The year 2003

started with a word on the tips of everyone's tongues cloning.

A strange religious

group, the Raelians, has come forward and said that the first cloned human

was born recently and that five more clones around the world will be born

before the end of the month. I say the Raelians are strange because they

believe the human race was created by aliens 25,000 years ago through

the use of cloning. I guess all creation stories are a little odd but

I have a hard time believing the alien thing. If this is true, how come

Rael, the founder guy, was the first one to come forward with this info

and he only got it in the 1970s at a volcano in France?

But I digress.

The column this week isn't about weirdo religious groups but rather about

cloning. Is it good or is it bad? I did some research about cloning and

found out some rather interesting things.

For instance,

according to the Web site, New Scientist, snails and shrimp reproduce

through cloning. That's right, the next time you dip some shrimp into

some butter sauce and then pop it in your mouth, you can say, "Mmmm,

that was clonicious." One species of shrimp, the Artemia perthenogenetica,

has survived over 30 million years thanks to cloning. That's 29 million,

975 thousand years before the aliens came and created humanity.

New Scientist

had a frequently-asked-questions section about cloning that would help

assuage people of their cloning fears. One person asked if some madman

could clone Hitler and was told that yes, theoretically, it would be possible.

However, the cloned Hitler would be in a different womb environment than

the real Hitler was and would also have a different upbringing so he would

most likely not be a genocidal maniac.

You see, cloned

Hitler would not flunk out of art school (you ever hear of an art student

flunking out these days?), nor would he blame the Jews for his misfortunes.

If anything, cloned Hitler would strike back against the people who made

him. Imagine, cloned Hitler destroying the neo-Nazis. By the way, this

column is copyrighted and I will sue if anyone turns that idea into a

movie.

Another person

asked if clones had souls or if the soul of a clone was less than that

of a natural baby. New Scientist answered that identical twins and test

tube babies have normal souls, so why should a clone be any different?

Gregory E. Pence, a professor at the University of Alabama at Birmingham,

also feels that clones would have regular souls because children of mixed

race, surrogate, and unmarried parents as well as parents that used in

vitro fertilization do not have soulless children.

Pence went

on to dispel more hurtful myths about cloning, including one that feels

that clones from the same genotype would share a secret empathy and/or

communication, like the children in "Village of the Damned."

He also said that scientists that are working on cloning are not evil

and are not interested in the science to clone armies. He also went on

to say that if cloning is defined as a new form of reproduction, it is

constitutionally protected. All forms of reproduction, including the right

to not reproduce, can't be abridged by the government.

Humancloning.org

also had a list of reasons why they felt cloning was a good thing. They

feel that if the science is allowed to develop it may lead to medical

breakthroughs, including a cure for cancer, as well as a cure for infertility

and a way to save endangered species.

Now, not everyone

is so keen on cloning. On the Web site Bioethics.com, there was a lot

of debate. Author Glenn McGee called for a short term ban on cloning because

everyone needsed to know more about cloning before informed decisions

could be made. He stated that 80 percent of Americans don't approve of

cloning because of what he calls the "yuck factor." He feels

that after a time the ban could be lifted, as all bans are.

Other sites

did not share McGee's accepting but cautious view. Globalchange.com stressed

that with cloning there would be genetic deformities and monsterism. They

are afraid that babies will be born with 30-year-old genes in them. More

distressing was this example concerning a couple raising a clone of the

wife. The clone grows up, struggling with her identity (unlike every other

child growing up) and when she turns 18, her father, seeing the woman

that he fell in love with so many years ago, can't help but want to make

love to her and because she is just a clone (and not a child he has raised

since birth), it is not incest. Methinks they are worried about a 90 year

old Woody Allen wanting Soon-Yi's clone.

Another group,

CATCH, the Coalition Against The Cloning of Humans, is worried that evildoers

will want to be cloned and then would force the clone to follow in his

or her evil footsteps. They ask the reader, "Would you want to be

Hannibal Lecter's clone?"

So, to clone

or not to clone, that is the question. Well, Clonaid says they have a

list of 2,000 people around the world willing to pay $200,000 to clone

themselves or a loved one. I say let them. They want a baby, this is a

way to get a baby and the world can't have enough parents who are ready

to love and care for a child. One can't tell the difference between a

natural baby and a test tube baby and I assume that determining a clone

baby from a normal baby won't be any easier, so people should just relax

and treat all children the same.

As of right

now, there is no proof that these babies are actually clones and there

is also no proof that they are in physical danger from genetic deformities

or pain. Let them live with their parents and grow up like you were allowed

to do. Clones aren't coming to take over the world and nobody is going

to clone you in your sleep without you knowing it.

Our alien forefathers

would never allow that.

Back

to the Top of the Page