Genetic Cloning And Its Religious Ethics

The paper I chose to write a rebuttal on focuses on genetic cloning and its religious ethics. The basis of this article is that cloning a human being is wrong and scientists should know better to do so. The author argues, just because we can do something does not mean we should. Many people reference the bible as stating God created everything and if we clone living biological entities, then we are assuming the role of God and creating life. In this article, the author makes the point that God is the father of all life and life starts in the womb. That is the only way life should begin. Although this article starts out fairly, non-objective, that changes quite dramatically by the end of the article. I will be going over some of the key points of this article and identifying why I think this article is biased and based on feeling and not on fact. This article tends to focus more on the potential negative aspects of cloning and not the positive ones.

This article does a good job of explaining what cloning is and what the basic principles are. This article begins by talking about cloning and talking about the famed sheep clone Dolly. The article quickly takes a turn in the negative by comparing the process to "Dr. Frankenstein". The author makes the point that in the case of Dolly, although Dolly was a genetic clone, the process of creating the clone involved using DNA and transplanting it into the sheep so that it gives birth to a genetic copy. The author claims that this is ok because the birthing still took place inside the womb of a living creature. However later in the article, the author makes the point that in the bible it states that a child should be the product of a husband and wife. Does this very statement not contradict the other? By this logic not only is genetic cloning wrong, but artificial insemination would also go against the bible, that however is a completely different topic in itself. Although this method of cloning is acceptable, other methods according to the author are not. Again this very statement seems to contradict itself, this tells us that cloning is not wrong just the means in which scientist clone living beings? Next the author ventures into the future of cloning and how ultimately if scientist clone a human, then it tarnishes the value of life. Scientists will simply clone people for spare parts to use and throw away as needed. Although the author does not agree with cloning humans, he feels it is ok to clone animals for livestock and dairy. Does this not also in a sense tarnish the value of life? It may not tarnish the value of human life, but by the same logic, that the author proposes it seems to place less value on the lives of the animals. The author uses an example of the atomic bomb to compare how science can go wrong. He uses classic scare tactics that a foreign power could blast us into nothingness at any moment because scientific