why do we want to have hunan cloning?
89389
We don't want to have human cloning. That has been made abundantly clear by numerous polls and elections.\n\nI doubt that you personnally know even a single person who wants human cloning.
421475
Because of the way a cloned human being would have to be made they would not be identical. To create a clone they inseminate an egg with the DNA of the person they wish to clone until it begins to devide and grow. Then the embryo is implanted into a woman's womb. There would be some gentic difference due to the influence of the egg and womb that the child developed in.
491568
I think there is nothing wrong with cloning. It is just creating an exact copy of someone's body, it isn't going to replicate their mind. If someone cloned Hitler, it would look like Hitler but it wouldn't actually be him. The clone would need to be raised under the exact same circumstances, and even then, he might react differently to his surroundings. It's like how twins look alike, but don't have the same personality. If they ever decided to clone humans, I'd volunteer to be a test subject, as long as I didn't have to raise my clone.
1170818
theoretical advantages of cloning are as follows:\n\nimmortality or at least living thousands of years\n\nendangered species whose demise came directly a result of man\n\nhuman parts factories, where faulty human parts be replaced\n\nstem cells\n\nslaves?\n\nnew friends\n\nclone yourself to make a rival\n\nclone yourself young to make youself forever young... \n\ncreating a clone army to fight for you( or your country) or cause....\n\n individual parts youve cloned can become part of each other in a working organism... theoretically if we can have transplants that become a part of our body without rejecting them.... then we can create our own frankensteins... and living creatures... \n\nif someone had a miscarriage, and wanted that baby\n\ncloning certain genetic information from different people, that is biologically superior or more efficient, and putting those together in a single person  to make a  kindof superhuman....\n\ncloning cancerous cells that can be injected into enemys \n\ncsi- cloning the subject from a hair or other human remnant containing dna.... \n\nseeing what organism from the past would look like by recreating them... hopefully there would be a way to overcome faulty the dna these subjects....\n\nunlawful recreations of celebritys to be used for individual purposes....\n\nmass cloning- for things as insects that eat other insects... like a kindof pesticide.... or to counter attack swarms of anything... locusts,etc\n\ncreating a living creature battery... using their energy to run your device.... and merely feeding them to ensure further energy production... \n\ncloning the genetic isolates from people that make them resistant to things such as aids...\n\nanyway... the list could go on forever...
674863
I support the research on human cloning. The clones would be individuals just like the rest of us--there is more to what makes a person who they are than their genes. Look at identical twins--they share the exact same genome yet they are not exact copies of one another in experience, personality, skills, etc. \nI think the pertinant question is this: What are the ethical rules to follow when it comes to human cloning?
449831
Cloning a human, as any other mammals, is a quick process (often not succesful though). If all necessary equipment, DNA and egg donors are ready, it can be cloned in one day and be born 9 months later. Please do not confuse the act of cloning (i.e., the procedure itself, which includes replacing DNA of an egg with donor DNA) with the time it takes for the clone to develop in uterus, to be born and grow up (as for any normal human being, it would take years to reach maturity).\nReal cost of one cloning procedure I'd say could be a little bit higher than what people pay now for in vitro fertilization. The fact is, however, that current technology cannot ensure hastle-free and error-free cloning, therefore nobody would do it on humans (unless illegaly, but that would cost millions I'd suspect). It requires further research and science advancement, which is costly (we are talking billions here).
656095
For cloning organs/tissue but against cloning human beings
84942
Mostly fiction. When cloning technologies advance, humans eventualy will be able to be cloned, but not the way they show it on "the 6th say" - we won't be able to take a human body "template", "clone" it in the matter of minutes and install previous memories of the cloned individual. Normal scientific cloning, as we know it today, would generate a zygote, which would need to be implanted in a uterus and grow as a fetus. The newborn baby would have the same DNA as the cloned individual, so it would be an identical twin in a sense, but it will need to grow as a normal child to become an adult. The clone will have its own memories and probably a different personality, since it will be raised in a different environment than the DNA donor.
1019227
They get the stem cells from the clones.\n\nWhat they want to do is make a fetus (quickest and most reliable way is to clone) and take those stem cells since they are able to divide and give them to disabled idividuals.\n\nBy cloning a fetus, people might think this to be more "ethical" when they destroy the fetus since it was unnatural conceived.
