as close a parallel to the example of twins, as Johnson would have it. In the case of cloning, genes are taken from a person who has already been born, and therefore already been chosen by nature to be completely unique. Then the clones are reproduced with expectations by society to imitate the individual they were cloned from. Twins are the closest comparison that can be established to parallel the similarities between clones and the person being cloned, yet they are still not the same. Twins are a natural occurring set of clones. While this may be an interesting thought I hardly think that it covers the situations that the issue at hand is dealing with. Steen Willadsen once said, the role of the scientist is to break the laws of nature (Kolata, 157). Cloning falls into this unwarranted category, and therefore should strike a moral cord. To continue to assault nature in such a way is a mistake that should quickly be reconsidered. Suppose then, giving recognition to the previous points, that someone voluntarily decides that he would like to have a so-called individual cloned after him. They have therefore agreed that they can overlook the ramifications of cloning as it is concerned with individuality and that they can expect to lose something in replace of gaining another chance at passing themselves on into the next generation. This simple reasoning also falls apart under moral examination. Under these circumstances the person is not allowing complete freedom for the clone. Cloning as it is presented here presents a number of problems, both social and mental, for the clone. In Human Cloning and Child Welfare, Justine Burley and John Harris outline three such problems and their importance in the lives of clones. They explain how clones will be harmed by the ignorant, prejudicial thoughts and actions of people that they will be forced to interact with (paragraph 3). A cloned child under these parameters will, understandabl...
