Your opinion on cloning ... TO CLONE OR NOT TO CLONE ? that is the question !?

Question

There are many advantages and disadvantages ... how do you feel ? voice your opinion and stae your facts !

Answer 1

Cloning has such vast potential that I will go so far as to say that it is INEVITABLE. You heard me right. It's coming whether you like it or not. If we don't do it, someone else will... and then we'll have the choice of following suit or getting left behind.

Consider the possibilities. Let's start with just cloning of selected tissues. Just imagine what medicine would be like if any time you lost a tissue we could just make some more for you. And it would be YOUR tissue, identical to your old tissue in every way. No more amputees, no more waiting for organ donors, almost no diabetes. Whole diseases might be entirely wiped out, and permanent injury could almost become a term that's an oxymoron. Anyone who DOESN'T want this may need to have his head examined.

One of the major reasons cloning was first developed was to clone genetically engineered animals. The reason we want to clone genetically engineered animals is that producing even one set of altered genes and putting them in the right place can be ridiculously hard to do... but also ridiculously beneficial.

Right now almost all the insulin and clotting factor that is produced for diabetics and hemophiliacs is made from genetically engineered bacteria. Bacteria divide on their own but require relatively expensive culturing conditions. There are many genetic engineers who would like to put the same genes in a goat or a chicken so these valuable medicines could be harvested from milk or eggs.

But one goat doesn't do a lot of good. You need a whole herd... possibly many herds. If you bred the altered goat you might lose much of the work you did. Instead, you need enough goats to provide a breeding, self-sufficient population.

Then you would essentially be turning grass into just about any medicine in the world that you could engineer... with corresponding reduction in costs and increases in availability (and a goat as an intermediary). Anyone who doesn't want THIS probably also needs to have his head examined.

Of course, there are other possibilities too. Cloning can't necessarily produce another Einstein or another Mozart, but it COULD produce someone with similar capabilities. You don't even need to introduce the idea of societal production of geniuses - many parents would love to have an exceptionally talented child. There are even some who would love to raise a version of themselves.

These would not be identical copies (you won't really have TWO of anyone)... they'd be like twins, with similar capabilities but very different personalities and identities. Obviously we don't consider twins to be a public safety issue. So why would even complete clones of other humans be? There's really no difference.

If one country develops super-powerful medicine and an unlimited bank of super-geniuses and super-soldiers, it will own the world in whatever way it wants to, unless everyone else has the same. It's a matter of record that virtually no technology has ever been discovered that hasn't been used.

Don't expect all these things tomorrow. Or even in the next decade or two. Cloning science still has a long way to go. But they ARE coming. It's just a matter of time.

Answer 2

Cloning, like any new technology, can have a positive or negative impact depending on how it is used. In itself, it is morally neutral.

The "playing God" objection simply doesn't make sense to me, and shouldn't make sense to anybody who really thinks about it. Humans have been manipulating the world around them for many thousands of years. We selectively breed animals and plants for our own benefit. Technologies like cloning or genetic engineering are just more direct methods of achieving the same ends.

In fact, nearly all objections I have heard or read concerning cloning could be equally applied to the perfectly natural process of having children. We didn't create ourselves, what right do we have to create other human beings? Natural childbirth carries the inherent risk of creating a person with disabilities, and what right do we have to bring a person into this world who is doomed to live with a disability? If my wife and I make a child, does that child have human rights? We created it after all, is it not simply our property?

Everybody can see that absurdity of these objections when placed in this context. Of course a clone must have human rights. Of course there are risks involved. That is simply the way life is.

Answer 3

I think it would be weird if people had clones. It would take away from peoples individuality. The only cloning that I think is good is maybe cloning specific organs to use in organ transplants.

Answer 4

You can't provide a moral basis on the inevitability of an action! Also, the POTENTIAL for benefit is hardly a sound argument for moral judgement. The potential for harm is MUCH greater; while we see little danger in reproducing naturally, the being produced is an "average" human citizen. What rights are granted to clones? Were they given the choice to be their own "original" creature or were they FORCED to live in the SHADOW of a REAL human? My point is, no amount of possible positive consequences outweigh the probable negative consequences. The clone could be born retarded, deformed, or otherwise subjugate to the average human BEYOND the mere fact that they are a CLONE of an ORIGINAL being. Do we have the right to deliberately produce hundreds of retarded clones (who have no choice but to live a life of retardation- a most cruel fate) for every ONE decent USABLE clone? Moreover, do we have the right to deny the clone BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS? I believe that merely making a clone of a human being strips that clone (especially in the way that clones are often described as being used- for spare parts) of fundamental human rights that should be shared among all people. Only if the clone were to be guaranteed the rights of a normal human and were to be guaranteed to live a normal, human life (as all of us are entitled to) should we even CONSIDER such an endevor. Such technology is a long way off (many cloned animals are deformed for every good, "normal" clone), and we should be happy to be cautious. Hopefully, one day, such technology will aid in medicine, but unfortunately we must ultimately die so that our evolving children may have the resources to live. Without death, we will cease to evolve in a finite world. Medicine should stall death, if reasonably possible, not indefinately postpone it via cloning.

Keep in mind I reference no religious denomination whatsoever in this argument.

Answer 5

I FEEL STRONGLY, THAT IT IS WRONG. I DO HOWEVER SEE A TIME IN THE NEAR FUTURE WHEN THE RICH WILL HAVE CLONES TO HARVEST ORGANS AND IT ISN'T BEYOND THE REALM OF IMAGINATION WHEN A TRANSFER OF BRAIN TO A CLONE WILL BE FEASIBLE. MONEY DOESN'T JUST TALK IT SCREAMS LOUDLY.

Answer 6

Not to clone.. There's no point.. If you believe in God you're going to 'create' a human without gods will. If you wanna have children but you cannot-regardless to the reason- you can just adopt one. It's freaky.. there are no plus, no advantages, no point..

Answer 7

doesn't bother me one bit. the FACT is that humans have no goal in the distant future that cloning will destroy.

Answer 8

cloning is wrong and it can only lead to bad things

Answer 9

clone as you want but, never on humans.

Answer 10

Absolutely Not!. Man did not give Life to himself, therefore he has no right playing with the powers that do not belong to him!