The story of the cloned kitty has been sweeping across all the news channels today; sure is a cute little cat. But there is something troubling about this story. No, it’s not the cloning aspect, and it’s not the cost ($50K); it’s the freaking “holier-than-thou” critics of the woman who wanted her cat to be cloned. For instance:
“It’s morally problematic and a little reprehensible,” said David Magnus, co-director of the Center for Biomedical Ethics at Stanford University. “For $50,000, she could have provided homes for a lot of strays.”
Excuse me, Mr. Magnus, what business is it of yours how she spent her money? I don’t presume to tell Mr. Magnus that he should donate money to “Meals On Wheels” for senior citizens, rather than spending it on dining out with his family several times each month. Further, what on earth makes you think that the woman’s choice was either (a) clone a cat, or (b) donate the money to animal shelters. The woman wanted to purchase a service, paid for it using her money, and got what she wanted. She’s happy, the company is happy, and the new kitty is happy. One other beef: Linda Vester, on her show “Dayside” today, was interviewing a spokesman for Genetic Savings & Clone (which did the cloning), and the last question she asked him, in a very deep, serious voice, was, “Aren’t you playing god?” Sigh.