 Why does the author say the pope does not respect freedom of other?
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. I have no moral right to tell other people they shouldn't be able to have children, and I don't see that Bill Clinton has that right either. 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. There is nothing like banning the nonexistent to show true leadership. The pope, unlike the president, is known for resisting temptation. He also openly claims the authority to decide how people reproduce. I respect the pope's freedom to lead his religion, and his followers' freedom to follow his dictate. 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. The basic religious doctrine he follows was set down some two millennia ago. 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. What law or principle--secular, humanist, or religious--says that one combination of genetic material in a flask is OK, but another is not?
 He tried to extend his power beyond his jurisdiction
 He wants all people to follow his set of laws  He expects all citizens to live by his standards  He tried to extend his power beyond his jurisdiction  His views are too far dated