Cloning can be a very sensitive subject. It seems that it is a battle between science and ethics. Does the ladder outweigh the form or vice versa? Maybe a few definitions will shed some light on the subject. "Cloning is the process of making a genetically identical organism through nonsexual means" (Freudenrich). The inevitability of human cloning is unavoidable. Although a majority of individuals disapprove the idea of cloning humans. I firmly, believe that, not only will human cloning be widely practiced in the near future, but it will also benefit the health and well being of all humanity. Cloning has its medical uses, but do the ethical implications outweigh the advantages?.
The goal of genetic engineering is that every child be born strong, healthy, and well suited to make its way to the world. If genetic engineering would be used in this way the would probably be a place of less disease.
ACT has stressed that its goal is no to clone human baby but to develop these embryos long enough to extract stem cells. These master cells have the potential to turn into any human cells and hold immense, though still unproven, promise for treating many disease, including Parkinson's disease and heart disease (Kenen).
Sure it may be unethical to do some test on humans, but without them medical progress would come to a halt. Those people on the waiting lists lives would be saved and the waiting list would be no more. Cloning might also directly offer a way of curing diseases .
.
or a technique that could extend means to acquiring new data for the sciences of embryology and how organisms develop as a whole over time. Science has been trying for years to come up with cures for genetic diseases and so far they have not come up with anything that is truly helpful. There are a plethora of different disease that await infinite freedom from human anatomical and physiological atrophy such as leukemia, liver and kidney disease, Down's syndrome, cystic fibrosis, etc.
