http://http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/may/20/stemcells.medicalresearch1 Pushing back the boundries of science or playing god? I'm all for stem cell research to help cure disease but I'm not really sure on this whole "saviour siblings" area.
Why is "playing God" always a parameter in these debates? Even allowing for the highly unlikely eventuality that some form of beardy apparition does control all living things through omnipotent and omniscient benevolence (and wrath, let's not forget the wrath), how does the minutae of scientific noodling at the almost molecular level of reproductive biochemistry add up to a playful imitation of this divine reality? Stem stell research isn't "Playing God", no matter how apparently bizarre and obtruse the various experiments are painted to look by the lay media and the various (unfailingly unqualified) commentators on the issue from every nook and cranny of ChurchWorld and associated cassock-wringing wets.
In my eyes, the Brits are way too liberal in this matter (and I can assure you that I'm far from being conservative)!
I agree. We should change the way we use that phrase. I think that Paris Hilton is actually "playing God" - she is worshiped and she does nothing.
We already know how this turns out. The "siblings" are brainwashed into thinking they have been saved from a global catastrophe, and they are told that they are waiting for their turn to go to the Island, which is the last safe place on earth. An exceptionally curious lad finds out that when someone goes to the island, they are really killed and cut up to use for replacement organs. He then breaks out of the compound with a hot chick, kills his "brother", has sex for the first time, and then releases all of the captive siblings into the free world. Or maybe I've been watching too many movies.