Christian Ethical Response toward the Biotechnology: Concerning Embryonic Stem Cell ResearchMaster of Arts: Christian Studies

A Christian Ethical Response toward the Biotechnology (Concerning Embryonic Stem Cell Research)

(Jinwoo Wonha Park, M.A.)

1.Introduction2.Outcome of Stem Cell Research 2.1.Current Developments of Genetic Modifications 2.2.Sidetracks of research3.Identity of the cloned human3.1.Medical and Sociological perspective3.2.Image of God3.3.Meaning of Life4.Worldview of Secular Humanist4.1.Fallacy of the Secular Humanists World Views on Biomedical Issues4.2.Other Religious views5.Christian Response toward the bio-medical research6.Conclusion

Abstract

In many faculties of knowledge, the details of Embryonic Stem Cell Research have created a controversial issue that could not be resolved. Since the announcement of the birth of cloned sheep Dolly in 1997, the fear of the inevitable emergence of cloned human being caused a panic worldwide, re-evaluating the definition of being a human.This essay examines the ethical issues created by the development of Biotechnology in the area of embryonic stem cell research and defines a set of rule that Christians should adhere to when they are facing an ethical dilemma and there are no specific instructions given in the bible. The purpose of the rule is to make the decision that is closest to biblical teaching and the provident of God toward each individual. The task began by an initial study of embryonic stem cell developments human being have achieved to date and because it is ever-changing technology, the time range for this essay was set to December 2014.With the beneficial developments for humanity, some of the concerns Christian have for researchers going beyond Christian ethical boundaries such as biotechnological research for military applications and transhumanism. The status of a zygote, which is first fertilized human cell, is discussed and concluded that both scientifically and biblically a zygote deserves full dignity as a human being. In relating zygote as an image of God, traditional criteria of image of God in substantive, relational and functional views of image of God was examined and concluded that substantive view supports sanctity of zygote, but relational and functional view disqualifies zygote as it could not physically relate or function for the Divine. However, from the Bible, we could deduce zygote in a single cell state met all the attribute of relational and functional criteria to meet all the condition of the traditional definition of image of God. Which lead to a conclusion that Christians have the responsibility to protect life and dignity of zygote no matter how weak or disabled our fellow human being might be. The sanctity of zygote was proven biblically, however for Christians; the meaning of life has more than a biological constitution. In the Christian faith, the new life in Christ is emphasized.With the different values or worldviews, the response toward a new medical technology is quite different to that of a secular society. The possible benefits from such technology are numerous that many secular scientists forgo their ethical reasoning in developing their research for the good of the humanity. However, for Christians there are higher priorities than conceived possible benefits from such research. The new knowledge accumulated is another tool in serving God for Christian. The issue for Christians is not trying to help suffering neighbor, but confirming that we are obeying Gods commandments. In this perspective, from the moment of fertilization killing of the embryo in the process of research becomes an act of murder, bleaching Gods commandment prohibiting murder. For Christians, adhering to the sovereign Gods commandment must be the first priority in any sense.The discovery of IPS cell (a cell which is tricked to act as a stem cell and can be programmed to be any cell required for a particular treatment) is a gift of God to Christians in overcoming the dilemma in using human embryonic stem cell. With IPS cell, the necessity for destruction of living embryo disappears. However, compare to use of human embryonic stem cell, using IPS cell is still in the early-untested stage of research and it may take a while before any contemplation of clinical trial in human application. Until the perfection of IPS cell applications, Christians must exercise in dealing with genetic engineering with caution and great humility.The sovereignty of God over life was discussed then the fallacy of secular humanists worldview and some other religious perspectives on biomedical issues were explained. Then a few examples of Christian ethics in current circumstance were discussed to show the Christian logic behind such decisions to extract a set of principle Christian should adhere, to stay within boundary of stewardship God assigned human being to be. In dealing with these biotechnological issues, we came to a conclusion that any genetic manipulations are viable in the eyes of loving God, only if it is a therapeutic cause, not eugenic. By understanding of the status of a fertilized single cell and the sovereignty of God, three principles in decision-making emerged. Firstly to follow the direct biblical commandment given to us and secondly to respect the sanctity of life given by God, and thirdly to acknowledge the sovereignty of God.In deciding ones action, Christians must first seek if a procedure opposes any of direct commandments of God, then whether the procedure violates any human dignity and the purpose of a procedure is according to Christian mandate of being steward of Gods creation while not trying to avoid natural order God has bestowed upon humanity.People say that God is Love. However, it is not enough to rely on His love to forgive our disobedience against Gods will. Human beings were created for glorifying triune God, and our absolute decider of ethics is the Word of God in the Bible. Our sin is not what we have done in our conscience, but not trying to fulfill Gods great expectation for us as a steward to take charge of His creation. By confining to the basic principles mentioned, our decision in the unknown genetic field is believed to be within the boundary of Gods providence toward humanity in His creative act.

1.IntroductionThe effort and findings of scientists research on embryonic stem cell have been one of the Christians central debating issues and dilemma. The research procedures itself has a serious ethical problem for Christians, but some of the potential applications of findings demands more rigorous resistance toward such research.Until few years ago, all the stem cell research involved sacrificing living zygotes[footnoteRef:1] to obtain stem cell for research. [1: Zygote is a fertilized egg cell that results from the union of a female gamete (egg, or ovum) with a male gamete (sperm).]

However, the discovery of IPS[footnoteRef:2] (Induced Pluripotent Stem Cell) in 2006 opened up a new boundary in stem research. The advantage of using IPS cell are by reverse aging a patients adult differentiated cell into stem cell and reprogramming it to be any of the different cells required for the treatments. Theoretically eliminates tissue rejections, which occurs when using embryonic stem cells. The procedure also removes Christian ethical dilemma of developing zygote for destruction. [2: IPS (Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells) is made from adult skin cells. By reversing specific patients differentiated cell into stem cell and reprogrammed to be any different cells required for a treatments, eliminates tissue rejections and the ethical dilemma of creating embryonic stem cells for destruction.]

