Is Human cloning right or wrong?
454887
The disadvantages is that something might go awry, your clone might commit a crime and the one being caught is you. The clone knows your secrets and might betray you, he knows your feelings and weaknesses and can overpower you. Human cloning also resembles the making of another person which is forbidden by some religions as only God can create lives, not men. If men clone, they are implying that they are omnipotent which they are not.
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.
721810
I don't agree with cloning or interfering with nature to this degree.\n\nI think sometimes scientists get obsessed with getting their names in the history books and lose sight of the bigger picture.
106747
if you clone organs or whatever in purely medical purposes I`m all for it \nbut when you start talking about cloning people you like \ne.g. I like sting and I want one at home so he can sing to me  \nwell that`s crazy\nor deciding not to give birth but to clone yourself hello\nwhy not make a race of clones who will be superior to us because of their manipulated genetics \nI know tgis sounds like sf but cloning was also sf 15 years ago
996648
It should be noted that the doomesday scenarios claimed for this technique - cloning Hitler or the like - are absolute nonsense. This takes genetic determinism to its illogical conclusion. To suggest that a clone would adopt the personality of the original is to suggest there's a gene for "genocide of the Jews", which is clearly nonsense. \n\nIt should also be noted that many people accused of being genetic determinists aren't, or at least aren't by the definition used by the accusers. When a gene "for" X is implied, there is always an unstated "given all other things being equal", and usually an "but only in a statistical sense", so a gene for a behaviour will only make it more likely, not force it.\n\nThen we have the religious objections - that the clone would not have a soul. Since embryos are cloned in the same way identical twins are formed, this would mean that identical twins do not have separate souls.\n\nThe real issue I have with this kind of science is eugenics. According to my genes, I'm dead by now - or at least many people with one condition I happen to have are. If we allow the creation and cloning of "perfect" embryos, and encourage the termination of "imperfect" embryos, we will live in a much worse-off place. We will be at the will of whoever decides what is "perfect" and what is not. What's more, people will suffer the whims of their parents. What happens when a couple order up an athlete, and the child instead spends all day fiddling with his Wii? Will they punish him for not turning out how the reciept says? Will ethnic minorities be eliminated as being imperfect? Will parents ensure they have somebody to look after them in old age order up an ugly and infertile slave child?\n\nIt's clear to me that we should ban commercial offerings of genetic manipulation of offspring right now, and also close our borders to genetically engineered humans - so treatment cannot be offered in rogue states. The ethics need a clarification and unity - is stupidity a disease?
879526
That is the why human cloning is banned.Because it is more unbenefiatiable.The main thing why this is if this is possible, then a criminal would be clonned in many and you can imagine what the situation would be  if a most criminal person is clonned many.there are many bad thigs than good things about human cloning.But cloning of some parts of human organ or themselves should be done because this would help patients to get new fresh organ.
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.
646712
Test tube babies are no different than cloning, I personally do not believe that God approves of either, but I do not condemn the babies born from "test tubes", I just wish man would stop trying to play God. If a man or woman is unable to have/father a child, there is always a purpose, look at how many adoptive parents abuse the children they adopt. I do not believe God approves but know of no actually chapters or verses in the bible to quote without looking them up.
524082
If you change something it is not a clone anymore. It has to be an exact copy to be a clone. Your a bit obsessed with cloning aren't you?
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?
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.
3240
Cloning is the process of creating an identical copy of an original. A clone in the biological sense, therefore, is a single cell (like bacteria, lymphocytes etc.) or multi-cellular organism that is genetically identical to another living organism. Sometimes this can refer to "natural" clones made either when an organism reproduces asexually or when two genetically identical individuals are produced by accident (as with identical twins), but in common parlance the clone is an identical copy by some conscious design.
682615
Ethical issues in cloning include the following:\n\nFirst, there were many issues with Dolly the sheep.  Dolly aged much quicker than a normal sheep.  Some scientists think this was due to the shortening telomeres from Dolly's cloned DNA.  The telomere theory is complicated, so I won't go into it here.  Suffice to say that there MIGHT be health consequences if we clone humans.  Most ethicicsts think we should resolve all those issues rather than let some unfortunate cloned people be the guiniea pigs.\n\nSecond, there are many moral implications.  Would the cloned child have psychological or emotional problems knowing that he/she was not conceived in the traditional way?  Who would be the child's father?  Mother?  Other objections to cloning are of a categorical variety.  In other words, we shouldn't clone simply because it's weird.  Some people think we should not screw around with human nature.  We shouldn't be engineering people's genetics, and we shouldn't be copying people genetically for research or mere curiosity.\n\nBecause there are so many questions involving the effects of cloning I think we should not do it.  The biggest reason we should stay away is because there really is no compelling reason TO do it.  Why would you want to clone someone?  The only logical reason I have heard is that you can create a human that is genetically identical (or close to it) to someone with a serious or fatal medical condition.  Then you can be absolutely sure the the clone could share blood or organs or with the sick person.  I think it's a bit cruel to create a person solely for the intention of curing someone else.  It's just not fair to the unfortunate clone who not only has to give up his organ or blood or whatever, but he also has to deal with the stigma of being a clone.\n\nThe issues are much more complex than I have stated.  This was a cursory examination of a very, very complex topic.  It is really fascinating, though, and I encourage you to keep researching.  There are great books on the subject, and tons of opinions on the web.\n\nOne final issue is what effect would this have on our society?  Would we reduce our genetic variation if we started cloning on a large-scale basis?  Would that leave us more susceptible to genetic diseases because we have decreased the variability?  Would cloning alter our perception of humanity and the sanctity of life?  Would we devalue the individual since we could theoretically just copy a new one?
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.
780969
Question: Where are you going to find an authentic sample of his cells?\n\nNo, it's not ethical, but it would most certainly be done if the scientists thought they had an authentic viable sample. \n\nPeople would kill to get their hands on it. One to protect the sample from being debased by science, another in the belief it will heal or provide immortality, one to see if the clone would have perfect morality and miraculous powers, one to prevent the sample or clone from becoming an object of worship, one to keep Jesus a mystery only attestable to by faith, one to prevent the other from getting it... each would have thier own motivation.
271289
sure ....id love a cloned slave \n\nbut morally correct then no ....
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....................................