of this idea is our concept of the cyborg, which we view as "pristine and artificial" and that's how we want nature to be. However, nature cannot be untouched or pristine because over time humans have left their mark and therefore we cannot say what is natural and what is artificial. Hefner points out that due to our "unnatural" view of nature we can not say that cloning is unnatural since we truly don't know what natural is (Hefner, 354). I agree with Hefner and in my opinion, just because something is unnatural doesn't mean it is immoral or evil. It is not natural to drive cars or wear clothes but these creations improve the quality of life and make everyday life easier. Cloning falls under the same category in that just because it is unnatural doesn't make it wrong. We already play the role of "co creators" by controlling the way we reproduce through various methods like birth control. Methods like abortion allow us to control who comes into this world and who doesn't. We already control such "natural processes" therefore, cloning should be no different. Thus, like Lindsay states "why is cloning an impermissible usurpation of God's authority, but not the use of tetracycline (Lindsay, 359)?"
             Hefner's other argument is that cloned humans are unique individuals with distinct personalities. Cloning would be just like "natures process of creating identical twins" (Hefner, 353). Twins are the same genetically but are different phenotypically, which is the same thing that can be said about clones. The clones would be unique individuals who would have their "own personalities and full human rights" (Eibert, 5). According to Hefner this person would develop like any other person where they would be molded through their "interaction with the physical environment and culture." Since nobody can survive just on their genes, even ...