> It's time for another heated debate...
>
> This has probably been touched on before by someone else, but I think that with recent news stories that it better be brought up again.
>
> I am all for cloning, as long as it is used for childless parents who cannot have children in the first place. Any other purposes would be in the realms of designer babies.

You know as well as I, that somebody, somewhere will be cloning children not for childless parents, but to build a private army, or something like that. This, I fear, would be the most abused technology in the history of the world. And what's wrong with adoption? There are thousands of children ready to be adopted, with thousands more potentially out there, if people would stop killing them.

>
> Of course, there are some people who think that you shouldn't play God - but we have been doing that for centuries. There's no reason to stop now...

We haven't been unnaturally creating children before, have we? I think that is a hell of a lot worse than a heart transplant.


>
> I'd be interested in your opinions.
>
> Chrico "Don't clone Hitler, whatever you do" Rinotir

It doesn't matter if you clone Hitler. In order to duplicate what his predecessor did, he would have to have the exact same life experiences. Which would be very impractical to do. Same with cloning Babe Ruth, Einstein, or Mother Teresa. Having the same physical body does not automatically mean they will become the same person. Look at a pair of identical twins, for instance. Very, very, similar, but not the same.

The Other "Don't clone ME whatever you do" Matthew