(August 9, 2002)
Before I can give you any kind of editorial view on this profound subject, I must start with what Kryon has said. Although Kryon hasn’t used the word cloning during any channelling, he has said this: “Part of the new energy will bring you huge ethical and moral questions around brand new science. Know this, that this new science is brought to you in a quickened state so that much may be accomplished. You can use it to save or destroy—heal or kill, as in much of your technology now.
However, the new science will ride upon your increased wisdom and a higher consciousness . . . allowing you a better view of what it really means and how to proceed with it. It’s important that you understand it, not fear it, for it deals with the essence of life. Weigh it for what it is, not what you fear it is. It’s your permission to know of the Universal way of things . . . an empowerment that you have earned.”

So, basically here’s what I think Kryon is saying: Examine everything for what it is. Go slow. Be wise and mature about the science and don’t throw it out simply because it hits a cultural nerve or a religious fear button. That’s easier said than done! Just like so many pro-life/choice issues, the population will probably be split right down the middle on how to treat our newest science, one that tinkers with the parts of our life-creation process. Over and over, Kryon has indicated that we are part of the creation process, and therefore we shouldn’t look at it as an “untouchable.” See it as a miracle, respect and honor it, but proceed to understand it and own it. Then use it to heal and to stay here longer! We’re simply rediscovering how it all works. Humanity, however, has always drawn a line with these things, wondering if we’ve gone too far. That’s probably not going to change (even if the line continues to move).

I want to set the stage about biological life in general. Even within my lifetime, world cultural and religious views on the actual creation of life has changed. When I was born, life was seen as “only from God” and very mysterious . . . all life, even the single-celled kind. Creating it was something reserved exclusively for God (Spirit), and it was seen as completely unique to Earth. The idea of life of any kind on any other planet was sequestered to science fiction and wasn’t considered seriously. In addition, there were many religious arguments about how it started and developed on Earth. This was mainly between the creationists and the evolutionists and the question of what caused the “spark of life” was seen as a religious question, not necessarily a science question.

By 2002, this has changed greatly. We still honor life as precious, but suddenly there’s a revelation that it must be universal! Astronomers and biologists are convinced that we’ll eventually find it everywhere and that it’s a naturally occurring force. They even believe they’ll find it (in a microbial form) on planets and moons within our own solar system! They’ll look for it within the newly discovered potential ice fields of Mars, and also within the suspected oceans of the moons of the outer planets. Most scheduled unmanned spacecraft currently include a “life detection kit”! The subject has changed from a religious issue to a scientific issue. Of course Human life is still seen as spiritually unique, but the creation of a living organism is now starting to be seen as something that the Universe creates naturally through time, using the elements that exist everywhere. This is really a mammoth shift in scientific and religious belief, and it has gradually taken place over the last 40 years. It shows that even some of the most sacred subjects can be seen in a different light over time, or when enough generations pass to the lose the old cultural biases.

Enter cloning: a brand new science that can’t be discussed without also discussing stem cell research. The two are intertwined and use the same technology and scientific attributes. Both of them are controversial hot potatoes.

Stem cells: There will always be those who are strongly opposed or in favor of stem cell research. Any time we use embryonic cells for experimentation, there’s a cry from a huge section of the public. Even if the cells are too small to see with the naked eye, don’t represent a fertilized egg, and are scheduled to be thrown out with the trash (as in the case of some fertility labs), there’s always the looming ethical question, “Should we be tampering with potential Human life?” I’m not here to advise you what to think, but I can tell you what history has shown us.

In 1967 when Dr. Christian Barnard performed the first heart transplant in South Africa, there was a tremendous ethical outcry. Churches and religious leaders all over the earth questioned the ethical and religious aspects of transplants. “Is it right to toy with life this way?” “Would the soul of the donor have an influence with the soul of the recipient?” “Would personalities change due to the aspects of the organ donor—like if a thief was the donor, would the recipient become a thief?” There were demonstrations, and many formed groups against transplants—picketed against them—the whole deal.

Today this seems almost trite and funny, like it was the dark ages! Obviously people were afraid of a very new idea—one that was misunderstood and sounded fantastic. For the record, transplants and the ethics of donating organs is now acceptable by almost every religion on Earth, including Islamic belief, Hinduism, and even some of the ones you might never expect, such as the Mennonites and even Jehovah’s Witnesses. (You can find the beliefs of these various groups listed along with their ethics positions on transplants, on http://www.donors1.org/donation/religion.html.)

