My national Geographic

                                    By URA GODSEND

We are in a sea of revolutions. Computer technology, the space age, and now the "Genetic Revolution". We have been told about the manipulation of genes, test-tube babies, even the ability to clone ourselves in the future and the present. It is now deemed possible to clone animals that have gone extinct!12
                                    Where do we go From Here?
Cloning, the attempt to create an embryo by putting the nucleus of the body cell of one individual into the de-nucleated egg from another (female) individual may seem like the very act of creation. However, it is not creation in the true sense, because the materials used are already present. With the mercy of God the innocent child made in this fashion would have all human potential, including spirit and soul. Nevertheless, this is an area in which we have no right to intrude.
Spiritual problems often torment people, but cloning opens the door to many dramatic areas of debate. One could argue that a clone is "sub-human', or perhaps declare clones as rightless beings, for who do they belong to? Where will they live? Who do they report to? Clones are created in the same fashion as test-tube babies are, in vitro (in a petrie dish), and both involve serious moral problems. Also, though gene therapy sounds rewarding, would we go so far as to alter God's design?12
The Bible teaches that we are descendants of a fallen race, and our bodies carry the proof of that fall. That proof is in genetic defects, and we all carry several of them in each cell. There is no such thing as a perfect human being. We are as perfect as we could possibly be. A "superrace" of human is not possible, for we cannot go beyond the limits God has given us.   So whom would we clone? Surely we'd only want to propagate perfection.12
Cloning could be used to give infertile couples, gays, and lesbians children of their own. It has been said that heaven is a mother with a baby in her arms. This is said without regard as to how that baby was produced. Obviously God did not want them to be able to make children, but science has sacrilegiously pushed God to the sidelines, and says, if they can afford it, they shall achieve it. We should remember one thing, though. By definition, Heaven is a step away from Hell. You only need to commit one deadly sin to get sent to Hell.12
God threw man out of paradise long ago, to stop him from eating of the Tree of Life. Despite that, man has defied God and paid the price. Once again, mankind ignores Divine decree, and in the area of genetic engineering, is attempting to partake of that Tree. Humans are responsible beings. When man chooses to go against Divine prerogatives, he alone must face the consequences.12
Unfortunately, by "man" we mean a very small group of people who have the scientific know-how to do these things. The rest of humanity is pulled along, and by the law of inexorable consequences, we must also pay the price. The very least we can do is protest these actions against God.12
God has confined the plants, the insects, the animals, and the fish "after their kind". Boundaries have been set, and God has decreed that interbreeding beyond those boundaries must not happen. Man is made in the image of God, different from all else. Without a doubt the Divine barrier has been set against mixing with non-human species. Bringing the DNA of a mouse and a man together is a clear transgression of the orders of God.12
Transgenic animals are un-holy. Even when used to better human kind these creatures are against God's plan. God had not intended for us to better ourselves in these ways, for then we would be saying, in essence, that God's design is not sufficient.   Who are we to question God?12
                                    Genetic Engineering
Fiction is rapidly becoming fact. Consider a possibility.   A woman wants a child that is entirely her own. She gets doctors to remove eggs from her ovaries, and put the nucleus of cells from her own body into them. An egg has 23 chromosomes. It will not develop without a full complement of 46 chromosomes, 23 of which usually come from sperm. The nucleus of a body cell has 46 chromosomes, so she has given her eggs the chromosomes that make up her own genome. When a developing egg is placed in her uterus, she will be carrying a genetic twin of herself in her own body and she will shortly give birth to a copy of her genetic information.12
   This child will be fatherless. The woman will be mother to the child of which only she provided all of the genetic material necessary for development.
What would happen to parenthood? What would happen to human diversity? Would there be different types of clones instead of races or nations? What would happen to societal roles? Would giving birth to one clone at a time become inefficient or uneconomical? Would one be expected to give birth to five or more at a time? These are serious possibilities. There are already patents pending on cloning 62.
It has been proposed that clones be developed and raised to create "organ banks" that would not be rejected by the patient receiving the transplant. But each clone would still be an individual. Would you give up a kidney or lung because it fits the needs of another person who gave up the little cell so you could be made?12
And what of that baby, that clone? If a surrogate mother was used, in essence, as an incubator, whose child would it be? Imagine the legal cases in which the woman who bore the child insists that it is hers, while the woman who donated the genetic material asserts that the infant, in fact, is hers.12
It has been considered possible to clone famous people or even ancient pharaohs, but even if it is plausible, it is unacceptable and immoral. If we were to clone people, we would only want perfection, which I stated before is impossible. So then we could go for near-perfection. Athletes, geniuses and other people considered to be "genetically superior". And any "normal" person would not be cloned. Not only could we not afford it, we would not be allowed to. For why clone without a direct objective of improving humankind?12
One argument for cloning which I can understand is to bring back children killed accidentally. Of course, it would only be physically, for the clone would be an individual, rather like a twin of the departed child. Needless to say, any clone would have psychological problems. Who is he, really? Would he be a mindless slave to the original on which he was based? What would the clone think of his relationship to God? Would it be a unique relationship, as is possible with every other "normal" person? Or would the clone be expected to be simply in relationship to the person in whose image he was clearly made? Would the clone want to be like his genetically identical progenitor?
Some may claim immortality through cloning, but a person will not live on in a clone any more than in his children.12
                                    Test Tube Babies
Test-tube babies are a fact of life. This was demonstrated by the birth of Louis Brown. These babies are the result of the union of egg and sperm. The fact that this occurs outside the human body is the only really unnatural aspect of the procedure.
In the process to produce the embryo, several eggs are used, and those not chosen are eliminated. They are literally washed down the sink. This is abortion. Life is present at conception, and each of those embryos are young humans. To abort these infants is to take their lives. Murder is wrong.
God will intervene in His own time.12