The discovery of IPS cell led some people to argue that human embryonic stem cells are no longer necessary for stem research. However, even with this breakthrough in technology, Christian conscience is not at ease because the reality is the stem research has been going on past 30years with some applications already in practice, but IPS technology at its very early stage of research, it may not be a near future a clinical application can be attempted. The scientist wants to use more reliable and cheaper human embryonic stem cells for their research. Never the less as a responsible steward of Gods creation, Christian concerns for the bioethics must be proclaimed. In the fast changing scientific reality, the ethical voice of the Christians often becomes absurd in the bigger waves of secular priorities and the Christian ethics becomes indistinguishable to secular morality, especially when benefits of new technology diminishes priority in our Christian conscience.It is now, a good time to reaffirm what is important to Christians when there seem to be so many options available in the genetic engineering field.Since the Old Testaments period, genetic manipulation of nature occurred. (Gen.30-42) However, when humanity attempts to manipulate human gene, whether the motive is good or bad, we are creating a technological Tower of Babel (Gen. 11:1-9), which God disapproved and intervened for it. The intention of this study is to form a set of procedure to guide Christians to make an ethical decision especially in the field of genetic engineering that is justifiable to Gods providence toward each individual human being when there are no specific instructions given in the Bible. The initial study is carried out by finding out the developments and some of the risks associated with the stem cell technology. Then the status of a zygote is discussed according to the traditional understandings of the term image of God to derive a conclusion on Christians responsibility toward zygote and associated experiments. An alternative in respect to traditional embryonic stem cell researches is discussed and some of the issues Christian faces in daily life are explained in terms of staying within the providence of God set upon each individual. From the conclusions derived from status of zygote and Christian worldview a set of principle for Christians will be derived to make ethical decisions regarding biotechnology or anything else when there is no specific guidance given from the Word of God in the Bible.2.Outcome of Stem Cell Research With the birth of cloned sheep Dolly in 1997, an inevitable emergence of cloned human caused an alarm worldwide, re-evaluating what is meant to be a human being. As the byproducts of perfecting human cloning research, there were numerous discoveries made. The possibilities of converting the stem cell into any organ and tissue required by a patient give hope for many people suffering from debilitating genetic abnormalities. There are two prime objectives in stem research. Firstly to produce children for infertile couples and secondly for biomedical research, which involves many unknown benefits with risks and ethical issues. The balance between the values placed on the life of embryo with perceived benefit to many suffering people determined the justification of embryonic stem cell research by secular society.[footnoteRef:3] [3: The Presidents Council on Bioethics, Human Cloning and Human Dignity Washington, DC July 2002]

The ethical dilemma for Christians lies on the fact that in order to experiment the feasibility of any therapeutic process, many human embryos sacrificed in finding an answer. The knowledge about stem cell and its potential applications has been accumulated more than 30years and limited types of stem cell therapies like a form of bone marrow transplant is already in use for cancer patients who have gone through chemo or radiation therapies, to restore destroyed tissue. However, it was only recent discovery, that scientist can grow them outside the body.[footnoteRef:4] [4: http://www.counterbalance.org/stemcell/curre-body.html accessed on 18th, May 2015, 5:00pm]

Stem cell technology is compared to another field of science, is relatively new with constant modifications. Like a new operating systems of a computer, there are numerous updates to correct imperfections when it occurs as the consequence of an error can be divesting to an individual and to the community. Through rigorous stem cell experiments with animals, scientist found out that there will be problems if the technology is applied to the clinical trial of a human being. Abnormalities which may be still born, high susceptibility to infection, tumor growth and the risk of gene mutation and mistakes in reprogramming of genome with no foreseeable solution. Also the procedure itself is still very expansive with very low success rate and rejection-proof to the recipient is not guaranteed as DNA of the ovum may still trigger the immune system protection[footnoteRef:5] The manipulating organisms to make useful product has been occurred since the history of civilization, but the actual genetic engineering wasnt performed until recently. But the speed the research in biotechnology has been so fast, the legal structure or national constitutional policy are not stabilized yet. [5: Deena Al Hilli, Cloning: A dilemma Practiced but not solved, Bahrain Medical Bulletin, Vol.28, No.1, March 2006]

2.1.Current Developments of Genetic Modifications After the birth of Dolly, US President Bill Clinton formed a National Bioethics Advisory Commission in 1998 to investigate question on stem cell research and in 2000, the US National Institutes of Health issued a guideline for using embryonic stem cells in research. The federal research funds could only be used in studying extra embryos that would otherwise be discarded. The same year, a Cell Expansion System to grow cells was displayed during World Stem Cell Summit in Detroit. In August 2001, new US President George W. Bush limited federal research funding for about 60 existing stem cell lines created before this date. However, in 2005, State funding for stem cell research was offered at Connecticut and Illinois, US.In March 2009, US President Barack Obama ordered the removal of restrictions on embryonic stem cell research which was placed by Bush administration, allowing funding for research beyond existing 60 cell lines. In November 2010, a clinical trial of cells grown from human embryonic stem cell was approved for the treatment of inherited degenerative eye disease in the US. In May 2011, it was revealed that a baseball pitcher had fat, and bone marrow stem cells injected into his injury while in Dominican Republic establishing feasibility and benefit of therapeutic application of stem cell. In February 2012, the first instance of therapeutic regeneration was announced by scientists, using a patient's stem cells to regenerate heart tissue and undo damaged by a heart attack. Since the discovery of IPS cells in 2006, in October 2012, better method of cell reprogramming, after they became specialized into pluripotent stem cells, were discovered and on May 2013, scientists produced embryos using skin cells to make stem cell lines. On August 2013, in London, at the cost of $330,000 in three months, a cow's muscle cells were grown to make world's first stem cell burger that was cooked and eaten proving the functional role of stem cell research in agriculture as well as reliability of the procedure. In September 2013, using stem cells scientists created cerebral organoid or brain cells.In October 2014, three years of study of stem cell therapy to 18 patients suffering an eye disease that causes progressive loss of sight reported no signs of rejection of transplanted stem cells.[footnoteRef:6] [6: http://edition.cnn.com/2014/04/28/health/stem-cell-breakthrough/accessed on 18th, May 2015 4:30pm]

2.2.Sidetracks of researchSince the overturning decision made by the US Bush administration in March 2009, there are numerous new researches being carried out throughout the US and worldwide, particularly in military applications. Two third of United States Governments expenditure on research and development is on military applications. The Iraq war cost over $100 billion when the World Health Organizations annual budget is less than $2 billion.[footnoteRef:7] This verifies and concerns about the keen interest on military applications by many governments. [7: Hensen, Bart and Schotsmans, Human Stem Cell Research as a promising hope for humankind: A Christian Ethical Contribution Ethics in Biomedical Research 2007: International Perspectives, 10-11.]

