Questioning the morality of cloning

What do you think about when you hear the word clone?Do you think about science? How about the ethics of it? Have you ever thought that you would want to be cloned or maybe clone someone you love? Did you ever think that you would clone your dead child to have them back? You love your kids don’t you? What about that feeling of absolute loss and emptiness when you lost them? What if you could get them back?A lot of questions surround the science of cloning and the ones stated above are all questions that Jessie (Rebecca Romijn-Stamos) and Paul (Greg Kinnear) tackle as they are introduced to the idea of cloning their dead child, Adam. The man who poses the question to them is Dr. Richard Wells (Robert De Niro) who believes that he has perfected the science of cloning. Jessie wants her son back no matter what but Paul is the skeptical biology teacher who eventually gives in to his emotions and they clone their son.As the second Adam grows up (yes, they gave him the same name) he hits the age in which he died, 8, and then all of a sudden starts to change. No, it’s not early puberty; he starts to have night terrors. However, are they night terrors that he dreams up himself, or are they memories? Is this some sort of clone malfunction or was this going to happen to the original child anyway? A lot of questions come up throughout this movie and the end eventually answers a lot of them.The movie could have gone in a couple of directions: a) It could have stayed on the premise of the ethics of cloning, or b) stayed with the family and try to scare the bejesus out of the moviegoers. Well, since this is a Hollywood movie with Robert De Niro in it of course they went with b.The movie has its good moments. The kid is quite creepy and Romijn-Stamos and Kinnear pull off the loving couple/parents. The problem with a few of the scary moments is that you know that they’re coming (Why would you walk into an old burnt down cabin in a fog-filled woods, really?).A questionable hole in the plot comes up when Paul, who is a biology teacher at a local high school, tells Wells that cloning is unethical but never brings up the fact that there could be major biological defects in their cloned child. Not much of a biologist is he?Actually, what this movie does is not illustrate a “god send” but instead demonstrates where the power of god ends, and man begins. Throughout the movie it’s brought by either Richard or Paul brings up how serious of a situation they have put themselves in by cloning the child. However, there is a majority of the movie where the significance of what they’ve done is forgotten and the film moves on in a bunch of directions. What’s never commented on is that what the family and doctor did was something that used to be thought of an exclusive power that only god could wield.The movie could have made a strong move by making a stance on a subject that many people have strong emotions about. Instead the film is content enough with just trying to entertain people for a couple of hours. It is too bad since the film employed really good actors who could have used a deeper plot with more substance.