What is your opinion of cloning? should we stop with just vegetables and livestock?
87621
I think all forms of cloning should be banned.  What good can possibly come of it?\n\nThe ones that they have cloned have died at early ages or turned out to be a veg, instead of a sheep
84585
Just what it sounds like: producing lots of genetically identical plants.\n\nUnlike animal cloning plant cloning is a natural proccess that plants used for millions of years before humans evolved. Many plants can reproduce identical copies of themsleves from their roots, or by dropped limbs or from other parts of their bodies.\n\nHumans have used plant cloning for as long as we have been farming. Common cloning techniques include the use of cuttings, runners, grafts, splitting of bulbs and the planting of tubers and bulbs.
899552
Hello, and what an interesting question.  \n\nMy answer is not about cloning humans, but rather cloning cells from humans that have the potential to turn into specialized cells.\n\nCorporate support of cloning human cells (like all Pharmaceutical companies supporting drug development) would only result in treating "end stage" support for diseases. \n\nThis is not a good thing.  Here is the reason: \n\nCorporate support generally does not advocate a fundamental understanding of how the disease begins, and it would not support understanding how to prevent the disease. \n\nThe best reason to support human cloning, in my opinion, is to understand disease and to prevent it. This has nothing to do with profits. \n\nIf Corporate companies supported preventative medicine, then they would make small profits in the long run.  \n\nBut when they support "end stage" therapies, their profit potential is limitless.\n\nNowadays Corporate profits can be hidden in money driven governmental policies (I live in the USA), by making human cell cloning sound wonderful and very humanitarian (and costly).  \n\nBut the real point is missed by consumers (who pay taxes which would offset tax benefits given to corporations anyways). \n\nThe real point in human cloning should be in preventing the disease in the first place.  And that is the real potential in human cloning of cells.  \n\nMaybe there are some humanitarians and good doers out there that really see this potential, and when you find them, they probably have nothing to do with corporate industry (or politicians or universities).  \n\nMy suspicion is that the humanitarians are being silenced throughout this money making frenzy for human cell cloning.  \n\nAs this happens, a shift towards "end stage" treatment will be emphasized, and understanding of the biology behind the disease will be suppressed (or, worse, even patented).  \n\nThis philosophy of treating diseases (as opposed to preventing them or even curing them) does have its advantages.  \n\nFirst, you won't have to change your lifestyle.  \n\nSecond, if you work in the field (as I do) then you can be assured of a long career supported by government and corporate entities and monies.  \n\nIt was fun thinking of our future.  I hope I helped you out!
954161
I'll ignore the religious aspects--you can find Scripture to support or condemn pretty much anything.\n\nI think some of the ethical problems people have with cloning are:  We might accidentally create people with the lab equivalent of severe birth defects, who would suffer because of our imperfect skill.  People might be cloned as replacements for dead people or as organ factories for sick ones, and not be allowed to live their own lives.  Some people worry about clones being used in identity theft as well.
110014
1)Cloning isn’t very successful. Currently scientists have to attempt to produce hundreds of clones just to get one success. The rest of the clones either resulting a spontaneous abortion or else are deformed deformed and die or are euthanased shortly after birth. Obviously we can’t ethically apply such a technique to human babies, even if we could find women willing to carry children with a high probability of miscarriage or being born deformed.\n\n2)It’s a worthless exercise. Genetics is only a small part of  what makes someone intelligent. Environmental effects such as diet, childhood stimulation, education and upbringing are far more important.  Even if we could clone Einstein we almost certainly wouldn’t end up with anyone of any great ability.\n\n3)It’s ethically and legally impossible. Einstein gave consent for organ harvesting, he never gave consent to being cloned. You simply can’t do this legally, which means it could only possibly be achieved by a Mad Doctor, possibly using a lightning rod. Possibly working a a castle on a high peak in Transylvania. Necessarily with an assistant named Igor.\n\n4)It’s physically impossible, at least with modern technology. Cloning requires live cells. Al has been dead for some time. Even if technology reaches appoint where we can clone animals form dead cells we still won’t be able to use remains that have been pickled in formaldehyde like Al because formaldehyde destroys DNA. Maybe in another 50 years or so we will have the technology tot allow use to reconstitute shattered DNA, but not today.
