News that scientists have “perfected” the technique of cloning on sheep in Scotland has set the world of medical ethics on edge, if not the world at large. While many see great advantages to this procedure of reproduction, many others see great dangers involved with it. Apart from all the medical dangers associated with the process of cloning, there is one huge danger that the world must address before we get any deeper into a possible abyss of moral dilemma. That is that we must start asking ourselves the question of should we be proceeding into further research rather than can we proceed with further research. With the successful attempt at cloning animals the next step will be the cloning of humans. Dr. Arthur Derse, director for medical and legal affairs at the Center for the Study of Bioethics in Wisconsin, has stated, “There is no theoretical reason why it couldn’t be done in human beings right now.” I would like to suggest to you that there is ample reason why cloning of humans violates the will of God for mankind.

First of all, cloning rebels against the exercise of God’s sovereignty over the procreation of man. Genesis 20:18, 25:21, 29:31, 30:22 and 1 Samuel 1:5 clearly indicate that it is God who opens and closes the womb of women to either prevent or to produce an offspring. God exercises His sovereignty in this area and the exercise of His sovereignty is always according to his omniscience. God’s omniscience means that God knows all things actual and possible and for whatever reasons that might be known only to God in His omniscience, He chooses who will reproduce and who will not. Man’s “intelligence” can hardly compare to God’s omniscient wisdom.

Secondly, cloning rebels against the stated commands of God in procreation. In Genesis 1:28, the command of God is given as to how man is to fill the earth. A careful reading of the text leaves no doubt that cloning is not in accordance with God’s plan. The verse reads, “And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply...” Notice that God spoke to them. Obviously they were not to procreate individually of one another for in Genesis 2:24 we read that they were to accomplish this by becoming “one flesh”. But also notice that God said to them that they were to be “fruitful”, not scientific, not inventive, not resourceful, but simply fruitful. Clearly ,then, cloning is not what God had in mind when this command was given to Adam and Eve, and then later to Noah and his wife, a command which has never been rescinded or altered by God.

Thirdly, cloning rebels against the efficient plan of God in procreation. In the Genesis 2:24 passage, we read that a man is to leave his father and mother and cleave unto his wife and the two will become one flesh. While this verse is most instructive about marriage, it is also instructive about the environment for children. In order for a man to leave his father and mother, he must have a father and mother.

Obviously this argument can be taken to a point that it is not meant to go but the emphasis of this argument is that the norm for the environment of children is that they be nurtured by a father and a mother, not a clone and a surrogate. It was reported that a woman who belongs to a radical feminist group has said that with cloning, “...we have finally gotten to the place where we won’t need the man any more.” You simply can not destroy the family and expect society to survive, it is impossible.

Finally, cloning rebels against the creative design of God in procreation. One of the most desired use for cloning will be to produce another for the harvesting of organs to combat disease and illness. But a question needs to be asked concerning the spiritual condition of the clone. Specifically we must ask, “Does the clone possess a soul and be considered a “real” human being, or is the clone just a mass of human tissue and not human at all except in appearance?’. This question can only be answered by asking and answering another question, “From where does a human receive his or her soul?”.

Three possibilities have been suggested throughout time of which I believe that only one is truly possible. The first is the theory of Pre-existence. This view states that our souls were created in the beginning of time and have been floating around heaven until our physical conception, at which time they entered our bodies. The basic problem with this idea is that our souls contain the ability to think and to reason and consequently to perceive reality. If our soul existed from the beginning of time there should be some remembrance of our “pre-existent” experiences in the same manner that Christ knew of His experiences before His incarnation. The second theory is the Creation theory. The theory posits that each soul is individually created by God and placed into the body either at conception or birth or at some point in between. But the Bible declares that God has rested and is resting from His creative work, which this view would contradict. The third theory is known as the Traducean theory. It states that when God empowered man to procreate another human being physically, that He also empowered man to procreate the child’s soul. If then, a child is procreated physically by the combination of the DNA from its father and mother, the soul is also procreated in the same manner. The ability then to produce a soul must reside in the DNA, which cloning uses to create the clone. If this be true, then the clone must possess a soul and to create a clone simply for the purpose of harvesting its organs for medical use without regard for the life of the clone is what the Bible calls murder.

Now I realize that much of what I have stated in this argument is speculative. But that is just the point. We are proceeding at a very rapid pace into technology where we do not have or may not be able to obtain definitive answers for the morals and ethics involved. If my reasoning above is correct, then the consequences are extremely serious. We would be wise to refrain from any more experimentation until these objections can be resolved, if they are resolvable.