With the advent of Dolly, cloning became the major topic in debates. Liberal scientists suppose that: "cloning gives an opportunity to remake mankind in an image of health, it is the ultimate expression of man's unlimited potential" (Human Reproduction and therapeutic cloning, 2005). In reality, while the cloning of animals, for commercial as well as scientific purposes, is now fairly widespread, the cloning of a developed human being (with predicted dates that regularly recede) has yet to take place.
Cloning helps scientists to investigate and understand functions of stem cells and invent new medical treatment methods for such diseases as cancer, diabetes, HIV/AIDS, hemophilia, sickle cell anemia, etc. "Therapeutic cloning will allow them to create organs that are a perfect match for those in need of a transplant" (Human Reproduction and therapeutic cloning, 2005). The use of cloning for therapeutic purposes is important to creating one person solely for the sake of another. Stem cells have a special property - they are undifferentiated. That is to say, stem cells have not taken on the special properties and functions of liver cells, heart cells, skin cells, and so on. But they can become differentiated, and take on these properties. This makes them useful. Stem cells can thus be used to repair organic damage, to recreate parts of the human body that are diseased or malfunctioning. Thus they present people with new therapeutic possibilities, several of which have already been impressively demonstrated - bone marrow transplants to regenerate a healthy blood system in patients with leukaemia, for instance ('Seeing double: the cloning conundrum' 4).
Another argument "for" cloning is that animal cloning is succeed, and it means that the technique of animal cloning becomes far more precise and effective and its extension to human beings very much less likely to go wrong. The cloning of humans is an extension of techniques developed for the cloning of animals, and whereas the cloning of plants is simple, the cloning of animals is not. Nevertheless, the inefficiency argument rests on contingent facts, and it is in the nature of contingent facts that they can change. "If they are successful, engineered stem cells may eventually provide a way of permanently curing most, if not all genetically determined diseases of the blood and circulatory system" (Grace 40).
Opponents of cloning state that everything turns on the potential impact, for good or ill, on human beings. The result of cloning is often the creation of animals with radical defects and deformities, many of which emerge only as the animal grows. In short, suffering creatures are brought into existence. For this created suffering, as for suffering inflicted, morally responsible behavior requires a justification. The form of this justification is clear - the suffering is outweighed by the benefits. The main problem with cloning is that results are often unstable. It is not always appreciated that even yet the actual business of producing laboratory generated animals is very much a hit and miss affair. Of course it can be said, that