It is the year 2010. As you pick up your daily issue of The Age, you begin to read some of the articles on the front page. Interesting articles include, "Cure to Cancer Found Due to Cloned Stem-cells" and "Former President George Bush's Cloned Heart Transplant a Success." Everyone thinks, all these good things are coming from cloning, I can't believe we didn't try this sooner. However, 10-15 years down the track those headlines begin to change to be more like, "Mutated Clones- Are They Still Classified as Human?" and "Clone Armies- Could it Happen?" It's only then that people will start to feel nervous and realise the implications of their actions but by then, it would probably be too late. So the question that is has been posed to us now is this: should cloning be allowed? The answer to this is a clear no.
Many argue that cloning will benefit many people in various ways such as providing genetically related children for people who are infertile and allowing for stem-cell research.
However, they choose to blatantly ignore the many risks associated cloning a human being. When man attempts to play God, it can never turn out well.
One of the risks that I'd like to discuss is the health risk from mutation of genes - an abnormal baby would be a nightmare come true. A particular worry is the possibility that the genetic material used from the adult will continue to age so that the genes in a newborn baby clone could be 30 years old or more on the day of birth. Many attempts at animal cloning produced disfigured monsters with severe abnormalities. So that would mean creating cloned embryos, implanting them and destroying those that look imperfect as they grow in the womb. However some...