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 school house to the White House discussions began regarding the ethical implications of cloning. 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 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 Hitlers" scenario, or that cloning is an unnatural process that is sacrilegious, and the belief that the clone will suffer some sort of trauma because they lack a unique genetic identity. All of these reason 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". The object of this essay is to argue this side of this highly sensitive and complicated issue.
             First off, it seems logical that one needs to know in slightly more technical language what cloning is. It is not enough to simply say that cloning is the creation of another person that is an exact c...