, state governments prevent unqualified and careless practitioners from applying new treatments to patients too quickly. Through funding and related regulations, the federal government seeks to promote the safety of clinical trials. Through the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the federal government controls but does not block the entry of new drugs and medical devices into the marketplace. Instead of taking this moderate approach, state legislatures have criminalized reproductive cloning, presidents have blocked federal funding for cloning experiments, and the FDA has asserted that it will not allow cloning experiments.