In Philip Hefner's article Cloning as Quintessential Human Act he claims that cloning of humans is acceptable if it is done with great care, with special attention given to the fact that one does not destroy the "spiritual dimension of life". Hefner presents several arguments in his support for cloning. His first argument is that cloning is natural and by cloning individuals we are only acting as "co-creators" (Hefner, 352). Secondly he argues that "cloned humans are real persons" and are unique (Hefner, 353). Thirdly he suggests that cloning of humans could be used to benefit mankind just as plants and animals have been (Hefner, 354). Lastly he uses a theological argument to state why cloning is acceptable and why we should do it. However, Hefner also warns that mankind cannot take cloning lightly and must proceed with caution (Hefner, 355). I agree with Hefner on all of his arguments but feel that the theological argument is the weakest one. I don't completely disagree with it, but find it can be disregarded on the same grounds that religious arguments against cloning can be disregarded. I agree with Hefner that cloning cannot be done blindly and that there has to be a public consensus before cloning can take place.
             According to Hefner, cloning is natural because we are ourselves "creatures of nature" and thus by cloning humans we are only following a natural process. We would only be acting as "co creators" with whatever created us, be it nature or God (Hefner, 352). Cloning is a process that we have practiced for a long time, rearranging "life forms that constitute our agricultural enterprises" and it is only natural that we apply these techniques to create ourselves (Hefner, 353). Hefner argues that our concept of nature is one that is untouched and pure. However, nature irreversibly bears "the marks of human intervention." Hefner's example ...