Yes cloning can be very dangerous because they can be stolen and sold. They can also be used as elite members in an army composition and could easily be used by terrorists to multiply their diverse population. There is some ways it could help, but it is also very expensive so there is a huge drop in economy. Also, the success rate for cloning is 30 out of every 1,000 clones. In other words, 970-999 experiments are failures, the success percentage being only 1%.
Looking back on the cloning of animals Dolly the sheep who was the first cloned sheep to be born died in 2003. She was only 6 years old and the average life for a sheep is 12-14 years. She died from an illness and since her nucleus' came from an old sheep it could be a reason why she caught that illness. Many other animals have suffered unusual illnesses and this means that cloning isn't a good idea and it can be cruel. Why would we need to clone ourselves anyway, if it is for a medical reason what are we going to tell your clone? And would it be classed as manslaughter if it was an important organ? Also, what if your clone doesn't want to give you their organs?
The very first thing I would like to explain is the religious part. I'm 99% sure that if humans are cloned all religious groups will start riots against it saying that it is wrong and is against human nature. But keep in mind that the very same idea can be believed in by many non-religious groups, I only wanted to state that it will be only more prevalent in religions across the globe. The next is health. We have tested cloning on mice and probably rats but the concept of testing something so massive as cloning on a small scale, compared to large scale (humans) is very inaccurate (for the most part). DNA is very complex and it may be damaged in the process and lead to major long-term health defects and maybe even abominations. Next is slavery. Due to human nature we do not like to work for what we want. That is why a government will secretly clone humans as a work force. If we are able to clone humans, we are also able to manipulate genetics; governments will do this and have a seemingly endless work force of genetically engineered 'people' (can we call them people at this point?). My final statement is war. There is no doubt that people will be made in labs for the main purpose of being battle hardened. The same genetics applies from the work force. Just change some DNA and you get a larger, more powerful 'human', who can probably fight without fear if we wanted them to. But that is not the only war. What if our genetically engineered cloned work/military force gains some senses of what they are and revolt? Do we have the power to tell them that we own them and that they should not want freedom? Can we stop them in a civil war? (with the assumption that negotiation doesn't work, if any) These are the kind of problems we may face if we clone humans. But in reality, chances are that it will happen anyway and lots of bad things will happen. Just human nature.
Just to set things straight, human cloning is reproductive cloning. Therapeutic cloning is when an embryo is created but not allowed to be carried and given birth to. Therapeutic cloning involves destroying the embryos. And before anyone gives a little toot saying it is inhumane, listen. Harm suffered by microscopic embryos who have no awareness can never outweigh the benefit of a range of potential therapies for countless of suffering humans that therapeutic can give us. However, reproductive cloning can have its problems. Clones won't be treated as normal human beings, they will be treated as science experiments. They still have rights as humans but they may not be granted. Creating human clones for the sole purpose of having a replacement organ. To get a replacement organ, you'll have to kill the clone! INHUMANE! On the other hand, therapeutic cloning can reproduce organs and tissues without having to kill something aware and considered living!
A cloned human is also not indistinguishable from that of a naturally conceived one because they might be born with defects, and if they aren't, the defects will show up as they grow. It took 277 attempts to get Dolly right, how many attempts to get a human right? What will happen to those failed clones? And clones also age and die prematurely. Not good. They also can contract specific cancers easily.
Cloning is very unefficient and is in fact very risky. The success rate of cloning ranges from 0.3% to 3%. For every 10000 clones, there are only 30 clones made, or for every 1000 clones, there are 970 - 999 clones made. Some clone get LOS in the proccess, which stands for Large Offspring Syndrome.
The clones would certainly face problems, 97% of clones go wrong, and that would make them suffer if they were even still alive. They would also face problems from society. What hardships would a cloned child face in school? People might even use them against us and as slaves. I say that those are some serious safety problems for the clones.
I believe that human cloning is wrong and unsafe. It is wrong in the fact that in the future there is the chance that we will have a whole other self. To the terms of safety, it is a fairly dangerous method on getting ones complete set of DNA and also it could be potentially dangerous if someone who is not authorized to got there hands on someone else's DNA!
