The debate regarding cloning has been raging for over a decade, and the core issue of the debate is ethics. The argument is largely between science and religion, and the possibilities of cloning strike a strong emotion in many who consider it.
The very idea of cloning human embryos has initiated new laws in nations where no provisions were made for such an advanced scientific achievement, and even the bible has no reference to it; the Ten Commandments say "Thou shalt not kill," but nowhere does it say, "Thou shalt not create."
The parents of the infant want to clone him, giving the reason that he should have a chance of life. Although they are a healthy, fertile couple with the ability to produce another child, they do not want another child. They want that child.
The idea of cloning a human being for the purposes of replacing what was lost is ludicrous in my opinion. First of all, as Talbot's article states, the clone would not have the same memories or necessarily the same personality as the original.
A good case in point to demonstrate a difference in personality between an original human and a clone would be identical twins; they are genetically alike, yet they have different preferences, different personalities and sometimes are so different that they may as well have come from different families.
It is easy to become so familiar with a person, a pet or a friend that to associate anyone or anything that looks like them is associated with the original, with expectations of sameness. This is a very basic human reaction and the desire for continuity. Religious or spiritual beliefs aside, everyone and everything is unique, even if similar.
I believe that the exc ...