What are the negative sides of human cloning?
143218
Dont mess with nature. \n\nScientists should respect nature more and work within the ethical guidelines.\n\nMany things can go wrong, just like first cloned sheep Dolly. (had immune system problems, and aged faster etc.)
246421
cloning\nstem cells\ngenetic manipulation
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.
1170509
To be Leary of such is honest but what if I needed a new part for my body and you could clone it?  What would you say then?  If God allowed us to clone people,  I believe he would not be cruel and deny that cloned person a soul.  Also another question arises which is a practical one.  If a person is cloned, then they have the same DNA and fingerprints.  What if that person commits a crime and you have no alibi?  You might be mistakenly arrested.
846528
I'm still undecided on stem cell therapy.  As of right now, I'm not down with cutting up an embryo for the sake of someone else.  BUT if someone in my family were to get sick and could benefit from stem cells, I'm sure I'd be all for it.  (so what, I'm a hypocrite :)\n\nAnd cloning people is just stupid.  Why would you do that? We already have enough people running around this world.  It's a waste.  And it would morally wrong to clone ppl just for their organs.  So, again, NO on the 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.
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.
903357
No cloning, s' all bad.
747471
Firstly the answer depends one whether you are referring to cloning on an individual cell basis or at the organism level (ie Dolly the sheep).\n\nThere are two main types of objection to the first type of cloning, those relating to pro-life arguments and those that are concerned with unethical manipulations of cells. \n\nThe pro-life debate argues that all cells are potential life, the decision of whether or not those cells are allowed to grow or are terminated lies with God, not a scientist. \n\nThe other argument argues that cloning may grow out of control and unethical experiments may be carried out. \n\nOn the organism level...\n\nWell human cloning finds itself facing similar arguments, pro-life is obviously going to find problems here as life is a privilege given only by God. \n\nFrom an ethical view its quite clear that complete human cloning is wrong, refer to the movie The Island!\n\nI think Christians object, not through fear as God will always be infinitely more powerful in their eyes, but purely because they believe the gift of life is precious and from their point of view cloning is a violation of that gift.\n \nPersonally I think the anti-cloning and stem cell research movements are damaging the potential of scientific and medical research.
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.
281261
I think a great deal more needs to be done in animal cloning before humans get involved. Besides the ethical issues, there are real physiological difficulties that seem to erupt in cloned organisms. It seems that having two sets of genetic material really is important.
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.
412881
We are already close to being able to cloning people.  I don't think it is already done because it would be a huge victory to who ever that did it.  I don't think there is any difference between cloned human and natural human.  I read that due to chromosome markers cloned subject have a problem of premature aging.  Other than that the animal that is clone seem normal enough.  I don't think we really need cloning since most human attribute come from our experience and our free will.  Having the right gene just isn't enough.  Also since there are too many people already there is really no reason to clone people.  Now if we did have a nuclear exchange or a virus breakout where the population become threatened, than we may have cloning.  I don't know, it is too complicated a subject right now.
1180676
The first steps have already been taken: human organs and stem cells have already been grown in the laboratory. New strides in genetics research such as identifying genes which cause disease are moving the scientific community ever closer to cloning a human. It would be interesting to see if a clone of a genetically mutated animal or human would exhibit the same symptoms as its duplicate. If not, what is the difference?
777116
ETHICAL ISSUES:  First off, the people in general who have ethical issues with gene testing/sequencing/therapy a lot of the time are uneducated in this field and also have strong religious beliefs.   Gene testing is done a lot of the times in genetic counselling for people who want to know if they will pass down a genetic disorder...I suppose people have issues with this because this leads the the question of abort or not to abort when it comes to an "imperfect" child.  I personally thing gene therapy is an amazing field which will continue to grow, however some people may see this as interfering with what "nature" has planned.  Some of the ethical issues have to do with stem cell research, since these cells are taken from fetuses.  Obviously people who do not believe in abortions are usually against this.  However, you do not have to abort a baby in order to do this kind of research...it can be done with misscarried babies etc etc.  Like I said, they do not know all the "science" behind.\nPOTENTIAL USES: Gene therapy is HUGE right now because it could lead to potential cures for things like organ failure (especially with cloning).  Imagine this...you are on the list for a heart transplant but instead of getting someone elses heart, you recieve your very own cloned heart.  Why is this a good thing?  This is a genetic copy of your own flesh and blood AND you do not have to take immunosupressive drugs for the rest of your life.  Might I add...the average lifespan for a heart transplant is about 10 years...with your "own" heart you might live into your senior years.  Another big thing with gene therapy is the ability to produce genes which are defective in your body normally. For example, people who have diabetes are unable to metabolize sugar properly...so with gene therapy, they are hoping to eventually be able to replace that defective gene with a good one so these people will no longer need to take insulin.\nMany many other things...but hope these are good for you.
726979
I assume you mean cloning for the growth of an entire human being, not cloning for parts; i.e, heart, lungs, eyes, etc.\n\nWell, you know years ago people freaked out about so-called "test tube babies," saying it went against nature, god, and all sort of things.  People said it would be the end of male/female relationships.  They said it would make MEN obsolete.  They said many, many stupid things.  Here we are and in vitro fertilization is a common and valuable procedure for couples experiencing infertility problems.  \n\nI work in women's health.  I truly believe "Human Cloning" will simply be another choice for couples with infertility problems.  How nice would it be for a couple to be able to clone one of themselves in a situation where either the female has no eggs or the male has no sperm.  In these situations a couple can only have a child that is PARTLY a stranger's DNA.  That sometimes leaves one of the parents feeling left out.  Also, the conceived child has NO INFORMATION pertaining to the donor DNA.  \n\nI think it would be great.  It may also reduce the number of multiple gestations so common with in vitro, which has many, many complications.\n\nI also have to address another issue:  A cloned baby would be EXACTLY like a TWIN of the person being cloned.  Genetically, it is no different.  Nothing freaky about that.
808174
Genetic modification is a dangerous game until the technology is absolutely fool-proof. \n\nI think cloning technology is the future since curing many diseases could depend upon it. But there has to be strict regulation involved because guess what, obtaining anyone's DNA is easier than picking your nose. \n\nYou may find the movie 'The Island' very interesting.