What do you think of cloning humans to be trained as soldiers?
606732
no way more soldiers more war no no no
877433
Ain't gonna happen, and with good reason.  Soldiers these days are not cannon fodder --- they are highly trained specialists in the use of advanced weapons.  And you cannot recruit, let alone retain, people qualified to do this with a draft.
87621
I think all forms of cloning should be banned.  What good can possibly come of it?\n\nThe ones that they have cloned have died at early ages or turned out to be a veg, instead of a sheep
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.
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.
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.
1020019
Working in the health care field I personally have mixed emotions. On a religious level it's just not natural to do.  However, if it were my children that needed a heart, kidney, etc. I'm certain I would consider medical professionals cloning them as a method of an exact match for replacement organs.
450876
I think it is a good idea. Kind of like a boot camp lol. It will teach them responsibility and give them a better chance at life.
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.
151379
Is this what cloning basically is? Asexual reproduction? And are we headed toward making a "perfect" species?  \n*** does this mean humans will become extinct in the not too distant future?
103356
Hi there, \n\nYou are absolutely right. It is likely that Human Cloning will be accepted in the future. Just think of it...Wouldn't it be wonderful to clone persons like Einstein, Socrates, and other great people who have influenced this world? \n\nBut I think there must be restrictions on whom to clone. If not, the population of this world will rise rapidly. Also, it will give rise to unnecessary chaos and disorder regarding who is who. \n\nAnd I also think the technology should be known to a limited number of scientists, because there is a likely chance of illegal cloning (as in the movie 'The Sixth Day')\nIf every person gets to know the technology, he can take the creation into his own hands, and so all the unethical things are likely to happen. \n\nSo, on the whole, Human Cloning isn't a bad idea, provided there are 'proper' laws made and 'implemented', and people think rationally.\n\nrule wid style n luv@vinny\n\nEdit: Well, I do agree with you that a lot depends on the society and the brought-up of the person, but I was just trying to bring out a point there. I needed an example thats it. I completely agree with you.
7150
it depends on wat you're cloning on: animals/humans would be wrong; supplies I think is ok, like more $$$$$$$$$$.
393321
I think it's a good idea.  It would probably cause more peace in the world.  I mean, take a look at Switzerland--they have a huge army, and they are known for peace. \nAnd also, it's important to remember: THE BEST OFFENSE IS TO HAVE A GREAT DEFENSE.\nIf we have a huge army, who in their right mind will pick on us or any of our friends?
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.
799301
hope you will get something useful in this link\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_cloning
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.
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?