Should people be allowed to have clones or is it ethically wrong?
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.
694653
There are ethics and then there are morals.  Morality is what has to do with your motive: breaking some law in order to do a greater good (say to save someone) would be moral, but unethical.  Ethics are more like a code of conduct set by society, and aren't based on 'right' and 'wrong' but rather just conventions of behavior society expects you to follow so that it can operate smoothly.\n\nGenetically engineering a mutant human race wouldn't neccessarily be unethical.  However, in my opinion it'd be immoral; any motivation to make a new species is not likely a noble one.  At best, they'd be pons for research and bizarre experiments.  Furthermore, to even consider such a task with the limited understanding of genetics that we have would be wrong (morally) b/c its certain to result in abominations and travesties.  Even clones, which aren't new species, are not the same as 'normal' organisms.  They have a shorter lifespan, and some notable defects.  There's just something about it that seems wrong to me.  We should have some limitations on what we do, at least until we understand things better.
656095
For cloning organs/tissue but against cloning human beings
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.
834582
An entire human is cloned, but if you're asking if the brain will be the same in terms of the knowledge that it holds the answer is no.  Cloning makes a copy of genetics--the instructions that are stored as to how to make us physically.  The information our brains hold is all a matter of experiences encountered.  \nThis is a question of nature vs. nurture.  Our genetics do have implications as to how we think, but the way we are brought up, down to very minute details form who we are, and because it's very hard to mimic the same exact conditions that a person had growing up, it would be next to impossible to clone somebody who would think exactly like the original person.
270273
I think you could only if you integrated the necessary necromantic rituals into the cloning process.  You could clone the tissue, but it would grow as a living creature.  You'd then have to euthanize it and then raise it from the dead.
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?
1155507
This question DOES have an answer. The answer is that since souls do not exist, no soul would be entering another's body. When, yes WHEN, a human is cloned (unfortunately someone WILL do it), the clone will have the same genes. They will look alike and theirs traits that are determined by genetics and not environment will likely be the same as well. However, they will still be two different human beings. Both are still alive and the clone will be a baby. You won't feel any different. Why would you? There are many ethical implications involved with cloning. It would be sort of like identical twins (who share same DNA and fingerprints etc) but the result would be very odd indeed especially if the two talked to one another. How alike would they be?
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.
256905
Actually the answer for cloning is also no. If we were to clone a human the baby would not grow in a lab. The embryo would still be implanted in to a women just like baby's being born via in vitro fertilization.
390860
Unethical. This is just the start to trying to develop "perfect" human beings free from defects. What makes us human is all of our imperfections. Cloners are saying people with handicaps and some that are born with defects are no good.
232497
Bad, it means that someone has the power to create a human. Who should have that power ?\nIf you create someone does that also mean that you have the power to take life away. Watch the movie -the Island- to see just take on it. Cloning could also create or elimanate genetic problems. Think of this , we have created a massive headache in hospitals trying to eliminate diseases like Staf but infact it has created superbugs that are incredibly resistant now to antibiotics. Cloning may create diseases that we can tolerate. If we create a clone of ourselves, their personality will be different to ours, the same as our kids are different, because our experinces are different. This will lead to moral dilemas as well because they will be a different person even though thoretically they are the same. This is really the issue, there are too many variables and too many questions that need to be asked before it should even be thought of starting and until they can be answered then it should be left alone.
263964
Absolutely, I suggest\n\nYang X, Tian XC, (2002). Cloning adult animals - what is the genetic age of the clones? Cloning, 2(3):123-8. \n\nThat is an almost perfect review!\n\n:-) Happy reading!
406300
This is my own conclusion, but based on most people's belief in God, man is the most intelligent of God's creations.  So therefore we have been given the knowledge to clone.  For animal testing, cloning could possibly cure or eradicate diseases (for our benefit), and allow us to mass produce animals.  \nI think a lot of people's concern has to do with at what stage of development cloning becomes unethical.  Is forcing a cell to split early in development the same as cloning later in the development process?  I researched this same topic for a class project that I did, and found most everybody in my class biases toward cloning were based on if animals had souls, and if and when they received them.  \nAs for my personal opinion, I believe that animal cloning in most forms is ethical.  If we as the human race can benefit from what we learn from cloning organs to eradicating diseases, this knowledge should be used for our benefit.  We have no idea what if any repercussions will take place from cloning, but the benefits seem to outweigh any of them.
271200
No. Identical twins are genetical clones but they have absolutely two diffenrent souls, different characters.\nIf God will ever allow people to be cloned, then He will also give these clones souls - because the clones are real people, with real needs, real life - and real soul.
55395
Human cloning has long been a subject of speculation in science fiction. Science fiction speculation has included:\n\nthe use of cloning for "spare parts" for transplantation, typically with accelerated growth of the cloned parts \ntransferring one's mind into a younger clone body, as a way of achieving immortality \nclones somehow having a telepathic affinity for one another \nApart from the first, these ideas are currently pure speculation. (Telepathy has been reported by many indentical twins, for example seemingly unfounded anxiety of one twin, when the other who is far away is in trouble, or even more pronounced ESP, so the same could conceivably apply to artificial clones.
405497
All reasons things are bad are moral reasons.  Science doesn't have morals, it simply records what has happened and what can happen.  Whether we choose to DO those things is our choice, which we need to make accordnig to our morals.\n\nCloning is a tool.  Cloning of organs to save lives seems very good to me!  I cannot imagine any sane moral objection to cloning organs.\n\nWe've been cloning plants for centuries.  Nobody seems to object.\n\nCloning can be used for bad things.  This isn't a stunning revelation.  Cars can be used for bad things.  Screwdrivers can be used for bad things.  The knife is possibly the first human tool and it can certainly be used for bad things!  It can also be used to spread butter on toast.  Banning cloning because it could be used for bad things makes about as much sense as banning knives because people get stabbed with them.\n\nI see two really bad arguments above.  To the people who worry that clones might come out imperfect, I point out that this applies to normal birth as well.  That children might have a birth defect is not a reason to ban humans giving birth!  That clones might be imperfect is not a reason to ban cloning.\n\nTo the people who suggest having a clone devalues the original, I point out that clones occur naturally.  We call them identical twins.  Is someone less valuable if they have a twin brother?  I'm sorry, but I am deeply offended by this argument, and I'm not even a twin!