But it will probably leave humanity with a far more important question, as to how to put it to the right use. A child produced by cloning would be the genetic duplicate of an existing person.It creates a question whether or not cloning would be an option to all levels of society, or would the prices be so high that only a few will be able to afford it?
But at the same time it creates a situation in which efforts to fully clone both, will eventually result in lack of DNA distinction.
Even with all modern technologies and knowledge that scientists have access to, they are not able to predict behavior of viruses and other unexpected things that cloned species will have to face in the future.
Furthermore, there is an immense difference between a woman's desire to terminate an unwanted pregnancy and the desire to create a genetic duplicate of another person.
There is no inconsistency between supporting the former and opposing the latter.
What will that mean for normal, average humans that were not produced by cloning methods?
Will that mean that normal humans will actually be considered lower level of society? And of course, the last, but nevertheless a very important argument, is the cost.The problem with lack of genetic variability is also relevant with humans though.If the whole population has same genetic substance, one virus can expunge the entire population.But while scientists are trying to find more reasons that would support cloning, let’s talk about the reasons why cloning may not be a solution for problems that humanity has in these three fields.Cloning plants and animals may have some pros, for example, it may help create species, especially nutritional plants and food producing animals that will withstand more diseases.Most parents learn to communicate their expectations about their children in a moderate and ultimately positive way. Every medical technology carries with it a degree of risk.Cloning techniques will eventually be perfected in mammals and will then be suitable for human trials. Human society can accept or reject any proposed technology on its own merits. Reproductive cloning can provide genetically related children for people who cannot be helped by other fertility treatments (i.e., who do not produce eggs or sperm). Reproductive cloning would allow lesbians to have a child without having to use donor sperm, and gay men to have a child that does not have genes derived from an egg donor (though, of course, a surrogate would have to carry the pregnancy). Reproductive cloning could allow parents of a child who has died to seek redress for their loss. Cloning is a reproductive right, and should be allowed once it is judged to be no less safe than natural reproduction.Arguments offered for and against reproductive cloning are given below.A summary comment follows at the end of the arguments. Reproductive cloning would foster an understanding of children, and of people in general, as objects that can be designed and manufactured to possess specific characteristics. Reproductive cloning would diminish the sense of uniqueness of an individual. At least 95% of mammalian cloning experiments have resulted in failures in the form of miscarriages, stillbirths, and life-threatening anomalies; some experts believe no clones are fully healthy.So with viruses evolving and mutating, minimum diversity in genes will eventually lead to species extinction, as they will not be able to enhance survivability.When it comes to cloning humans, arguments become far more complex.