The cloning technology does not have only a peaceful agenda on its research. The findings could be applied in creating super fighting soldiers or making bio-weapons to kill another human being. And already there are a huge amount of funds invested by all the power seekers in the world. Not only on researches on genetic manipulations of human, but in full commitment in research on transhumanism which is gene mixing between human and animal to incorporate specific feature of animals, and some transhumanism researchers claims that they are ethically comfortable with up to 50% human/animal composition.[footnoteRef:8] [8: http://www.genetherapy.me/genetic-engineering/hybrids-nephilim-human-genetic-engineering-transhumanism-video.php accessed on 23rd May 2015, 6pm]

3.Identity of the cloned humanIt is now possible to clone an entire human being theoretically and it is a matter of time before a scientist performs such task for a motive other than the good of humanity. To assess the morality of stem cell research, we must assess the sanctity of result of the research. The ultimate goal of the stem cell research is to clone a matching human being to the original without flaw. With the unconfirmed claim by Clonaid on December 2002, that they actuary gave birth to a first cloned baby girl[footnoteRef:9] and Chinese scientists creating at least 30 cloned human embryos,[footnoteRef:10]as well as North Koreas claim of recent success in birth of a cloned child, make us realized that what has been science fiction story has actuated in the world. It is an examples of secular humanistic view that If it can be done, it should be done, which implying that there is an ethic in the progress of science and whatever humans can invent, they should invent and use. In the same sense it is technologically possible to make a nuclear warhead which can destroy the human race, never the less we dont do that for a moral and ethical reason. [9: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn3217-first-cloned-baby-born-on-26-december.html#.VV7SbFIXWJAaccessed on 22nd May 2015, 5pm.] [10: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-127836/Chinese-cloned-30-human-embryos.htmlaccessed on 22nd May 2015, 5pm.]

3.1.Medical and Sociological perspectiveEven though it is illegal in most countries now, the emergence of cloned human being is an inevitable reality which human race must face and society must prepare for the consequential situations in medical and sociological impact to the society and for the dignity of the cloned person.As Christian, we have to ask if a cloned person has a sanctified unique personality which God gives and must be treated as an equal image of God deserving respect and dignity from the societyWe have learned that even thou human clone share same genetic material, like an identical twins, the environment and experiences will make a clone a unique personality.[footnoteRef:11]In support of this theory, psychologist, Morales also confirms that any individual created through genetic manipulation will not show donor's characteristics close enough to jeopardize uniqueness of cloned person; his life experience and thinking is unique; therefore he can have own unique identity and personality. However, it is still a theory, deduction from known identical twin cases and human psychology; psychologists gave cautious warning that when a cloned person realizes his or her birth process, they may have a reduction in self-identity with reduced self-expectation for their future and family ties.[footnoteRef:12] [11: Kathinka Evers, The Identity of Clones,Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 1999, Vol. 24, No.1, 69.] [12: Morales, Nestor Micheli, Psychological and Ideological Aspects of Human Cloning: A Transition to a Trans humanist Psychology Journal of Evolution & Technology (Jul 2009, Vol.20 Issue 2): 19-42.]

Psychologist, McCarthy, however, stated that from various researches conducted, there isn't any evidence that the lives of cloned people will be worse off than that of the original donor. There for he refutes with any statements that human cloning is ethically immoral.[footnoteRef:13] [13: Ibid.]

Even though theoretically there is good chance that a cloned person can have a unique identity as the image of God, there are still the question of social acceptance of cloned human being. Would society able to accept them as an equal human being or will there be discrimination against them with tragic divisions with consequences as the human being has shown historically.Legalistically human cloning is a violation of a human right to the unborn baby and by implementing still not perfected technology, under the name of experiments, destroys human dignity beyond the ethical standard of the society. For this argument, the United Nation agrees to ban all human cloning in 2005.[footnoteRef:14] [14: KaumudhiChalla, Reproductive Cloning in Human Being: A challenge to human rights Golden Research Thoughts. (Dec2011, Vol.1 Issue 6), 1-4.]

The Australian government investigated embryonic stem cell research in 2001, felt the needs for ethical and legal standards, and in 2002, implemented complete ban on human cloning and human embryonic stem cell research except for using left over IVF embryos under strict licensing. The breaching of the law carried a maximum of fifteen years imprisonment.[footnoteRef:15] However, after Lockhart Report on the impact of cloning technology three years later, the law was changed to allow the creation of human embryos by somatic cell cloning for research purpose. Some of the opponents of creating embryos criticized this sudden change in the law as the majority of people invited to contribute to changing law had marketing agenda rather than the human right of the unborn.[footnoteRef:16] [15: Prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2002 (Paper No. 144,2002) (http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/comact/browse/TOCN.htm)] [16: Olivia Harvey, Regulating stem cell research and human cloning in an Australian context: the Lockhart Review New Genetics and Society Vol. 27, No. 1, March 2008, 34.]

3.2.Image of GodRegarding the identity of cloned person, it is important for Christians to identify the sovereign Gods intention for a person.God created people in His image and put them in charge of all of His creation. The image God endowed on humanity was transferred to next generation. (Ge. 5:3) In the ancient world, an image represents the essence of that which it represented. Not in capacity or in appearance, but the governing work of God. The image not only provides a capacity to serve in place of God but to be and act like Him. To enable the tasks, God gave conscience, self-awareness, and spiritual discernment to human.[footnoteRef:17] [17: John H. Walton, Victor H. Matthews & Mark W. Chavalas, Bible Background Commentary-Old Testament, (Illinois: IVP Academic, 2000), 29. ]

The main Christians argument against embryonic research is the fact that the Biblical teaching that a human being is created in image and likeness of the Triune God, (Ge. 1:26-27) and Gods commandment of forbidding murder. (Ex. 20:13) Christians believe that at conception, a zygote becomes fully human deserving dignity with a right to live. In establishing a zygote to be an image of God, demanding dignity, it is profitable to establish what image of God entails in order to justify the inviolability of zygote.In Genesis 1:26-27 God said Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. In verse 26, the terms (tselem) and (demuth) are translated as image and likeness respectively, which God tells us His intention for the human being. However after the fall of humanity, in Ge.9:6 murders were prohibited since the human was created in Gods image () implying that the Image of God bestowed in Adam by God was retained by Adams siblings. This suggests to us that the Image of God is a separate issue to the fall of humanity,[footnoteRef:18] The embryo has an image of God whether one becomes Christian or not. Further, in James 3:9 because humans are made in the likeness ( homoiosis) of God, James even forbids cursing other humans. In Christian tradition, there were many studies or expression of what image or likeness of God means. Three main traditional interpretations of these terms are; substantive, relational and functional viewpoints.[footnoteRef:19] [18: Bible Explorer 4 Bible Study Software, Vincents Word Studies in the New Testament-1Cor11:7] [19: Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology-Second Edition, (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1998), 519-20.]

