Amazon.com Widgets
  • Yes...But very carefully.

    Imagine a world where animals never faced extinction...Or better yet....When women cant have babies anymore...We can just create artificial babies.

    There's always the illegal problem or growing clones and killing them for their organs (see the concept of the movie: the island)

    but I guess there's nothing we can do except enforce a law against it.

    Imagine a world where majorities (germans, French, poms, Scandinavians, Italians etc.) are not being bred out and replaced by the rabbit rate breeding habits of muslim immigrants.

  • Support Science, Not Bioethics

    Human Cloning is not unethical, unless it is performed without consent of the donors of appropriate materials required to complete the process. Cloning is a gateway to new frontiers of science, and is beneficial to our societal advancement. Cloning is similar to Euthanasia in the way it can be argued, but many arguments against bioethical "crimes" are unbiased, prioritizing lack of gene pool variation over intellectual discovery. Cloning is most certainly not "unethical" or "against values". If it's against your values, you don't need to participate in it, simple as that. Without cloning, we are denying ourselves many different opportunities to solve 21st century problems that would be unsolvable otherwise, if we continue prioritizing bioethical morals.

  • Assuming this is about reproductive cloning.

    I can't see a child welfare issue, it's like identical twins but born on separate occasions. Maybe some people would use it for reasons such as "recreating" a lost child, that would be wrong since the clone has the right to be considered an individual of its own with no obligation to replace a dead person. But that's a fringe case. Also, the genetic diversity of the world would not decrease unless many clones of the same person were made, and there are no serious adverse social consequences. DNA testing for identification would fail but that is already the case for identical twins. Also, fingerprints can be used. They are not genetically determined. So, it seems there is no strong reason to ban reproductive cloning.

  • Yes, its our choice

    Even though cloning hasnt been a big thing yet i think it should be someones choice if they want to do it or not. Yes, you may be against it but that shouldn't stop others from doing it. Also, some people would like a child with the exact same genes as them.

  • Saving Who Deserves It.

    Its practically a second chance for veterans or for people who were born with a type of cancer/disease. I just can't wrap my head around someone who has such a fragile life already, then having to deal with a mental or physical disability. I just think that if there was anything that could reverse that and give them a fighting chance at a "normal" life, I am all for it.

  • Depends what you mean by human cloning

    If the question asks whether human beings should be cloned, as I am supposing that it does, then my answer is a resounding no. The random assortment of genes involved in human reproduction is what makes for the world's astounding diversity and variety of talents and opinions. The prospect of controlling what kind of people come into the world is, in my opinion, an egregious violation of Natural Law.

    However, I don't suppose the question takes into consideration the prospect of cloning human organs, which is very exciting (especially for me as a physician). If someone could clone their own heart, it could theoretically be transplanted into that individual without any risk of rejection and could lead to a new era in the care of advanced heart, lung, liver, pancreas and kidney disease. I draw the line at cloning human brains.

  • Is it necessary?

    Absolutely not. Putting aside the various complications that could be caused by cloning humans, it is not necessary at all. Why go through the trouble of keeping clones in control when we don't desperately need to multiply our population? IF cloning is permitted, moral issues would come into the picture as well. What if it was used for human parts and other unethical stuff? There are tons of 'what if's and 'but's on this issue and the mere idea of it should be deserted

  • I'm pretty torn on this one

    On the one hand I find the idea really exiting and I'd love to see it happen, just to know that we can do it. On the other hand, I kind of feel like there are enough people on Earth today without us adding a load more people. Morally however, I don't have an issue with it.

  • It would lead to disaster.

    Though I support cloning of organs and skin cells, cloning an entire person would be disastrous. It would lead to countless "Parent Trap" like situations, only this time it would be dangerous. Imagine living your whole life knowing that you were just a cheap knockoff of another human being. Living such a sad existence would be a mental health catastrophe and suicide rates would skyrocket. And what about identity thief? It would be absurdly easy to commit bank fraud if you look exactly the same. And what if people decide to clone the dead? The clone would be constantly living in the shadow of its ancestor. Hell, with cloning people could just pick and choose which traits they want in a child, which could slip down into the genocide of people who don't fit the cultural norm... It's too risky, and there are too many variables to put into play. I wouldn't take that chance.

  • Depends on sheer meaning of cloning

    If you say that cloning should be permitted, there is a close chance that people will come close to immortality which will affect all the resources. Also the genetic behavior won't permit to completely clone one to one DNA replication as the heliods in DNA code can only be replicated through strong toxic and nuclear fission which can be a threat to environment.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.