ng should rightly be confined to animals", but, nevertheless, "human experimentation" should never be prohibited (Kevles 134). He also argues that human cloning is not really as appalling as it may seem, it is just another promising innovation which needs time to get used to. "As with so many previous advances in biology, today's affront to the gods may be tomorrow's highly regarded-and demanded-agent of self-gratification or health", states Kevles (134). He argues that as soon as technology improves, people will find human cloning "advantageous" (133) and will pursue it simply because they, themselves, will "want it" (134). In other words, Kevles argues that sooner or later, people will demand clones as "spare body parts" or simply as children for "infertile couples" (134). Goodman, on the other hand, has a very different idea on the subject of human cloning; she finds it to be "creepy", "ethically appalling", "most narcissistic", and in demand of an immediate "universal No!" (134-35). Goodman almost condemns human cloning, and all of the bright ideas and fantasies that come with it, by stating that they are all "ghoulish" (135). She is not at all open to the idea of clones as "organ donors", "spares", and subjects of "genetic immortality" (135). Goodman, instead, strongly argues that "Humans are not for Cloning," and that there is no room for human cloning in our society simply because there is more to a person than just bits of DNA.Having stated such strong differences in the opinions of Kevles and Goodman one may wonder where and how the two could possibly agree on anything pertaining to the subject matter. As surprising as it may seem, there are, however, a couple of agreements between the authors on some issues within the subject. They both seem to agree very well on the fact that people are generally initially not too welcoming towards any biological advances. "Biological innovations are often initially seen as pervers...