983619
Can you show me where in the article it says anyone wants to create an embryo which is half cow and half human? I only see it mentioning that they plan to insert human DNA into cow ova from which the DNA has been removed, to create embryos that are 99.9% human. I don't have a problem with that, and I think it's actually rather sensible as far as being cost-effective and providing sufficient testing material goes.\n\nHalf cow half human, maybe not. I'm not sure you could even 'fuse' cow and human DNA to create an embryo.
694664
(this is an ad-hoc answer for an ad-hoc question)\n\n - because cloning is good - because no one wants to die or have to amputate something or live impared.
791817
.\n\nNo. If we clone humans, we're playing God.\n\n\n\nI think the only things we should clone are human PARTS.\n\n.
1063767
memory has nothing to do with cloning. clones are legal humans, just with identical DNA as some one else. no your children wouldnt be the clones children, the clone is one persons DNA put into the womb of a woman, and then it gets birthed like any other baby. nothing is the same except the dna, and especially not the age, relatives, or memory.  of corse its murder to kill a clone, the clone would be a person just like you or I. clones don't even necessarily grow up to look the same as their parent clone.
509667
I would not want cloning after I die for the simple reason that there is only one of me. However for a clone to be me it would have to have my memories, my talents, my thoughts, etc. ,the clone would look like me but have a completely different life than I, so if they could take out the weaknesses from my genes and make a clone that doesn't have any major health problems I would consider letting them clone me after I die.
786627
Cloning means extracting the DNA from a living thing and using it to create creating a genetically identical copy.\n\nAs there are no flying pigs in existence there is nothing to clone to create one.\n\nWhat I think you might be referring to is the potential creation of a CHIMERA. This is a blend of two creatures achieved by splicing together their respective DNAs. Obviously the resulting creature would no longer be a pig or, say, an eagle but might be something in between - a "peagle" perhaps. Conceivably the insertion of the genes which turn legs into wings and increase the flight muscles might just result in something like a flying pig - a frightening prospect! The main question is - would it taste like ham or chicken?
883863
Depends what ones views with bioethics are. \n\nIf you're an evolutionist, the question shouldn't be "do you want to be cloned" but rather "should you be cloned"? Cos if you keep producing the same genetic material which is what you're essentially doing with cloning, how would that increase your survival as an organism in the wild?
692270
One of the major problems with most transplant procedures is acceptibility. The patient's body recognizes the new organ as an intruder or threat, and attacks it.\nA cloned version of yourself would theoretically be a source of completely acceptable organs, since they are, in essence, your organs, genetically identical. Of course, you'd be killing another sentient being to harvest these organs, so there's the morality issue.\n\nHuman ingenuity has always been directed towards two opposite goals, saving lives, and destroying them. The other likely reason for cloning humans is for war. Identical soldiers, genetically modified to increase their physical prowess, dexterity with their weapon, and willingness to follow orders. Why send thousands of skilled laborers, with families and children, to their deaths when you can have a clone army grown specifically to be cannon fodder?\n\nI'm sure you could think of a few more reasons, if you really thought about it.
823360
Well....cloning is just making out a genetically identical individual from an individual. To begin cloning is of two types..natural and artificial...Natural is the one which happens in nature by mitosis in eukaryotes and binary fission in prokaryotes...you can give tonnes and tonnes of examples for this(anything identical to another thing is a clone of tht 'another' thing........i can even say that DNA replication is cloninf of the original DNA molecule....thus cloning can be a broad term but here i m jus tellin you about cloning of organisms or cells). Artificial cloning methods are the ones which humans use for various reasons(wich are not ethical) Artificial cloning would include tissue culture, embryo cloning, tranferring a diploid nucleus to an egg cell to get an identical organism(as in case of Dolly the sheep), etc., and etc.,  so you can devide cloning into many types....................................
540271
Investigate cloning. Clone some plants
209132
Some people claim they have already done it (but they were French cultists and there was no reliable evidence). It can theoretically be done but there are a lot of unknowns. Dolly the sheep aged very rapidly because the dna of her chromosomes was already old when she was created. Ethically, there are lots of potential problems. For example, rich people might try to achieve some kind of immortality by cloning themselves but this is problematic if that person is a male because only the nucleus of the cell will be used ... the rest of the egg will have to come from a woman and the clone will not be identical to the donor.
440931
The problem I have is with the cloning process.  Most clones fail or are deformed.  We cannot subject the clones to half-as_ed technology which might cause them to suffer.\n\nBut other than that, I don't see a problem with clones.