Should cloning be legal? Why? Any answers involving God?
473558
Cloning should not be legal. My reason is because God made each person unique in there own way, because he did not want people to be the same.Cloning makes an exact replica of a person or an animal, and god does not want that.
198538
Well, there is no where in the Bible that says, "Thou shalt not clone!"  I think that people are more concerned about where the stem cells are coming from than the actual cloning.  I don't think that we can actually clone a whole human being, because of the soul factor.  We are tho only thing that God made with a soul.  As for the cloning of human organs for transplant, I'm all for it if they can get the stem cells from a source other than aborted babies.  The sad thing is, abortion is a fact of life.  I hate it and feel it is murder.  BUT, now don't all yell at me and call me a hypocrite at once, IF these poor babies are going to be murdered anyway, cuz even when it was illegal people did it anyway, then why not make their lives count for something?  Wait for it...Wait...Just one more minute...Nope, I didn't get struck by lightening.  Whew, that was close.\n\nIf I were to be murdered, God forbid, I would want my organs and tissues to be transplanted to help save the life of someone else.  Should these babies be any different?
95970
Not.\n\nI doubt one could ever have the same relationship with the cloned being as you did with the original. What if the relationship sucked and totally taints the memory of the original? What if the original had a sucky life and the cloned is condemned to it all over again? And the fear and grief of eventually losing that person all over again, just isn’t worth it. \n\nSome things are best as originals.
671971
I don't think it is as much bad, as it is unnecessary. A clone is a different person than the original. It would have a different personality and different memories and a different life. Who would want a look alike running around. The only purpose in a clone would be to farm body parts and that is WRONG.
3468
A human clone, if succesful, is just a twin of the original person (but younger).  That's seems morally legitimate.  But today the success rate would be very low; some of the failures would be horrible birth defects.  So it would be unethical to attempt cloning a human today.  Eventually, if it could be done reliably, it would be ethical (but getting there from here seems awfully difficult).
450694
1. Because it still wouldn't be the same... If you truly love your child they are irreplacable.\n2. Because science makes more trials than errors before they get it right do you want to take that chance?\n3. It defies human nature.  You don't fall in love with someone or love a child like they are an object.  And cloning simply creates an "object"\n\nGood Luck
1170418
God \n\nbut\n\nthe humans cloned it
662477
I'm not sure whether a human has been cloned yet, but I'm sure it's only a matter of time.  My perception is that when something is scientifically possible, it will be done.  The important thing is to have ethical standards around how and under what circumstances it is done.\n\nScience fiction has been dealing with this question for many years, and it is one reason science fiction is so important.  It constitutes a forum for working out the moral values involved in a particular technological advance by "thought experiment" before being done in laboratory experiment.\n\nThe one I have problems with is whether or not clones will have souls.  Somebody asked that on Y!A awhile back, and I answered that it's a question we will need to resolve before we get into cloning humans.  And it's a question that raises a host of others:  What is a soul?  Do people really have such things, or is it just an abstract idea with no basis in "reality."  For that matter, what is "reality?"  ("What a concept!" says Robin Williams.)  If there is really such a thing, how does it get into a person?  What difference would it make if a clone did not have one?\n\nYou see, we have some important questions to answer here.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?