单项选择题
The sensational news a couple of years ago that scientists had cloned a sheep sent academics and the public into a panic at the prospect that humans might be next. That is a (62) reaction. Cloning is a (63) challenge to the most fundamental laws of biology, (64) it is not unreasonable to be (65) that it might threaten human society and dignity. Yet much of the ethical opposition seems also to grow out of an unthinking disgust—sort of "yuck(令人厌恶的事物)factor. " And that makes it hard for even (66) scientists and ethicists to (67) the matter clearly. While human cloning might not offer great benefits to humanity, no one has yet made a persuasive (68) that it would do any real harm, (69) .
Theologians (神学专家) (70) that to clone a human would (71) human dignity. That would surely be true if a cloned individual were treated as a (72) being, with fewer rights or lower (73) . But why suppose that cloned persons wouldn’t share the same rights and dignity as the rest of us A leading ethicist has suggested that cloning would violate the "right to genetic identity." (74) did he come up with such a right It makes perfect (75) to say that adult persons have a right not to be cloned without their voluntary, informed consent. But if such consent is given, whose "right" to genetic identity would be violated
Many of the science fiction scenarios(剧情) (76) by the prospect of human cloning turn out, (77) reflection, to be absurdly improbable. There is the fear, for instance, that parents might clone a child to have "spare parts" (78) the original child needs an organ (79) . But parents of (80) twins don’t view one child (81) an organ farm for the other. Why should cloned children’s parents be any different
A. for
B. from
C. with
D. as