The dominating viewpoint of the image of God during most of Christian history was substantive nature. This interpretation relates physical, psychological and spiritual characteristics of the human being as the image of God. This interpretation came from a literal reading of (tselem) that God has a body. Others add metaphorical elements such as human walking upright as symbol of moral uprightness or righteousness of God or of humans relatedness to God. Thomas Aquinas view that human beings ability to reason were more commonly accepted image of God, however convincing this is only a small partial description of Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent God revealed in the Bible. Origen made a distinction between image and likeness in Gen. 1:26-27. Origen saw image as a characteristic which God gave on the creation of Adam and likeness is a spiritual aspect of Adam which conferred by God later. Irenaeus and medieval scholars further developed the term (demuth) as a divine gift of a moral quality of God added to the basic human image of God, including the power to reason, and will. When Adam falls, the image remains intact, but Gods moral quality, likeness was lost. There for even among non-Christians the image of God remains intact as sanctified believers. Martin Luther believes that the image and likeness represent same meaning which is just Hebrew practice of parallelism. He propounded that all aspects of the image of God in human have been corrupted and only fragment remains, but Gods intention for human still exists, yet not actually present in human. John Calvin thought the same, but he believes that relic of the image remains, therefor by knowing oneself one can gain knowledge of God.The viewpoints are widely different within the substantive view; however the locus of the image is located within the human as a resident quality or capacity whether one believes the sovereign God or not.[footnoteRef:20] [20: Ibid., 520-23.]

The zygote in its single cell state has all the attribute the substantive view entails in 46 human chromosomes which God sanctifies with the unique blueprint for a human being with physical characteristics and ability to reason and will. Therefore just being human, the embryo deserves all the dignity as a living human being morally and constitutionally.Another traditional understanding of the image of God is based on the relationship human being has with God.New-orthodox scholar Emil Brunner contended that the Word of God is the key to understanding the image ontologically. Brunner states that the formal image distinguishes human from the animals as a free and responsible being. By accepting Gods invitation one can be an image of God. Although His invitation may be refused, the formal image remains and still accountable to the Creator to love each other to build the humanity.Karl Barth also held the relational view. However strongly disagree with Brunner on the capacity in a human being to receive the Word of God by self. Barth argues that we can only learn about humanity by studying Christ, who is the perfect image of God in human form as God created. In making a connection between the Triune God and the fact God made both male and female, Barth states that a harmonious relationship between husband and wife confronting each other is thought to be an image of God.Although there are disagreements between Barth and Brunner in some points, an accord between them emerged that the image of God and human nature are understood by studying person of Christ, and the image is a human experience with relationship to God. They further agree that the image of God is found in all history of humanity.The relationship that constitutes an image of God is represented in a relationship between male and female for Barth; however, this relationship expands to society for Brunner. Nevertheless, there were no conclusions made by both of factor that enable a human being to have such dynamic relationship with God.[footnoteRef:21] [21: Ibid., 523-27.]

A viewpoint with long history and increase in popularity is the functional view of humanity. A functional view is based on Gods command to have dominion over His creation. This exercise of authority is considered to be a content of the image of God. A theologian Norman Snaith suggested that biblically speaking, image of God has nothing to do with moral or any sort of ideals. It only refers to mans function in dominating over Gods creation. The Hebrew terms (kavash) and (radah) in Genesis 1:26 and 28 means to rule over the whole creations for their welfare. However, this cannot include dominating another human being as it is contrary to Gods will, which Israel made a critical mistake when they rejected His kingdom for a secular kingship.[footnoteRef:22] [22: Ibid., 527-29.]

Analyzing the three main traditional understanding of term image of God, substantive view supports inviolability of an unborn child. However, the relational and functional views disqualify human embryo as an image of God since an embryo could not physically relate or function as these two views consider essential factor for being an image of God. However from Exod. 21:22-23 and Gen. 9:6, it is clear that the life of the unborn is protected by the same punishment as that of an adult.Bible also teaches us that before the birth, an embryo have personal characteristics such as sin and joy (Ps. 51:5) and called by God (Gen. 25:22-23) to have intimate and personal relationship with Him. (Ps.139:15-16;Jer.1:5) The humanity was created in the image of God in equal quality whether weak or strong by virtue of being human. God intended humanity to be harmonious with other humans in knowing, loving and obeying God. God's intended human nature is shown by an invisible image of God shown by a visible image of Jesus, having perfect fellowship with Father followed His will completely and loving humanities.[footnoteRef:23] [23: Ibid.,531-32]

3.4.Meaning of LifeFrom the meaning of the term Image of God, it was established that a human being in a zygote stage has all the dignity and rights as a full human being. Even both scientifically and biblically sees fertilization of sperm and ovum as beginning of human being, secular society and some Catholic scholars sees embryos as a potential human without any functional abilities thus due respect and dignity. "The human being is a special creation of God, an embodied self-brought about by the inbreathing of God's Spirit in a physical body. The human person being may not be reduced to any or all of his physical constituents."[footnoteRef:24] In an absolute sense, only God has the power to give life as He is living God.(Josh 3:10) No matter how we think of the source of life could be, without an intervention of the God, there cannot be the beginning and human being which a finite creature must accept His infinite sovereignty in faith.[footnoteRef:25] For the same reason, a human being can exist only in fellowship with God; living life in service to Him by obeying and doing His will.[footnoteRef:26] [24: Douglas JW Milne, A Religious, Ethical and Philosophical Study of the Human Person in the Context of Biomedical Practices (Australian Catholic University School of Philosophy, 2006)] [25: Hans Kung, Does God Exist?(London: Collins,1980),643-49.] [26: Randall K. J. Tan, Life, in Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary, (Nashville, Tennessee: Holman Reference,2003),1036-37.]

