What is the bad side of cloning?
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.
7150
it depends on wat you're cloning on: animals/humans would be wrong; supplies I think is ok, like more $$$$$$$$$$.
916919
Cloning is the process of creating an identical copy of an original organism or thing. A cloning in the biological sense, therefore, is a molecule, single cell (like bacteria, lymphocytes etc.) or multi-cellular organism that has been directly copied from and is therefore genetically identical to another living organism. Sometimes this term can refer to "natural" clones made either when an organism is asexually reproduced by chance (as with identical twins), but in common parlance, a clone is an identical copy created intentionally.\n\nThe term clone is derived from κλων, the Greek word for "twig". In horticulture, the spelling clon was used until the twentieth century; the final e came into use to indicate the vowel is a "long o" instead of a "short o". Since the term entered the popular lexicon in a more general context, the spelling clone has been used exclusively.\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloning
823360
Well....cloning is just making out a genetically identical individual from an individual. To begin cloning is of two types..natural and artificial...Natural is the one which happens in nature by mitosis in eukaryotes and binary fission in prokaryotes...you can give tonnes and tonnes of examples for this(anything identical to another thing is a clone of tht 'another' thing........i can even say that DNA replication is cloninf of the original DNA molecule....thus cloning can be a broad term but here i m jus tellin you about cloning of organisms or cells). Artificial cloning methods are the ones which humans use for various reasons(wich are not ethical) Artificial cloning would include tissue culture, embryo cloning, tranferring a diploid nucleus to an egg cell to get an identical organism(as in case of Dolly the sheep), etc., and etc.,  so you can devide cloning into many types....................................
721810
I don't agree with cloning or interfering with nature to this degree.\n\nI think sometimes scientists get obsessed with getting their names in the history books and lose sight of the bigger picture.
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
124759
The process that you are refering to is called parthenogenesis.  Evolutionarily it is a bad idea.  It produces clones of the mother.  Cloning is bad because you produce genetically identical offspring and if a disease comes or the environment changes, you do not have survive as a population.  If it kills one, it kills all.  All sexually reproducing animals have the advantage of unique offspring with differing abilities/disabilities.\nTo answer your question:  yes, but that doesn't mean I agree with it.  Scientists can already remove the incomplete nucleus (haploid) of an egg and replace it with a complete nucleus (diploid).  Quite possibly, a woman could give birth to her own clone.  Scientists could also possibly find a way for two women to use their own haploid nuclei to produce and diploid egg.  Yay for the lesbian lovers.  Bad for the christian conservatives.  I'm not saying I agree with this all, just relaying the facts.
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.
903357
No cloning, s' all bad.
767308
It could open up reproductive possibilities for sterile couples. It could help reduce instances of genetic diseases such as Down's Syndrome or sickle cell anemia. Switching tracks a little, cloning individual organs (not whole humans) could help improve transplant stock, not only by creating more organs for transplant, but also by cutting down on instances of organ rejection. \n\nRemember, though: no one is talking about actually cloning humans these days. Those genetic experts who are involved in cloning projects are either concerned with animals, organs, or single-cell organisms. Hope this helps put the question into a little bit of perspective!
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
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.
249257
Advantages-  Blood transfusions would come from your clone\n             and not strangers.\n\n             Chance for you to weigh out your options.\n             Ever wonder what would have happened if you \n             would have taken a different path.  Your clone\n             could do it for you.\n\n             Organ transplant on hand.\n\nDisadvantages-  Its like playing God.  Just shouldn't be \n                done.\n\n                Clone could turn out to be an evil twin and\n                try to steal your life.  They are not \n                robots, ya know.\n\n                One of me is enough!
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.
106747
if you clone organs or whatever in purely medical purposes I`m all for it \nbut when you start talking about cloning people you like \ne.g. I like sting and I want one at home so he can sing to me  \nwell that`s crazy\nor deciding not to give birth but to clone yourself hello\nwhy not make a race of clones who will be superior to us because of their manipulated genetics \nI know tgis sounds like sf but cloning was also sf 15 years ago
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.
226661
clone or twin or whatever.. it'll be inscest