Of all the terms coined by scientists that have entered popular vocabulary, 'clone' has become one of the more emotive. A clone is one or more offspring derived from a single ancestor, whose genetic composition is identical to that of the ancestor. No sex is involved in the production of clones, and since sex is the normal means by which new genetic material is introduced during procreation, clones have no choice but to have the same genes as their single parent. This is the major reason behind the current cloning controversy. On one side are the advocates of cloning, those who think that it is an ideal alternative to natural reproduction. On the other side are the opponents of cloning, those who believe that it is morally wrong, and that it should be outlawed. However, cloning should be supported as a beneficial science, as long as it is strictly regulated. There are several key issues that contribute to the debate over cloning. They are: the end of individuality; morality issues; and the reasons why someone can be cloned.
Firstly, cloning would prevent those who are cloned from having their own personality. According to John J. Conley's Narcissus Cloned, "spiritual traits of a person, such as intelligence and emotive temperament are molded by one's conceptive history." Therefore, if cloning were allowed there it would hinder any cloned humans from developing their own personality, as they would be exactly the same as the person they were cloned from. As the old saying goes, "Variety is the spice of life," however cloning prevents any one person to be different from another. Eventually, every person would be exactly the same as everyone else. However, according to Barbara Ehrenreich's The Economics of Cloning since most people act and dress in the exact same way, in order to appear to be "cool," it is not that far of a stretch to clone humans. She points out that in our society, individuality has nearly died out, so this argument against cloning is virtually useless.