In the Old Testaments life is related to the sovereign God, however as Jesus incarnated into the human history, Jesus made numerous statements that He alone is the life force itself.(John 6:35,48; 10:10; 11:25; 14:6; 20:31) As triune God, those statements equate to statements of sovereign God of Old Testaments. However, the eternal life Jesus Christ offered is differing in a sense that it involves resurrection. Human being has lost the eternal life due to the fall, but the act of love by God has redemptive power for the sin, by dying in the place of sinners, the price of sin was justified. Moreover, whoever believes the act of redemption by Jesus Christ who has conquered the death itself was done for ones own sin; new eternal, indestructible life is imputed to oneself by His grace. (Ep. 2:8, 9)[footnoteRef:27] [27: Ibid.,1037-38.]

In a secular society, life is defined by a scientific explanation with a functional value of an individual to a society. From a scientific research, a concept of life is formed at fertilization of an egg and sperm to create a human zygote with human DNA.[footnoteRef:28] Some scientist claimed that the life and moral status of the embryo begin at the eight-cell stage when zygotic utilization of embryonic gene commences.[footnoteRef:29] In a secular society, more emphasis placed on self-awareness than the value of a life in determining the right to life of a fetus. This is an ideal which could open a door for a potential discrimination of weak disabled in a society. [28: The Westchester Institute for Ethics & the Human Person, When Does Human Life Begins?White Paper Volume 1, Number 1, Oct 2008.] [29: Philip G. Peters,Jr.,as cited on The Westchester Institute for Ethics & the Human Person, When Does Human Life Begins? White Paper Volume 1, Number 1, Oct 2008.]

4.Worldview of Secular HumanistThe ethical decisions differ vastly depending on the worldview one has. The different worldviews of Judeo-Christians versus Secular Humanist are prevalent especially in the biomedical issues.[footnoteRef:30] [30: Norman L. Geisler, Christian Ethics-Second Edition, (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic,2010),180.]

The secular humanist does not believe in the Creator believing humankind is a product of an evolution. Their value system is the quality of life, where the end justifies the mean. This view is reflected on the position that humans are responsible for the quality of life justifying in-vitro fertilization and even active euthanasia. With the same principle, the right to abortion and right to suicide[footnoteRef:31] and genetic improvement of the race are supported.[footnoteRef:32] [31: Paul Kurtz as sighted on Norman L. Geisler, Christian Ethics-Second Edition, (Grand Rapids: BakerAcademic,2010),181.] [32: Norman L. Geisler,181.]

A secular humanist and a Nobel Prize winner Dr. Zames Watson argued that If a child were not declared alive until three days after birth, then all parents could be allowed the choice to allow the child to die and save a lot of misery and suffering.[footnoteRef:33] Secular Humanists believe that each one has a right to live and die thus, suicide and voluntary euthanasia and ironically abortion are considered morally justified. Some believe life does not begin until birth, and others say it begins when one becomes a self-conscious individual that occurs at nearly two years of age. [33: J.C. and Barbara Willke as sighted on Norman L. Geisler, Christian Ethics-Second Edition, (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic,2010),181.]

Another concern for Christians of secular humanist worldview is that humans have advanced so much technologically that they have the responsibility to guide the future evolution of the race to achieve entirely engineered the superior breed of human being. Well-known situation ethicist Joseph Fletcher who taught Christian Ethics believes compulsory genetic control is justified in case carriers of the genetic disease do not abstain voluntarily from having children, which justify the means. In Situation Ethics, Fletcher states Only the end justifies the means; nothing else.[footnoteRef:34] [34: Joseph Fletcher as sighted on Norman L. Geisler, Christian Ethics-Second Edition, (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic,2010),182.]

4.1.Fallacy of the Secular Humanist World Views on Biomedical IssuesA Christian scholar Norman L. Geisler points out the arguments against many of the secular humanist points of views in that their point are not logical that; the quality of life principle of the secular humanist is utilitarian.[footnoteRef:35] Which does not define what does quality constitutes and who is to decide what quality is. Another argument is whether the general public can have access to this quality of life and the fact that there is no guarantee of satisfactory outcome due to the inherent unknown nature of the technology. [35: Utilitarian (n): someone who supports the belief that actions should be chosen based on what will cause the most pleasure for the most people.]

Geisler argues that no life was ever been created by the human being thus do not have control over life and death. Human only manipulates existing life and if a human being did not bring human life into the world, then we have no right to claim sovereignty over the creation of the God. The other point is their emphasis on responsibility to improve genetic evolution. Geisler argues that there is no real evidence that evolutionary process produced the present race, and both Scripture and scientific evidence point to God as an origin. Also even with the present advance in technology, not even a fruit fly was able to be improved permanently. Even if we can make a permanent changes to human species, Can does not imply ought and even the eventuated permanent changes does not mean better, perhaps just different. The claim made by Fletcher that Only the end justifies the means is not always morally correct from what we have seen from our histories, such as Germans desire to a genocide of Jews, or examples of killing political opponent for a harmony of a nation or killing AIDS patients to stop the spread of disease[footnoteRef:36] [36: Norman L. Geisler,182-85.]

4.2.Other Religious viewsThere are some similarities between various religious belief and also differences even within the same faith. This group influences public opinion, especially on procreation, abortion and infertility therapy. The Jewish stand on genetic manipulation is mainly based on teaching of tradition and rabbi rather than scripture. This is summarized in the statement of Rabbi Eliot Dorff"The Jewish demand that we do our best to provide healing makes it important that we take advantage of the promise of cloning to aid us in finding cures for a variety of diseases and overcoming infertility"

This view is based on human being as co-creator in interpretation of Genesis to care, preserve and improve to satisfy human needs. Judaism does equate life with conception, but most Orthodox rabbis find no firm reason to object cloning legally or ethically.[footnoteRef:37] [37: Deena Al Hilli]

Judaism view that the fetus gains full human rights and status only once the babys head has emerged from the birth canal [Ohalot 7] based on Genesis 1:2 and 2:7, fetus gain full human rights and status when a baby takes a first breath as God breathe life into Adam.[footnoteRef:38] [38: http://www.reclaimingjudaism.org/teachings/when-does-life-begin-jewish-view accessed on 22May 2015 at 5pm]

Some Jewish thinkers believe that cloning does not represent a potential violation of human dignity, therefore, the benefits of developing cloning must outweigh other factors with all the commitments to reduce the violations, including mistakes resulting from technological errors, but emphasizing restrict cloning within a family member to prevent consanguineous relationships.However other Jewish thinkers fear that human cloning may change family values in relationship and responsibilities among family member as in Judaism, religious status is passed through the mother and tribal designation through father requiring both parents for a child[footnoteRef:39]which birth by a cloning technology will nullify such status. [39: Deena Al Hilli, Op. cit.]

