 Who does the author believe would be most upsetting possibity to clone themselves?
Human Clones: Why Not? If you can clone a sheep, you can almost certainly clone a human being. Bills are in the works in both houses of Congress to outlaw human cloning--a step urged on all governments by the pope himself. Cloning humans is taken to be either 1) a fundamentally evil thing that must be stopped or, at the very least, 2) a complex ethical issue that needs legislation and regulation. And for a politician, making noise about cloning is pretty close to a fleshly temptation itself. Probably almost none, because Clinton has maintained Ronald Reagan's policy of minimizing federal grants for research in human reproduction. Besides, most researchers thought cloning humans was impossible--so, for the moment, there's unlikely to be a grant-request backlog. He also openly claims the authority to decide how people reproduce. So the pope's views on cloning are 1 st century rules applied using 15 th century religious thinking to a 21 st century issue. Essentially all reproduction is done these days with medical help--at delivery, and often before. Less than two decades ago, a similar concern was raised over the ethical issues involved in "test-tube babies." The only difference is that the DNA of sperm and egg would be replaced by DNA from an adult cell. Even if people have the right to do it, is cloning a good idea? Cloning would only copy the genetic aspects of people who are already here.
 The rich with big egos
 The rich with big egos  The normal men  The elderly who wanted to cheat death  The normal women