against human cloning in general and has nothing to do with stopping research being done on human embryos. Technically this procedure would be within the law. Then the nucleus from the somatic cell enters and there is still left over DNA in the egg which is supposed to be genetically blank. Therapeutic cloning enables the cultivation of stem cells that are genetically identical to a patient. Despite those successes, the birth of a viable scnt primate clone the Problem of Hunger in America would not come to fruition until 2018, and scientists used other cloning processes in the meantime. These concerns are based on far fetched horror stories about human cloning. A key ethical question regarding the principle of producing animals by cloning is whether this technique is violating some moral prohibition, ie, that people are playing God by producing embryos without using fertilization. The mitochondria is outside the nucleus so when the nucleus is removed from an egg cell in somatic nuclear replace 1 of its DNA remains behind in the cell.
A cloned embryo intended for implantation into a womb requires thorough molecular testing to fully determine whether an embryo is healthy and whether the cloning process is complete. Cloning companies should state clearly that the technique will produce another individual with the same genetics as the original animal; it does not resurrect an animal. Many of these supporters believe that therapeutic and research cloning should be not only allowed but also publicly funded, similar to other types of disease and therapeutics research. While some researchers and scientists praise cloning for eradicating certain diseases and facilitating immunization, others cite disease resistance and development of new allergies as counterpoints. Stories like millionaires keeping clones locked up in the basement in case they get sick and need a spare part.
Ethical concerns about cloning may be broadly divided into two categories: concern about the effect of cloning on animal and human welfare, and objection to the principle of cloning, ie, to producing an animal by a means other than fertilization. Then again, the anti- cloning activists would argue saying that with the progress that cloning is making, this idea would not be so ridiculous after all. Again, this argument could continue for an endless period of time. While at first people were doubtful that cloning could be used for commercial purposes as it is highly expensive, the current pricing seems to be stable. The Guardian commented on the Streisand dog-cloning controversy, saying it is like an episode from Black Mirror.
Ethical Views on the Discovery of Human Cloning, Creation Cloning As an Alternative, The Scientific benefits to Cloning, The Nature versus Nurture Controversy,
Many people feel it is unethical and unnatural to clone something, or that it is a waste of money. The Kennedy-Feinstein bill, named for the two politicians who proposed it, bans human cloning for at least ten years. Counter-arguments to these moral concerns are that cloning occurs in nature in the form of identical twins; that people have been producing plants and animals by unnatural means from the first time they planted a seed in a new area or bred a cow. These cells could be used to treat a variety of conditions, including Alzheimer disease, Parkinson disease, diabetes mellitus, stroke, and spinal cord injury. There are laws and international conventions that attempt to uphold certain ethical principles and regulations concerning cloning.