For Muslim, the Holy Koran contains the words of God, and it governs every aspect of instructions on everyday life including several interpretations on human cloning. The interpretations of Koran make cloning of the total person, strictly forbidden as it affects kinship that will result in loss of identity with consequences in clones' marriage or inheritance. Islamic faith believes that clones have a soul given by OTHER creators. Thus, an act of cloning is playing God. Islam considers cloning is against social and family life as clone birth is outside the recognized marriage. After the creation of Dolly in 1997, in every Islamic conference, reproductive cloning was banned however few Islamic Jurisprudence Councils have given permission to use of excess IVF embryos but not permitted to deliberately create embryos either by IVF or SCNT for research.[footnoteRef:40] [40: Foong, Patrick. 2011. Human embryonic stem cell (HESC) research in Malaysia: multi-faith perspectives. Asian Bioethics Review, 188-90.]

However, there are also many Islamic thinkers believing that knowledge is bestowed by God, therefore, "there should be no limits to research" and should be encouraged. In general, Islamic faith differentiates reproductive and therapeutic cloning. Cloning particular parts such as heart and kidneys for the treatment purpose is not prohibited, but cloning the whole human body is forbidden in any circumstance. Therapeutic cloning is interpreted as alleviating human suffering from diseases, thus accepted positively and encouraged.[footnoteRef:41] [41: Deena Al Hilli]

5.Christian Response toward the bio-medical researchFor Christians our absolute decider of ethics is shown in the bible and bible morality governs our ethics such as sacredness of human life made in image of God, which reflects on our attitude toward Vitro fertilization and genetic engineering.[footnoteRef:42] [42: John Jefferson Davis, evangelical ethics, (New Jersey: P&R Publishing, 2004),15.]

The Christian approach is to use medical advances in serving God. Christians believes that God is sovereign over life. Therefore, the accumulated learning in a technology used should use to cultivate Gods creation but not to create or control it. Any treatment to improve or repair the human life should not be compulsory as not to disregard human dignity. The whole approach to the advancement of biomedicine is the therapeutic cause, not eugenic.[footnoteRef:43] [43: Norman L. Geisler,185-86.]

Modern Humanist insist on pursuing the fallacy in their logic such as What is being done ought to be done or The end justifies the means which justifies many acting upon wrong things to justify another wrong. The fact wrong thing done by abortion does not justify the experimentation to the live aborted babies no matter how valuable the information gain may be.The principle Christians abide by is firstly the respect for the creation of the sovereign God. Humans are not God, but we are godlike, made little lower than the angels, but crowned with glory and honor (Ps. 8:5)and since God is holy, in a sense we share moral likeness with God and human life is sacred, no matter how badly he may be scarred or disfigured and deserves to be treated as sacred."Morality is always a life and death issue" What would Bible believing Christians feels when a human being, an image of God, been treated like animals that we are to dominate. God assigned human being to take care of His creations. He equipped human being with knowledge (Col. 3:10), righteousness and holiness (Eph. 4:24) to accomplish the task assigned. As God's steward in faithful obedience we are to take dominion over the earth including human diseases and it is our duty to try eliminating human pain and sufferings, and stem cell research offers such hope.[footnoteRef:44] [44: http://chalcedon.edu/research/articles/biblical-reasoning-against-human-cloning-part-i/accessed 6th May 2015 10:25am]

However biblical ethics issue is not in trying to help suffering neighbor, but whether we are obeying Gods commandments. Specifically, the sixth law of prohibiting murder. The Bible does not specifically advise us when a person's life begins, but from the Word to prophet Jeremiah (Jer. 1:5) we can deduce that life and sanctification begin at the moment of fertilization.Trying to duplicate this sanctified moment, human beings are challenging God at His infinite sovereignty. There is no comparison starting life out of nothing with manipulating with God's perfect design. In attempting to do so, human beings are duplicating our original act that introduced death to the immortal creation. Not the physical act of eating forbidden fruit, but the willful disobedient to Gods Word.[footnoteRef:45] [45: Ibid.]

By willfully attempting to create stem cells, in the process, unborn children are murdered, which human being as a society must answer to God's judgment at the end time. It is clear that mistreatment of any human being is a direct insult to all mighty who bequeathed His image on to human being. The dignity of any person must be treated most sacredly in respect for the sovereign God. Most Christian believes that life starts at the beginning of fertilization when egg meets a sperm. Whether naturally or by somatic cell nuclear transfer, the result is a living human being with the image of God and dignity accompanying the image.In general, if economic benefit out weight the cost, in secular society there are objective justification to assert that their actions are morally sound, but for the teachings of Scripture as Gods providence for human being always get the priority over economic cost/benefits analysis.The official stand of Roman Catholic Church is Every possible act to cloning human is intrinsically evil based on stewardship teaching of the Bible. Any act departing natural means God intended is compromising human dignity in equality and right to live. Whether the purpose is to help infertility or for cloning tissues and organs to treat diseases does not justify unethical procedure for a moral objective.Even though the US Presbyterian General Assembly has not made policy statements on genetic ethics yet, Prof. Williams made a possible Presbyterian response to cloning which is caution and constraint must be exercised, as new technology can bring good and evil, but human nature tends to lean toward evil. Therefore, Presbyterian will choose the lesser evil and greater good. Leaning toward a situational ethics which Agape love conquers all.[footnoteRef:46] [46: http://www.counterbalance.org/iftm/will-frame.html accessed on 18th, May 2015, 5:00pm]

Cloning process allows a human to select and design of their children, playing the role of God. The teaching of the Bible is that children are to be conceived by the union between a male and female, thus cloning is a violation of divine command by turning an act of love into a project. Some Protestant thinkers made a supposition that human beings are created as co-creator and have the responsibility to partake with God to shape a better future within a framework of ethical restrictions.[footnoteRef:47] [47: Deena Al Hilli,]

As for therapeutic cloning using IPS (induced pluripotent stem cells) cells, Christians may have a difference in opinion. 2012 Nobel Prize winner Shinya Yamanaka discovered a way to turn back the clock' on mature cells that already have a specific function and reprogrammed to be any kind of cell required. With this technology, the use of human embryos is no longer required, eliminating ethical issue of killing a human being. Any cell from a patient can be reprogrammed to repair own damaged body part[footnoteRef:48] without challenging the sovereignty of God. Our duty as a faithful steward of God, we have responsibility to correct mischief created by the fall of humanity. Therefore, we should encourage the perfection of the procedure, which may eliminate sufferings and give rightfully deserved the dignity to our neighbors as an image of God. [48: By Elizabeth Landau, CNN, April 28, 2014 -- Updated 2102 GMT (0502 HKT)]

