The statement that cloning is an act of playing God is based on extreme hypocrisy. I n the case scientific study and application are considered as playing God at some level, it must as well be considered as playing God at all levels (Dabrock, 2009) . For example, blood transfusion amounts to taking the blood of one individual and giving it to another individual. All mosaic religions, which account for over 80% of global faithful believe that life is in the blood. Blood transfusion can, therefore, be considered as sharing life, yet it is now an acceptable clinical practice. Other procedures such as organ removal and transplant as well as In vitro fertilization (IVF) has also been accepted almost universally thus cloning, which is closely kindred ought to also be accepted.
Basically, the creational theory on whose basis cloning is condemned holds that God the Creator made a life out of nothing (Dabrock, 2009) . Out of nothing flora and fauna were created in the state that they are today. Therefore, no one else but God should be allowed to create except God. However, this theory also involves God giving humans the right to procreate using what God game them, to wit stem cells within an ovum and spermatozoa to create more human beings. The general assumption made by those who vilify cloning is that mating was the only process that God was referring to. This concept must be considered as wrong since life can naturally be created without any form of mating taking place (Dabrock, 2009) . When ova and spermatozoa are placed together in an ideal environment, they can fuse and create life. If the same is nurtured, a complete human being will be formed. This means that the Creator established a means for life to be created without mating.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Similarly, cloning has never involved the development of life from nothing. Instead, it can be considered as a very refined means of procreation through the harvesting of stem cells (Savulescu et al, 2015) . The same process that the body undertakes in making viable stem cells for the development of an embryo is replicated in a laboratory. The process is, however, so refined that it does not require the input of two people as only the stem cells from one individual can be used. However, these stem cells come from an actual human being and not developed through scientific means such as mixing of chemicals. The DNA of the resultant clone is purely human having been harvested from another human being (Savulescu et al, 2015) . Therefore, just as the normal form of procreation through mating, cloning is the process of using human beings to produce more human beings. God made humans out of nothing, humans make humans out of other humans. Cloning is, therefore, an act of man, not an act of God.
Another common assertion against cloning and one that has been given too much credit is what would be produced if something goes wrong. This is a solid argument but not a very refined one because things have been going wrong in procreation for as long as it has existed. Siamese twins, disjointed bodies, and newborns with missing organs or double organs are all examples of things that actually go wrong in natural procreation (Macklin, 2015) . Indeed, it is almost impossible for science through cloning to produce the extent of grotesques attributes that natural procreation has produced.
It is from the totality of the above that the contention that cloning is an act of playing God does not arise. If cloning is condemned as playing God, then any other clinical procedure that interferes with creation such as surgery and blood transfusion must similarly be condemned. This is because cloners do not play God, they just use what God has created to further life, just as those who procreate naturally do.
References
Dabrock, P. (2009). Playing God? Synthetic biology as a theological and ethical challenge. Systems and Synthetic Biology, 3 (1-4), 47-54. doi:10.1007/s11693-009-9028-5
Macklin, R. (2015). Can one do good medical ethics without principles?. Journal of Medical Ethics , 41 (1), 75-78
Savulescu, J., Pugh, J., Douglas, T., & Gyngell, C. (2015). The moral imperative to continue gene editing research on human embryos. Protein & Cell , 6 (7), 476-479
