Reproduction is theft as it copies the identity of another living being or a thing. Related to the cloning issue, the main problem for modern science is that it has limited information about the beginning of life and early stages of its development. Thus, if people do not know soothing, it does not mean researchers should and ought to avoid it. Thus, piracy, duplicity, and cloning are theft because they use images or ideas of other people violating their privacy and intellectual rights. Modern ethical and social and legal principles and categories simply cannot cope with the novel issues raised by the manufacture of totally new living organisms by genetic engineering, the creation of human thought. Cloning is theft because research use and changes the identity of a person. They manipulate people’s genetic make-up to remedy certain kinds of diseases, and so on. Researchers do not even have the language to talk about the radically new situations and circumstances that the technology of the processes of human life brings about. The main problem is that scientists apply old moral principles and arguments to explain and object cloning, but this area of research demands a new understanding and interpretation of human life. “But this fact still leaves unanswered the question of whether all stages of a human being’s life have equal moral standing” (Kass 2 cited McLeod 5). Others have argued that cloning and genetic engineering experimentation raises such important and serious questions that the opportunities for such research studies should be restricted to the very early steps of the embryo’s growth. Duplicity is theft because it takes ideas and thoughts of another person transforming and changing them. The strong disagreement against reproduction comes from a notion of self-ownership: once all people are recognized as equal persons regardless of color or ethnic origin, they could not be bought and sold like chattels. Yet within traditional reproduction theory, there is a reluctance to recognize self-ownership (McLeod 43). However, this kind of reasoning is hardly ever possible in ethical discussion since in very many cases the principle and the description of the particular case are problematic. No scientific evidence about the biological development of the human embryo can prove or disprove anything about the status of the human embryo as a person with moral status and rights. In my view then it is a vain hope that researchers will be able to determine when a human person comes into existence simply by inspecting the biological and genetic evidence about the development of the embryo. Thus, even if researchers agree that an individual biological entity emerges only at day fourteen with the formation of a rudimentary nervous system, this does not tell us whether that individual entity is a person with distinctively moral status. The second confusion which has bedeviled the debate about the beginning of human life arises from not attending to the very simple fact that researchers are dealing with a continuum. There are many kinds of continua: an interval of time is a continuum in that each phase precedes and gives way to another in such a way that researchers cannot divide it up into discrete atomic bits. No matter how finely you divide up an interval of time you will always be left with an interval that can be divided still further. Piracy is theft because it duplicates the ideas and intellectual products