On February 24, 1997, the birth of a cloned sheep shocked the public of the United States . The prospects of human cloning and the uses of cloning technology in genetic engineering quickly became a highly debated issue. The sides to the debate were easily drawn. Many felt that the use of cloning would be morally wrong and would be yet another step in the road of mankind's ultimate destruction. Others debated that, to fear something because it is different is foolish and that by tapping this new resource we could solve many of the world's problems. Morality versus advancement, this is the issue facing those joining the argument on cloning
             To begin with, cloning is still a very imperfect science. The possibility of human cloning is still not even assured. Scientists have told a Select Committee of the House of Commons that the nuclear transfer technique they have applied to produce a cloned sheep could be, in theory, applied to humans . Whether anyone would try and whether it would work is another matter. But the "what if" question must now be asked with much more seriousness than would have ever been justified before.
             In all of its complexity, the argument against cloning is easily summed up. To replicate any human technologically is a process that goes against the simplest dignity of the uniqueness of each human being in God's eyes. Many would see this as a violation of the uniqueness of a human life, which God has given to each of us and to no one else.
             Some argue that the existence of "identical" twins means that we should have no ethical difficulty over cloning, or that to object to cloning implies that twins are abnormal. This argument is ill conceived. Biologically, identical human twins are not the norm, but the unusual manner of their creation does not make them any less human. They are recognized as being is a uniquely valuable individual. There are two fundamental differences between cloning and twinnin...