Early in 1997, Scottish scientist Dr. Ian Wilmot revealed to the world that he had successfully cloned an entire adult sheep. Dolly was the young clone's given name. With this announcement, the world made a collective gasp at the realization that no longer was cloning a "pipe dream" or an element of science fiction movies. Immediately, cloning became one of the most debated topics in the world. From the schoolhouse to the White House, discussions began regarding the ethical implications of cloning. And through major scientific and technological breakthroughs, the process of actually cloning humans has become much easier than once thought.
             Those in favor of cloning argue that the technology will eventually lead to numerous benefits for humankind. Benefits such as infertility clinics to assist reproductively challenged couples in having genetically related children, the growing and healing of wounded or diseased tissues and organs, the curing of diseases such as cancer and leukemia, and possibly the cloning of important historical figures such as scientists, politicians, and artists are all claims made by proponents of human cloning.
             Conversely, opponents of cloning say that it is immoral and unethical to clone human beings for both religious and humanitarian reasons. "Their arguments are very thoughtful and concerned ideas, such as the fear that cloning will lead to the "10,000 Hitler's" scenario, or that cloning is an unnatural process that is sacrilegious, and the belief that clones will suffer some sort of trauma because they lack a unique genetic identity" . All of these reasons are valid concerns, but, when held to close scrutiny, do they really hold up as adequate reasons to put an all-out ban on cloning and all research into cloning of human cells? Quite simply stated, the answer is no. Cloning technology should be permitted.
             But what is cloning? Rene S. Ebersole in "Early Cloning Breakthr...