 From the passage, are we able to infer that the author is for or against cloning and why?
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. When Clinton says, "Let us resist the temptation to copy ourselves," it comes from a man not known for resisting other temptations of the flesh. 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. He also openly claims the authority to decide how people reproduce. But calling for secular governments to implement a ban, thus extending his power beyond those he can persuade, shows rather explicitly that the pope does not respect the freedom of others. 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. The only difference is that the DNA of sperm and egg would be replaced by DNA from an adult cell. What law or principle--secular, humanist, or religious--says that one combination of genetic material in a flask is OK, but another is not? 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.
 For, because he says that humans have the right to reproduce how they see fit.
 Against, because he says humans have no right to reproduce themselves  Against, because he fears the cloned warriors  For, because he says that humans have the right to reproduce how they see fit.  For, because he hopes for the cloned warriors