There is moral concern and laws against the murder of people. Murderers are of the lowest class of sinners and regrettably pay for their decisions the rest of their life. Just as taking the life of a man is wrong, so is the unnatural creation of man. As some would say the end justifies the mean, it is argued because the uniqueness of the individual is stolen from right under the carbon copy. It is better for nature to play its role on its own and allow natures experience rule over technology.
"A Clone is Born" by Gina Kolata is favorable to the cloning for the better of man kind. She gives specific examples that would help man live a more comfortable life at the expense of animals, humans, and society. I do not agree with cloning to begin with because of endless possibilities and how the possibilities might be used. There would be chaos in the technology field like children in a free candy store; there would be no stopping the scientists. .
I side with Charles Darwin's idea of "survival of the fittest." I believe that war, disease, and unexpected deaths are necessary for the population to stay balanced. Cloning could become the "everlasting human." This would cause problems such as over population, new laws and legislation, more hospitals, more doctors, and a lack of uniqueness in the world. .
Kolata writes about many possible ways for cloning to be effective for man. One way is for animals to be cloned with human organs. If a human needed an organ, it would receive it from the animal that was cloned to hold human organs. This is as ridiculous as it sounds. An animal must live uncomfortably for a human to live. We were never distinguished as too good for death.
In addition, scientists want to insert genes into animals for them to produce drugs out of their milks. We are the only mammals that drink another mammal's milk. That is weird to begin with, and now we are formatting the milk to produce a certain medicine.