Cloning - Your opinion on cloning

No one will be an exact copy of another (unless you [somehow] incorporate their memories and personality as well). However, psychological development, as well as physical treatment, DO NOT factor into cloning. If you kick a baby (never have), they might have a scar there for the rest of their life. Just because you clone someone DOES NOT mean that they will, inevitably, grow up, maybe not even go through the same developmental patterns, the same way.
BUT!!!
"cloning" is not what it seems. It is NOT duplicating a person. It is merely using that persons genes and not combining them with another's. This will be subject to many gene replications and environmental factors and the person will be very different. Much like that of identical twins, they have the same genes but can be very different. The only problem with cloning now, is not advanced enough to create a person without risk. If you take a 50 year olds cells and clone them, then you are cloning a cell that is 50 years old, so the clone will start off from a cell that is 50 years old. This is the reason dolly had her problems. However, it would be very possible to clone a new born.( even though the cells were freshly created by the body )


Cloning will also releive childbirth somewhat, pick someones genes you want, go to a "cloning bank" FUTURE... and clone their cells:)

I think that there is a clearly evident ethical problem with the type of cloning described in this post. Under this type of cloning, the parents wish to clone a new child to replace an old one. As if the clone of deceased 8 year old Billy is going to spring out of the womb and say "golly ma and pa, I sure missed ya!" Cloning a child to be a replacement of a lost one would place an unfair burden on the cloned child. The child would be made to exist for the main purpose of being someone who he or she is not, and could very conceivably be held to aritificial and impossible-to-meet standards, HOWEVER
Discussing the "ethics" of cloning in such a case is utterly pointless.

The only thing which is relevant are the long-term effects of any decision.

In the case of a single couple using cloning to 'get their son back', there really aren't any remarkable long-term effects, so the only wasted effort is that of those parents and anyone who discusses the aforementioned ethics of such a procedure.

However, if tens of thousands or more people (not necessarily couples) were to use cloning for reproductive purposes, the surge in the human population we observed during the 20th century might very well look like a minor increase.

Hence the scientifically acceptable answer: reproductive cloning is a big no, unless the 'natural' way somehow doesn't work anymore for the entire human population (very unlikely).
Therapeutic cloning, however, is worth every single effort, as its long-term effects are more than likely to be overwhelmingly positive.

Cloning is the production of two or more beings that are complete genetic copies of one another. There are two types of cloning:

I. Cloning by induced identical twinning. As the fertilized egg splits into two cells, each of them is then induced to make a fresh start and behave as if it were the original fertilised egg. Each half would then grow into a separate foetus, and having come from the same fertilised egg, they would be carrying exactly identical genetic components.

II. Ordinary cloning, which is achieved by injecting a nucleus from a somatic cell of an adult animal into an egg whose nucleus had been removed. The cell would then grow into a foetus that would be a true genetic copy of the adult living animal from which the somatic cell nucleus was taken.

Roman Catholicism and other Christian denominations believe that the soul enters the body at the moment of conception when the sperm and egg unite. They feel harvesting cells for embryonic cloning is tantamount to live human experimentation and contrary to God's will. Further, they maintain producing cloned zygotes that are unlikely to survive is tantamount to murder. Some Christian conservatives express concern that cloned embryos would have no soul, since it was, in their view, born outside of God's parameters. (Even though some believe Eve was a clone of Adam via Genesis 2:22. Then the Lord God made a woman from the part he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.)

Other Christian traditions like the United Church of Christ do not believe a fertilized ovum constitutes a person. They believe that cloning can be conducted ethically in order to help treat disease and improve the public health.

In any case, human cloning is still a long way away, and the evaluation of its immediate advantages and disad- vantages may vary with the passage of time. It would, even, be premature to say that after so many years of genetic engineering in plants, its safety for humans has been definitely established. Its applications in animals is as yet in its very early stages. Unpredictability is probably the greatest concern in this respect. Mankind should not forget the lessons of splitting the atom whose unexpected consequences emerged only after some time. Close monitoring of plant and animal cloning experiments must, therefore, continue for a considerable time.

Rev. Demetri Demopulos, Greek Orthodox pastor and geneticist:

As an Orthodox Christian, I speak out in opposition to any attempt to clone a human being because humans are supposed to be created by acts of love between two people, not through the manipulation of cells in acts that are ultimately about self-love.