Why is there opposition to cloning?
604997
Cloning currently requires a donor stem cell.  The easiest place to get a stem cell is in a blastocyst, which is essentially the beginning of an embryo.  To play devil's advocate, in order to get a stem cell, there has to be a dead "baby".  The easiest way to get a dead "baby" is to artificially inseminate an egg and incubate it.  Religious people tend to argue that that little blastocyst was a human being, while to scientists it is nothing more than a conglomeration of cells with the potential to be a human.  \n\nThat is the source of the true controversy of cloning.  Any other issues are merely sidelines or billboards for ignorance.
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.
1012455
Many people have different views on embryonic stem cell research, however, religion as a whole strongly opposes it, due to the necessity of destroying living embryos which, in essence, is a living being *(and killing them would ultimately be considered murder.)\n*last part is optional
361439
Introduction\nThe possibility of human cloning, raised when Scottish scientists at Roslin Institute created the much-celebrated sheep "Dolly" (Nature 385, 810-13, 1997), aroused worldwide interest and concern because of its scientific and ethical implications. The feat, cited by Science magazine as the breakthrough of 1997, also generated uncertainty over the meaning of "cloning" --an umbrella term traditionally used by scientists to describe different processes for duplicating biological material. \n\n\nWhat is cloning? Are there different types of cloning?\nWhen the media report on cloning in the news, they are usually talking about only one type called reproductive cloning. There are different types of cloning however, and cloning technologies can be used for other purposes besides producing the genetic twin of another organism. A basic understanding of the different types of cloning is key to taking an informed stance on current public policy issues and making the best possible personal decisions. The following three types of cloning technologies will be discussed: (1) recombinant DNA technology or DNA cloning, (2) reproductive cloning, and (3) therapeutic cloning. \n\n\nRecombinant DNA Technology or DNA Cloning \n\nThe terms "recombinant DNA technology," "DNA cloning," "molecular cloning,"or "gene cloning" all refer to the same process: the transfer of a DNA fragment of interest from one organism to a self-replicating genetic element such as a bacterial plasmid. The DNA of interest can then be propagated in a foreign host cell. This technology has been around since the 1970s, and it has become a common practice in molecular biology labs today. \n\nScientists studying a particular gene often use bacterial plasmids to generate multiple copies of the same gene. Plasmids are self-replicating extra-chromosomal circular DNA molecules, distinct from the normal bacterial genome (see image to the right). Plasmids and other types of cloning vectors are used by Human Genome Project researchers to copy genes and other pieces of chromosomes to generate enough identical material for further study. \n\nTo "clone a gene," a DNA fragment containing the gene of interest is isolated from chromosomal DNA using restriction enzymes and then united with a plasmid that has been cut with the same restriction enzymes. When the fragment of chromosomal DNA is joined with its cloning vector in the lab, it is called a "recombinant DNA molecule." Following introduction into suitable host cells, the recombinant DNA can then be reproduced along with the host cell DNA. See a diagram depicting this process. \n\nPlasmids can carry up to 20,000 bp of foreign DNA. Besides bacterial plasmids, some other cloning vectors include viruses, bacteria artificial chromosomes (BACs), and yeast artificial chromosomes (YACs). Cosmids are artificially constructed cloning vectors that carry up to 45 kb of foreign DNA and can be packaged in lambda phage particles for infection into E. coli cells. BACs utilize the naturally occurring F-factor plasmid found in E. coli to carry 100 to 300 kb DNA inserts. A YAC is a functional chromosome derived from yeast that can carry up to 1 MB of foreign DNA. Bacteria are most often used as the host cells for recombinant DNA molecules, but yeast and mammalian cells also are used.\n\n\nReproductive Cloning\n\nCelebrity Sheep Has Died at Age 6\n\nDolly, the first mammal to be cloned from adult DNA, was put down by lethal injection Feb. 14, 2003. Prior to her death, Dolly had been suffering from lung cancer and crippling arthritis. Although most Finn Dorset sheep live to be 11 to 12 years of age, postmortem examination of Dolly seemed to indicate that, other than her cancer and arthritis, she appeared to be quite normal. The unnamed sheep from which Dolly was cloned had died several years prior to her creation. Dolly was a mother to six lambs, bred the old-fashion
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.
28455
Disadvantages: People will deem clones to have no souls and use them in immoral ways.\n\nAdvantages: None.\n\nI can see no benefit to the actual cloning of a human being. The benefit comes from the knowledge gained from cloning. Once we have the ability to clone a human being, we can specialize in cloning just the parts that we need.\n\nImagine a person with lungs and a heart damaged from disease or an accident. Doctors can clone just the heart and lungs from the patient's own DNA and transplant them. No waiting for donors and no organ rejection.\n\nHow about cloning gallons of untainted blood as needed? No more need for donors, storage, or disease testing. Even rare blood types can be cloned as needed.
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.