No matter what you believe about it now, my prediction is that this exact thing will eventually happen regarding stem cell research . . . that over time it will be accepted.

An update: “Therapeutic cloning” using the direct results of limited authorized stem cell research, has now been shown to work. This means infusing certain sick or diseased organs with cloned stem cells can reproduce new repaired cells without any rejection problems. It actually gives the potential of re-growing a new liver, kidney . . . yes, even a heart! (Science News — June 8, volume 161, No. 23).

Can you imagine such miracles? At the same time that this is being validated (on cows at the moment), our Congress is about to outlaw proceeding with Humans in this area. How about if we delay it instead, or slow it down? But outlawing it? What do you think?

In my opinion, the whole idea of stem cell research on embryonic material will fade. The reason is that we’ll make discoveries about alternate cell types that are not embryonic, but which will give us the same “pot of gold” attributes. The only reason embryonic materials are needed at the moment is that these cells are all “ready to go,” so to speak, with the ability to grow into any kind of Human cell in the body. They offer the most promise to heal and cure. According to Kryon (in a channelling in 2001), there are also stem cells all over the body, “lurking” and ready (even in the brain) to grow new fresh cells. Again, if you’ve followed the Kryon work, it’s all about awakening DNA to its full potential. In the process, Kryon says we will discover that these special cells are everywhere . . . ready to go. This would disarm the whole argument about using embryonic cells in testing. We wouldn’t have to.

Even if we don’t find all the “magic” outside of embryonic work, I still predict that the objections will slowly diminish as the incredible results of the research are realized. This is simply Human nature, and it also represents the kinds of ethical decisions we’ve made regarding healing in general over the years. How many are cured and saved in relationship to the ethics of learning how to do it? If it means saving countless lives, what is most ethical? It will be interesting to watch.
Human cloning: I’m on the record as being against it, but perhaps for reasons you might not expect. I don’t have big ethical objections to the biological questions. Nature produces more than 3,000 clones a day. Did you know that? They’re called identical twins. If you talk to identicals, they’ll clearly tell you that having identical biology does not create identical personalities (hardly!). One of the greatest misconceptions about potential Human clones is that they’d be exactly like the originals. It simply doesn’t happen that way, and nature has given us hundreds of years of examples to show this.

Some have asked spiritual questions: “What would the karma of a cloned Human be?” or “Would a clone have a unique soul, or the one of the original?” My answer is that God isn’t in a closet somewhere, wondering what we’re doing, about to be shocked that we might clone. A potential cloned Human would be just like an identical twin, but with some cultural drawbacks. They would have a distinct and separate soul (just like a twin), but with karmic attributes of a clone (probably ostracized at first, then perhaps famous . . . maybe even rejected by some). Just like an identical twin, a clone (carried to term and born in a normal way) would have a distinct and unique path in society . . . and would be very much “known” by God. However, I don’t want it to happen.

Why am I against it? I think that psychologically and socially, we’re not ready, and may never be. I think it would be a huge mistake to let it go forward. Think about this: A man wishes to bring his dead wife back, so he clones his wife’s image within a child he has with a new wife. Can you imagine the weird relationship the daughter and father might have? How about the new wife? You think that’s farfetched? Just wait! Something far more plausible: Consider the parents who lose their son, “Johnny.” They clone another son together. He’s not going to be Johnny, but he’s going to look exactly like Johnny. The poor kid! If he doesn’t do what the other Johnny did, what do you think might be the result? Can you imagine the expectations the parents might have of him? Add to this scenario the fact that not all parents are balanced. It could be a huge disservice to anyone born with another person’s biological lookalike imprint . . . and for what? To provide solace to the parents? I’m against it.

As far as stem cell research, I think it’s the hope of the future. I sincerely hope we go slow and allow time to produce other research sources, but at the same time have tolerance for the research to proceed as it is. If we don’t, there will come a day when our kids will be buying very expensive stem cell procedures to keep us alive, provided by huge European and Canadian companies who went ahead and developed cures after we stopped it. Then we will wonder what happened. It has the potential to become the largest group of health discoveries in history, and personally I would love to guide its attributes here in America with integrity and wisdom, instead of outlawing it and turning our back to the potentials of God-given science.

LEE CARROLL