ot because of the ramifications on the individual countries and their cultures, but more importantly because of the mental state that a clone would inevitably have to cope with. The ability to clone humans is in essence the ability to steal a piece of someones individuality, which we have already closely associated as being a prime evil. The ancient philosopher Rene Descartes stated That in order to understand the passions of the soul its functions must be distinguished from those of the body (Hallman, 40). That is, the soul and body must have distinctions, and this I agree with for the sake of understanding the mechanics and interactions of the two. However after this has been established the line must be drawn. George Johnson, believes that each person, whether they be a clone or not, should understandably have his own soul created by the composition of previous thoughts and experiences (Nussbaum, Sunstein 69). The example we are provided with references the unique nature of twins. According to this reasoning, twins grow up together, composed of the same genetic makeup, but because of personal experiences result in different persons (69). If this truly is the case then cloning does not accomplish what it is intended for in the first place. Likewise he argues, clones who share exact genome matches will also become different people as a result of their experiences and perceived knowledge (69). This however is an erroneous statement. The idea that taking a part of someone and then creating a new, unique person seems to contradict itself. Twins are selected by nature when they are conceived, chosen to become two separate persons sharing only genetic makeup. The fact that they are born together and grow with each other assures that neither of the two develops from the same real beginnings. Twins are a different case because they are created as separate entities before birth and more importantly simultaneously. Cloning is not ...
