I’ll first get into the pro side of the argument. Their debate consists of the fact that through the careful continuation of research, supporters feel that the technological benefits are more than that of the possible social problems. To the everyday person, cloning of livestock, lab mice, and people is not that much of a benefit. But, cloning would help find new discoveries in other important areas such as genes, human growth, childbirth, and cell development.
Examples:
Miscarriages: Cloning could be able to bring about a greater knowledge of miscarriages, which would in-turn lead to the decrease in number of the many unwanted abortions that take place.
Organ Donations: Creating and cloning organs would mean that a never ending supply of bodily organs would be available to those people that need them. Cloning could also provide us with a greater knowledge of genetics, which would let us be able to make those organs easily accepted by humans.
Although there are quite a few people whom understand the process thoroughly there are also many people who don’t and how have many misconceptions of the process. One of the most common misconceptions is that there could be a clone of Albert Einstein created. This is a misconception because those people who think this don’t know that the
current cloning techniques require live cells to create a clone. Even if an Einstein clone were to be created, environment and upbringing play a much larger role in shaping someone's emotions and outlook than their genetic makeup. There is no research that suggests that a clone of Einstein born today would grow into a world famous physicist. Quotes: "What people don't understand is that with cloning you're creating twins, and like identical twins that occur naturally, they are not necessarily identical in the sense of personality. If you cloned yourself, there's no guarantee that your clone would be just like you. In fact, there are a lot of reasons why your clone would probably be very different in some important ways."
-Kelly Smith (Professor of Philosophy at the College of New Jersey.)
The con side of the idea of cloning is quite simple compared to the ideas brought to the table by the pro side; they debate that the "Star Trek" technology of cloning would cause nothing but terrible moral dilemmas. What would humans try and accomplish next if we thought that we could play god? Cloning, if overused, could bring about terrible results.
Examples:
Cloning Will Reduce Genetic Variability: The overuse of cloning could be the cause for an entire population having the same genetic irregularities. It would be possible, then, for an entire population of, chicken, for example, to be destroyed by a single virus, resulting in huge poultry shortages. If humans were cloned, similar problems would take effect upon us.
Creating Humans with Specific Traits: Conceivably, the cloning of humans would more than likely be used to create what we would consider to be the perfect human. Furthermore, it could be used to create a not so intelligent human, therefore creating a working class citizen.
Just as there were some misconceptions in the pro side of the argument there are also a few in the con side, some people think that clones would not be human when the truth is that the clones would be just as human as the person that they were cloned from. Another misconception is that a clone would not have a soul, but people also say that this argument could be used on identical twins. However, in a twin situation both twins are considered to have a soul.
Quotes: "Personally, I believe that human cloning raises deep concerns, given our cherished concepts of faith and humanity."
-Bill Clinton (President of the United States)
Why was cloning developed? My point of view on the development of cloning was that it was developed for the better things that can be acquired through the process like the organ donations, I do not think that any sane person would try and develop this process for the single purpose of taking God’s place as the creator. I think that the scientific community is morally responsible for cloning, because you don’t just stumble onto a process so delicate and time consuming as cloning by accident a person would have to put very much time and effort into discovering such a process. I think that the scientific community is responsible for the works that take place while using the process of cloning, because they should have been thinking ahead of themselves and known what problems could come along with such a discovery.