There is evidence to support the fact that cloning isn’t safe to the clones themselves. About one-third of the clones I saw had their death cause (what they died from) listed. All of these claimed lung defects. Is there a correlation, or is that just a coincidence? Think about it, please.
Dolly and other of the animals that were cloned suffered faster aging. However, that doesn't mean we should permanently write off cloning, just that before we use it we should work out the kinks and safety problems so it is safe for humans to use for reproductive purposes.
More words, because it requires them even though I already made my point.
Cloning a human is a very new science, and I feel that not much research or time has gone into this subject matter for us to know what risks are involved when cloning. Who knows? we might clone to save a life, but what if it costs another life, or causes some irreversible damage?
Seriously, are we watching a little too many science fiction movies? Every bit of research done in this area could easily unlock the door to a new scientific breakthrough. It seems like people are always ready to jump out their doors with torches and pitchforks in hand. But, I can say, without a shadow of a doubt, that we're not going to have an issue with doppelgangers. Even if the situation required more security, it would be handled with the utmost efficiency.
I don't exactly know what "safety problems" could arise from human cloning that wouldn't also be safety problems when performing a heart transplant or delivering a baby. Certainly, some safety issues could occur. But, as to if that is a problem, I don't believe it would be, any more than it would be for any other medical or scientific procedure.
While it is difficult to foresee all the ramifications of human cloning, there is no reason to believe that it is more unsafe than other laboratory procedures. On the other hand, human cloning may offer promising solutions to problems, such as organ failure or other health issues, negating the minor safety issues that may arise.
This same issue has been raised before, concerning the creation of test tube babies with donor sperm and egg cells. Somehow, when something is done by standards which some consider unnatural, it is automatically labeled as dangerous by those who are ignorant of the processes and precautions taken. I would like to know what the specific safety concern is, to be honest. If a human is cloned correctly, they should walk, talk and function just as any other human. In fact, cloning offers some things that natural procreation lacks, such as controlled conditions, the ability to select the most desirable traits, and being able to weed out potential birth defects. The child born will still be as much of a blank slate as a natural born human, because there are more dangers in the nurturing stages, which last for years, than in the 9 months of gestation, at the beginning. A clone would be equal and carry the same potentials for good or bad, as influenced by those around them, as a natural human has demonstrated for hundreds of thousands of years, or that test tube-grown humans have demonstrated in the last three decades, themselves. Perhaps those opposing this associate "unsafe" with "evil", mistakenly.
Man is trying to recreate something that is done through nature. This has the potential to cause many issues, many of which we may not even be able to predict. An experiment gone wrong could create many safety problems to the person, the scientist, and the world.
In fact, cloning humans (or any other mammal) may result in LESS safety problems due to avoidance of certain genetic, natural mishaps. Additional safety is provided due to the sterile environment cloning would need; extremely reduced chance of infection or biological contaminations.
Cloning with stem cells has been used to create materials for transplants. Creating new humans is not a likely use of cloning. Stem cell therapy undergoes clinical trials to ensure safety and efficacy like any other medical procedure.
While cloning humans does not transfer experiences and memories, it does copy a person's genetic code. This will cause many problems, most visibly affecting the justice system. When there are 2 or even more people out there with the same DNA, it would make DNA testing as evidence to convict someone of a crime unreliable. Just think of all the crimes that are solved, and the criminals convicted, by use of DNA evidence.
Cloning with stem cells has been used to create materials for transplants. Creating new humans is not a likely use of cloning. Stem cell therapy undergoes clinical trials to ensure safety and efficacy like any other medical procedure. I oppose the cloning of full humans; issues of personal safety such as identity would be at jeopardy. Safety would be in peril if full humans were to be cloned. Every country or political group would eventually have access to this science and could clone and replace people in power anywhere to make sure their own agenda is followed. Identities would be next to impossible to prove since the clone would have the same DNA and finger prints as the original person.
I oppose the cloning of full humans; issues of personal safety such as identity would be at jeopardy. Safety would be in peril if full humans were to be cloned. Every country or political group would eventually have access to this science and could clone and replace people in power anywhere to make sure their own agenda is followed. Identities would be next to impossible to prove since the clone would have the same DNA and finger prints as the original person.