The ethics of cloning have become increasingly debated as scientists become more educated and information is more readily available to the public. Because everyone has different beliefs and morals, the controversy draws upon many different points of view. In my opinion, no one has the right, or should have the right to "play god" by altering our way of life as dramatically as creating duplicated versions of ourselves. I admit that there are some definite medical benefits of cloning, but the physical and psychological dangers outweigh the advantageous aspects by far.
Those who argue that cloning is ethical and should be performed without restriction, answer the dangerous and immoral features said to be brought with cloning, with statements such as Alan Caplan's, "an alliance of abortion opponents, social conservatives, and biotechnology-phobias wants you to believe that human cloning is always unethical, even when it is done for the purpose of finding cures for horrible diseases"(msnbc.com). In response, I argue that yes, some of the people opposed to cloning most likely are abortion opponents or social conservatives, but someone does not have to be a member of these stereotypes to feel that the duplication of an organ or human above is Dolly, the first mammal cloned, click image for site- of an organ or human being through the sacrifice of another is unethical. Backing my argument are even those who have successfully cloned animals since Dolly stating, "it would be morally wrong to clone a human being, it would also be destructive, stupid, and cruel" (guardian.com). .
The benefits of cloning lie in the advancements in fighting incurable diseases, such as Parkinson's, or Lou Gehrig's. Advancements are possible with stem cells making new nerve cells and building new organs. It was for this reason "the research team that produced the sheep clone performed their research; for pharmaceutical reasons.