Opposition to human cloning confuses and annoys me.

I've yet to hear an argument that doesn't either fall back on some strange religious foundation. Apparently to some people this is "playing god", where "playing god" is defined arbitrarily. I'm not sure how a heart transplant or a pacemaker isn't "playing god", because if god has a plan for us, that must certainly include you dying of a heart attack. You using technology to thwart god's will would certainly seem to be a sign of arrogance, but yet these same people don't have a problem with these other uses of god-like technology.

What's strange is that most opposition is Christian - so even though most Christian ideology centers around making you feel bad about having sex, it's apparently even worse to circumvent the sexual act and create a human without it.

I've also heard some incredibly hand-wavy arguments about the sanctity of souls, which seems to impy that your soul is bound up with your genetic makeup, so if you create a clone, he may not have a soul. This doesn't stand up either, considering that identical twins have the same DNA.

Bush's argument against human cloning apparently consists of the phrase, "We must not create life to destroy life.", which doesn't even make any sense. It seems to be one of those issues that people form an opinion about, and then create a reason as an afterthought.

I have no idea why anyone would oppose it. I suppose we'll start having the same arguments once we're able to do things like genetically tailor diseased genes out of children. God forbid we prevent someone from having a tendency toward heart disease or cancer by tweaking their genes. Once people hear "genetic tailoring", they flip out and start making the sign of the cross and waving wooden stakes.