493684
Cloning has become a widely debated issue in the media since 1996, when a group of Scottish scientists led by Ian Wilmut cloned Dolly, a sheep that was the first clone of an adult mammal. The cloning process involves destroying the nucleus of an egg cell of the animal that will carry the clone and injecting a donor nucleus from the individual to be cloned into that egg cell. The resulting egg thus has a nucleus from the donor animal (which may be an endangered animal) and can develop into an animal that has the same genetic makeup as the donor, thus making the resulting offspring a clone.\n\nSince Dolly's appearance, a wide variety of uses for mammalian cloning have been proposed, including using cloned animals to produce superior livestock and to simplify the process of creating transgenic animals (genetically modified animals that can make human proteins in their milk, for example). Several groups have suggested cloning endangered or recently extinct species. A company called Advanced Cell Technology used a cow named Bessie to clone an Asian gaur, an endangered oxlike animal native to India and Burma (the cloned gaur died of an ordinary disease two days after his birth). Scientists also hope to move on to cloning extinct animals, perhaps starting with the cloning of the now-extinct bucardo mountain goat from Spain; scientists froze some tissue from the last living animal before the species became extinct.\n\nCloning endangered and extinct species has raised heated debate in the scientific community and beyond. On the one hand, many say it may offer us an opportunity to protect animals such as the giant panda from extinction so that our descendants will be able to see the beauty of these creatures. Some claim that cloning may help us bring back recently extinct species. Still others just want to have an opportunity to see a mammoth. (By the way, cloning mammoths from tissues frozen in Siberian permafrost is considered impossible with the current techniques because their DNA has become fragmented. In addition, scientists do not think that fossilized species such as dinosaurs can be cloned.) Indeed, if successful cloning of an endangered or recently extinct species is possible, we may be able to boost the populations of these animals.\n\nOn the other hand, cloned populations consist of genetically identical individuals, leading to high susceptibility to many diseases and slow adaptation to the environment. In addition, some argue that introducing extinct species back into the wild may upset the natural balance and have disastrous effects on the populations of other species. Such concerns are probably not as relevant with recently extinct species, where their extinction has usually been caused by human interventions, such as destruction of habitats and hunting. We do have to consider such issues when we start talking about bringing back mammoths, but the cloning of long-extinct species is still only a theoretical possibility. Concerns remain, however, that endangered and recently extinct species could be brought back to a world where their habitats no longer exist, and they will only be able to survive in zoos.\n\nAnother concern voiced by animal conservationists is that cloning endangered species would be viewed by the public (and governments) as an alternative to the breeding and habitat-protection programs already in place. Such possibilities are especially alarming as cloning techniques become cheaper and may be viewed as a less costly alternative to the more traditional means of protecting endangered species. Of course, cloning cannot serve as a substitute for such programs, because cloned animals lack the genetic diversity that is crucial to survival, and they still need habitats to live in.\n\nAs you can see, cloning is far from being able to serve as a Noah's Ark that would save all endangered species from extinction, but together with habitat protection and breeding programs, it may help some endangered and rece
1106458
No, because cloning is a duplication of your DNA. So if your clone commits a crime, they may charge YOU for it because it's your DNA and they know it's yours!\n\nHowever, to clone plants and organs (like stem cells) would be ok because it would further our knowledge of science and benefit us. For example, cloning good crops would ensure that the crops would have the DNA that makes it grow well, and stem cells allow us to create organs that can save us in the case that we need an organ or something to be replaced.
902333
It is entirely possible, however we are more than just the product of our genetic code, the clone would be a completely different individual. But although it possible, it is illegal to experiment with cloning of human beings. However, it is a matter of time before someone breaks that law if they have not done so already. Then again maybe they have done it in a country like China that in most instances would ignore international law.
1146501
It is and will happen but to do it while maintaining a human form is unnecessary and to most highly objectionable.  each useful part could be "cloned" and maintained mechanically and never even be in human or embryonic form.
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.
954161
I'll ignore the religious aspects--you can find Scripture to support or condemn pretty much anything.\n\nI think some of the ethical problems people have with cloning are:  We might accidentally create people with the lab equivalent of severe birth defects, who would suffer because of our imperfect skill.  People might be cloned as replacements for dead people or as organ factories for sick ones, and not be allowed to live their own lives.  Some people worry about clones being used in identity theft as well.
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.
79394
To answer this properly, we would really have to define what is meant by cloning. To clone something is just to make a copy, and genes are cloned safely all the time. I think you mean making an individual who is a genetic copy of another individual.\n\nThis certainly hasn't been done often, and is in no way safe. Dolly the sheep died young and had problems, and I don't think it's completely understood yet why. There was a dog cloned in Korea, but now that researcher has been fired for publishing fraudulent data, even though they've checked out the dog and he does seem to be an actually clone. It still casts some doubt.\n\nThe idea of cloning humans is completely unethical at this point, because it is unsafe. At the current state of technology, you couldn't clone a human without producing probably hundreds of babies with birth defects in the process.\n\nHow long until it is safe? There's really no way to tell. If people were determined to do this (not sure why, there are much easier ways to have children), being able to do it safely will depend on discoveries that haven't been made yet, so there's really no way to predict. Could be 50 years, could be ten years if something really amazing happens in the meanwhile.
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).
1136128
No its impossible. The DNA is completely different, and plus cloning was banned by the Geneva Convention a couple of years ago I believe. But if your like the other groups and you want to try it, have at it. But if you do clone it together, dont tell the press or you might just end up going to prison.