The basic guideline for Christian Ethics in serving God is that any genetic manipulation must be a therapeutic, not eugenic and life starts at zygote stage and it has dignity as an image of God, deserving respect, morally and constitutionally.Now with these basic guidelines some of the secular issues Christians may face are analyzed to clarify the ethical Christian responses in Sitz in LebenSome of issues facing Christians are abortion and euthanasia. The Abortion debate focuses on the human status of the unborn. In America, an abortion is taken place every thirty seconds. Both Scripture and scientific findings support that life begins at conception there for the fetus has every right to live as a full human. Only exception a pregnancy can be terminated would be where the life of the mother is threatened such as in the case of tubal pregnancies, which case we do not see as an abortion, but a self-defense. (Exod.22.2) As for euthanasia, there is active and passive euthanasia. Active euthanasia encourages painless death that involves an unnatural means of killing a person that Christian should oppose strongly as only God has sovereignty over life and death. (Job 1:21) However, Christians may agree to have a passive euthanasia in special circumstances where it is a naturally irreversible and no divine intervention is forthcoming and not against the patients expressed will. Passive euthanasia involves discontinuing unnatural means to sustain life such as heart-and-lung machines. It is morally acceptable to stop unnatural efforts to prolong the process of dying accepting the sovereign will of God.To Christians, organ transplantation is morally justifiable with a consent of donor to prolong the life of a patient. However, donation of an organ must not be the cause of death to the donor. Donating ones spare organ is in the Christian view is following one of the greatest love Christ taught us. (John 15:13) However, in obtaining necessary organ, the greatest respect for the human dignity must be given to the donors body, ensuring unquestionable death before any organ is taken out.Genetic surgery is ethically permissible only if the surgery is attempting to restore life as God created, not reconstructing in any way we want it to be. God created perfect human beings, and He wants us to be as perfect as we can be. We have the technology to find the sex of a child before the birth; however we are obligated to accept Gods sovereign decision. For the same argument, a surgery to change ones sex is unethical and morally wrong.An artificial insemination by the husband does not have valid moral objections in a Christian perspective as this is seen as correcting impediments to fulfilling Gods command to propagate life. If the act of sexual intercourse is an act of love, and the child is a product of love, would a child from a donor sperm not be loved by loving couple? The one flesh in Gen. 2:24 refers to the intimacy of marriage, not just to sexual intercourse. There seems to be no moral reason to prevent artificial inseminations either from husbands or donors.However, the procedure to a same-sex couple is ethically wrong and not models to be encouraged. Children need a father and a mother to be raised as God intended.The surrogate motherhood is only the reverse of artificial insemination and there is no inherent immorality, surrogate motherhood involves the large potential degradation of woman and motherhood. God created a place for a baby in ones own wifes womb. If this is not possible, we have to consider whether God willed for us to have our own genetic offspring. Perhaps other alternatives like an adoption or even He willed us to help fatherless.In vitro fertilization involves uniting sperm and ovum in a Petri dish and transplanted into a mothers womb. The ethical conflict with IVF procedures is that in order to achieve one success, many unused embryos are wasted which Christian considers murdering. Until perfecting the procedure so there are no wasted embryos or a husbands sperm is artificially placed in his wifes womb, IVF is morally wrong.Organ and tissue of aborted babies became increasingly demanded commodity in the medical market as the medical technology increases in utilizing them to treat serious disabilities. The ethical questions for Christians are that because we can should we do it even though the procedures involving destroying the human dignity of an unborn child who demands full respect as an image of God. There are no objections in giving our organs after we are dead with the informed consent of the donor. Human stem cells have proven its benefit in curing disease; however the process involves sacrificing embryos life in order to cure others is the main argument for a Christian.Science has advanced that now non-embryonic stem cells could be made, which does not involve the destruction of human life. There is no comparative research done to prove which stem cell is more reliable, but the functional capacities of IPS cells have proven to be more valuable compared to embryonic stem cell. However, both sources of stem cells are in the infant stage of development with unknown side effects, especially with newer IPS cells.Ethically there are no disagreements in using IPS cells to harvest tissue or organ to repair disabilities as long as these procedures will not cause more suffering to a patient. Christians should support the advancement of techniques using IPS cells in elevating suffering yet not causing a destruction of an innocent human being for the advancement of science.In expectations of future development in medicine, many people deep-freeze their dead body in a hope that in future, their death could be reversible. However, the Bible teaches that only God can bring the person to life at the resurrection (John 5:25-29; 1 Cor. 15; Rev. 20). The limit of a persons life is the will of God and it is unethical trying to avoid. (Gen. 3:3-4) [footnoteRef:49] [49: Norman L. Geisler, 153-95.]

Cloning of a person is scientifically possible and a reality now. From media we can find many claims of creating human embryo worldwide and even claim of birth of cloned child[footnoteRef:50] From Christians point, there are serious objections to cloning in that we are only the custodians of Gods creation, not its creator. Socially there will be various problems involving the identity of cloned person with a quite a certain outcome of deformities and unknown genetic mutations. However, the fundamental objection is we are playing God with ultimate human pride to outdo Gods sovereignty. Christians must oppose Cloning as an act which denies the sanctity of sex which God has created and ordained.[footnoteRef:51] [50: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-127836/Chinese-cloned-30-human-embryos.html accessed on 22nd May 2015, 5pm.] [51: Norman L. Geisler, 195-96.]

Human in contempt toward the God in the name of science, many commercial force and military performs researches on gene-splicing, to create perfect substances to help human desire and creating perfect human being by combining genes of different species. Gene splicing has some serious consequences which may even lead to the end of humanity by unknowingly creating a new disease. Already scientists created the oil feeding new bug to tackle large oil slicks, but there are fear that these bugs may enter into our ecosystem to destroy lubrication systems of various machinery with catastrophic consequences. The anticipated benefits do not justify the means. Human gene-splicing represents an example of a human desire to be sovereign over creation in rejection of the Creator who wills us to serve the creation.[footnoteRef:52] [52: Norman L. Geisler, 196.]

