Could a clone be created from the unborn fetus taken from an abortion?
144773
Yes, as long as the cells of the fetus you plan to use are still alive.
76366
That's an interesting question.  The clone would grow up looking identical to the original Hitler and those who cloned him from Hitler's blood would know it and might have ulterior motives.  Ordinarily the clone would be a distinct person (neither good nor bad) but could be groomed (conditioned) to replace Hitler in all his evils.  He might think it's his birthright.  That would be reason enough to not use Hitler's blood to make a clone.  Also, if Hitler was psychotic, there might be a better than even chance that his clone would be similarly afflicted, if the problem was organic.
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?
122035
Cloning?\n\nScientists believe that we can cure many diseases and solve the transplant shortage by growing extra body parts or organs.\n\nHowever, there are serious moral and ethical reasons why human cloning is looked upon as negative.  Cloning is not a perfect technique and may result in many short lived, malformed babies before it becomes standardized.  Secondly, creating genetic twins still means someone has to (currently) give birth to the baby.
1039013
First off, men (and women) have been arounf a lot longer than 6000 years. The 6000 years figure is one the fundamentalists use, ignoring all scientific evidence to the contrary. There was no cloning involved. The whole Adam and Eve story is a poem, like most of the bible, certainly not meant to be taken literally. \n\nThere has never been a cloned human baby. The S. Koreans claimed to have done it but they were "stretching" the truth somewhat.
711296
The single factor in stem cell research that has many pro-lifers protesting is that they believe that doctors are harvesting stem cells from aborted fetuses.  It is time for us to clear things up. It would not be a realistic suggestion to take stem cells from aborted fetuses.  In order to extract the stem cells in this manner, a doctor would have to use time consuming and not always fail-safe surgical techniques. There are also logical difficulties, as most of the cells found in an aborted fetus have already matured into adult cells because they are far beyond the blastocyst stage.  These would not only have no ability to multiply in culture, but may force the embryonic stem cells to transform into other cells prematurely. The only real source of uninhibited, pure pluripotent stem cells is a cellular blastocyst that is only 5-7 days old. These cells are left over from in vitro fertilizations, and would be discarded anyway. They should be the supply of stem cells because they are more ethical, practical, and available than aborted babies.
949605
First of all, I'm pro-choice and I support embryonic stem cell research.\nSecond, it'd be impossible to get stem cells from an aborted fetus.  Embryonic stem cells come from embryos - hence the name.  The cells used  come from embryos that are less than a week old.  Older cells wouldn't work because embryonic stem cells are undifferentiated cells that haven't developed into specific adult cells yet.  So an older cell that has already developed would be useless for research purposes.
1170418
God \n\nbut\n\nthe humans cloned it
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.
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.
514686
If this were possible which it is not then what you would have is spontaneous cloning.  The offspring would not only be female it would be an exact duplicate of the mother.  There is no genetic material available in human females to reproduce anything other than a clone without fertilization.
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.
568876
In some countries, it does.  It is illegal to do this in some places.  In China, some experimental spinal cord therapy is being done with aborted fetus stem cells.  There are other sources of stem cells which are used when using abortions is illegal.
697197
VERY deep question.\n\nIf you believe that all human life, even life created from in vitro fertilization has a soul, then yes, a cloned human being would also have a corresponding soul.\n\nNo human can live without a soul, no matter how abnormal their body or mind is; it is one of the conditions that defines our difference from the other sentient animal species.
416224
Therapeutic cloning: \n(a.k.a. Somatic cell nuclear transfer or research cloning): \n\nThis starts with the same procedure as is used in adult DNA cloning. The resultant embryo would be allowed to grow for perhaps 14 days. It's stem cells would then be extracted and encouraged to grow into a piece of human tissue or a complete human organ for transplant. The end result would not be a human being; it would be a replacement organ, or piece of nerve tissue, or quantity of skin. The first successful therapeutic cloning was accomplished in 2001-NOV by Advanced Cell Technology, a biotech company in Worcester, MA.\n\nUnfortunately, although adult DNA cloning and therapeutic cloning are quite different procedures leading to very different goals, both terms contain the word "cloning." This causes a great deal of confusion among the public. Many transfer their disgust at the concept of creating cloned babies to therapeutic cloning whose goal is to create an organ to heal people. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), a pro-life senator has suggested the term "somatic cell nuclear transfer" to replace therapeutic cloning. \n\nWhat are its possible benefits?\n\nIf therapeutic cloning using embryos is successful, then perfectly matched, replacement organs could become freely available to sick and dying people. That would save countless numbers of lives, and increase the quality of life of countless others. Three possible examples of therapeutic cloning "might include the use of insulin-secreting cells for diabetes; nerve cells in stroke or Parkinson’s disease; or liver cells to repair a damaged organ." 4 There would probably also be side benefits resulting from the research. "Further advances in understanding of how organs regenerate would increase the range of possible treatments that could be considered." \n\nThis procedure would have a number of advantages, when compared to regular organ transplant donated by a second person: \nbulletThere would be presumably be no danger of rejection of the transplant because the organ's DNA would match the patient's DNA exactly. \nbulletFor transplants involving kidney (or theoretically any other organ that is duplicated in the body), another individual would not have to experience pain, inconvenience, and potentially shortened life span in order to donate the organ.\nbulletThe patient would not have to wait until an unrelated donor dies to obtain a transplant. A new organ could be grown for them as needed.\nbulletThe patient would not have to make-do with a replacement organ that is old and may have reduced functionality; a brand-new organ would be grown specifically for them.\nbulletThe procedure would save lives which would otherwise be lost waiting for a transplant that did not come in time.\nbulletThe potential exists to cure, or at least treat, certain diseases and disorders that cannot be effectively handled today
271289
sure ....id love a cloned slave \n\nbut morally correct then no ....
718816
I doubt a woman can give birth through parthenogenesis. It would require significant genetic manipulation which is a form of mutancy in itself. \n\nThe child I think will have an exact replica genetic material as the mother which is human but inhuman in its moral consequences. HOWEVER! The child would be missing half the chromosones needed to create what we deem human. This would have significant mental or physical defects I believe  which would make it not completely human.