493684
Cloning has become a widely debated issue in the media since 1996, when a group of Scottish scientists led by Ian Wilmut cloned Dolly, a sheep that was the first clone of an adult mammal. The cloning process involves destroying the nucleus of an egg cell of the animal that will carry the clone and injecting a donor nucleus from the individual to be cloned into that egg cell. The resulting egg thus has a nucleus from the donor animal (which may be an endangered animal) and can develop into an animal that has the same genetic makeup as the donor, thus making the resulting offspring a clone.\n\nSince Dolly's appearance, a wide variety of uses for mammalian cloning have been proposed, including using cloned animals to produce superior livestock and to simplify the process of creating transgenic animals (genetically modified animals that can make human proteins in their milk, for example). Several groups have suggested cloning endangered or recently extinct species. A company called Advanced Cell Technology used a cow named Bessie to clone an Asian gaur, an endangered oxlike animal native to India and Burma (the cloned gaur died of an ordinary disease two days after his birth). Scientists also hope to move on to cloning extinct animals, perhaps starting with the cloning of the now-extinct bucardo mountain goat from Spain; scientists froze some tissue from the last living animal before the species became extinct.\n\nCloning endangered and extinct species has raised heated debate in the scientific community and beyond. On the one hand, many say it may offer us an opportunity to protect animals such as the giant panda from extinction so that our descendants will be able to see the beauty of these creatures. Some claim that cloning may help us bring back recently extinct species. Still others just want to have an opportunity to see a mammoth. (By the way, cloning mammoths from tissues frozen in Siberian permafrost is considered impossible with the current techniques because their DNA has become fragmented. In addition, scientists do not think that fossilized species such as dinosaurs can be cloned.) Indeed, if successful cloning of an endangered or recently extinct species is possible, we may be able to boost the populations of these animals.\n\nOn the other hand, cloned populations consist of genetically identical individuals, leading to high susceptibility to many diseases and slow adaptation to the environment. In addition, some argue that introducing extinct species back into the wild may upset the natural balance and have disastrous effects on the populations of other species. Such concerns are probably not as relevant with recently extinct species, where their extinction has usually been caused by human interventions, such as destruction of habitats and hunting. We do have to consider such issues when we start talking about bringing back mammoths, but the cloning of long-extinct species is still only a theoretical possibility. Concerns remain, however, that endangered and recently extinct species could be brought back to a world where their habitats no longer exist, and they will only be able to survive in zoos.\n\nAnother concern voiced by animal conservationists is that cloning endangered species would be viewed by the public (and governments) as an alternative to the breeding and habitat-protection programs already in place. Such possibilities are especially alarming as cloning techniques become cheaper and may be viewed as a less costly alternative to the more traditional means of protecting endangered species. Of course, cloning cannot serve as a substitute for such programs, because cloned animals lack the genetic diversity that is crucial to survival, and they still need habitats to live in.\n\nAs you can see, cloning is far from being able to serve as a Noah's Ark that would save all endangered species from extinction, but together with habitat protection and breeding programs, it may help some endangered and rece
1163027
It depends on the purpose the cloning is fulfilling. If we clone racehorses, we could have a bunch of Secretariats running against other Secretariats and their may be the demise of a great industry.\n\nHowever, if cloning, genetic engineering and selective reproduction have a well defined intent and the end result can benefit humankind, then let's do it. Not being a moralist, I would like to see science continue researching the distinct benefits all forms of reproduction have upon all of the species on the planet.\n\nThe protests that are being offered against artificial or any other form of selective reproduction, must be taken into consideration on a scientific basis and not offer up the old adage, "if God intended man to fly, He would have given him wings" in regards to reproduction.\n\nIn a day and age when it would be very wise to keep our religion and morals to ourselves, we should allow science to progress within reason and justification. In a nation that prides itself in a government 'of the people, by the people and for the people', I say, lets all be a part of the decision making process regarding sin and science and...\n\nGod help us toward that decision.
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.
835382
Cloning is the creation of an organism that is an exact genetic copy of another. This means that every single bit of DNA is the same between the two.
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?
265671
Depends on what kind of cloning you are talking about.\n\nThe term "cloning" can be used to describe inserting a foreign gene into a bacteria... or creating a genetically identical copy of organism.\n\nTo create an identical copy... you would require an oocyte (an egg) and a somatic cell.  You'd need to remove all the DNA from the egg and the somatic cell... then inject the DNA into the egg.  Along with other factors and after growing... you will have an organism gentically identical to the orriginal.\n\nCloning genes into bacteria involves a plasmid (circular piece of non-chromosomal DNA).  You would need to open up the plasmid using restriction enzymes (DNA scissors basically) and cut the gene of interest out with the same enzyme.  Mix them then insert into your bacteria by your favorite method (electroporation, chemical method, heat/cold shock, micro-injection).  Let the bacteria grow (all bacteria in a colony are gentically identical to the parent... for the most part)
366636
there are some efforts going on to bring mammoth to life by using its frozen sperm. with an african elephant. as far as cloning goes i dont have any idea.
368422
I would have certain parts of me cloned, if I needed new ones, e.g. liver, kidney etc.