Some of the main objections toward the Christian biomedical ethics are claim that Christian ethic holds back scientific progress and lacks compassion for the suffering. However we could argue back that any scientific so called advancement is not always benefiting humanity, but just an expansion of disturbance to the perfectly balanced ecology of Gods creation.[footnoteRef:53]As for compassion, violating human dignity and responsibilities are not the way of showing concern. The humanists standard for proper compassion is ultimate without justification. Humanists have a moral prescription without a moral prescriber.[footnoteRef:54] [53: Norman L. Geisler, 196.] [54: Ibid.,197.]

6.ConclusionThe ethical response toward the human cloning varied depending on two main worldviews one has on the issues. The secular humanists worldview and Christian worldview differs in many ways. The secular humanists deny the sovereignty of the Creator who created the universe and given the task of serving His creation. To secular humanists, humans are a just higher animal with greater intelligence and this intelligence must be used to improve the human species by any ethical means for the benefit of humanity. This absence of sovereignty supports abortion, euthanasia, and genetic manipulations to improve the quality of life of human species.Christians, on the other hand, believes that God created the human being in His image to serve him with dignity and sanctity. We are not the creator of the world, but stewards of His creation. Therefore in respect to any medical ethics, Christians believe technology must support Christian morality in corrective measures of the creation.[footnoteRef:55]Most procedures involving embryonic stem cells oppose Christian ethics as it involves violation of human dignity as an image of God. As steward of God, we have moral responsibility to protect and maintain divine creation and order, thus embryonic stem cell research is condemned as a human arrogance in challenging divine authority [55: Ibid.]

However, the logic of our Christian morality has been entangled with secular morality such to an extent; it became very difficult to distinguish the will of God. With the rapid development of genetic technology, Christians face a dilemma between our responsibilities as a steward of God to correct suffering of humanity with following the teachings of the Bible. This dilemma leads to questions of Christian anthropology.For Christians, our purpose in this world is to glorify our creator by serving His creation. Our moral responsibility God assigned us is a therapeutic cause, not creation. With this in mind, we can set a priority in deciding between our legalism in our human emotion with an absolute binding Gods law.In considering whether a particular action is within the boundaries of Gods intention, first we must seek whether an action does not oppose direct commandments of God, then whether a human dignity has been violated and resultant of an action is glorifying God, not opposing natural order God has bestowed upon humanity.For the Christians, the manipulation of human gene involves in Christian sense, manipulating an image of God which degrades sovereign God, and gene splicing is contempt of humanity challenging God to be sovereign over God which is sure to receive condemnation from God like Babel tower incident.Development of IPS cells provides a great possibility for Christian to be a faithful steward of God within the ethical boundary of Christianity. Although the procedure is in early stage, far from perfection, it is only avenue so far God has given us for perfecting in order to elevate suffering of His people from an imperfect world it has become. "Christians believe in a God who makes himself dependent on how human beings try to fulfill the great expectations He has of them."[footnoteRef:56] [56: Hensen, Bart and Schotsmans,117.]

BibliographyBooksDavis John Jefferson. evangelical ethics. New Jersey: P&R Publishing, 2004.

Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology-Second Edition. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1998.

Geisler, Norman L. Christian Ethics-Second Edition. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010.

Kung, Hans. Does God Exist? London: Collins, 1980.

Policy Making ResearchesProhibition of Human Cloning Act 2002 (Paper No. 144, 2002) (http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/comact/browse/TOCN.htm)

The Presidents Council on Bioethics, Human Cloning and Human Dignity Washington, DC July 2002

The Westchester Institute for Ethics & the Human Person, When Does Human Life Begins?White Paper Volume 1, Number 1, Oct 2008.

Articles and ThesisDeena Al Hilli, Cloning: A dilemma Practiced but not solved, Bahrain Medical Bulletin, Vol.28, No.1, March 2006

Douglas JW Milne, A Religious, Ethical and Philosophical Study of the Human Person in the Context of Biomedical Practices (Australian Catholic University School of Philosophy, 2006)

Foong, Patrick. 2011. Human embryonic stem cell (HESC) research in Malaysia: multi-faith perspectives. Asian Bioethics Review. 3.

Hensen, Bart and Schotsmans, Human Stem Cell Research as a promising hope for humankind: A Christian Ethical Contribution Ethics in Biomedical Research 2007: International Perspectives, 10-11.

Kathinka Evers, The Identity of Clones, Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 1999, Vol. 24, No.1.

KaumudhiChalla, Reproductive Cloning in Human Being: A challenge to human rights Golden Research Thoughts. (Dec2011, Vol.1 Issue 6), 1-4.

Morales, Nestor Micheli, Psychological and Ideological Aspects of Human Cloning: A Transition to a Trans humanist Psychology Journal of Evolution & Technology (Jul 2009, Vol.20 Issue 2)

Olivia Harvey, Regulating stem cell research and human cloning in an Australian context: the Lockhart Review New Genetics and Society Vol. 27, No. 1, March 2008.Dictionary and CommentariesWalton John H.and two others.Bible Background Commentary-Old Testament. Illinois: IVP Academic, 2000.

Randall K. J. Tan, Life, in Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary, (Nashville, Tennessee: Holman Reference, 2003)

Bible Explorer 4 Bible Study Software, Vincents Word Studies in the New Testament-1Cor.11:7

Internet Sourcehttp://chalcedon.edu/research/articles/biblical-reasoning-against-human-cloning-part-i/ accessed 6th May 2015 10:25am

By Elizabeth Landau, CNN, April 28, 2014 -- Updated 2102 GMT (0502 HKT)http://edition.cnn.com/2014/04/28/health/stem-cell-breakthrough/ accessed on 1st June 2015, 6pm.

http://www.genetherapy.me/genetic-engineering/hybrids-nephilim-human-genetic-engineering-transhumanism-video.php accessed on 23rd May 2015, 6pm

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn3217-first-cloned-baby-born-on-26-december.html#.VV7SbFIXWJA accessed on 22nd May 2015, 5pm.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-127836/Chinese-cloned-30-human-embryos.html accessed on 22nd May 2015, 5pm.

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/04/28/health/stem-cell-breakthrough/ accessed on 18th, May 2015 4:30pm

http://www.reclaimingjudaism.org/teachings/when-does-life-begin-jewish-view accessed on 22May 2015 at 5pm

http://www.counterbalance.org/stemcell/curre-body.html accessed on 18th, May 2015, 5:00pm