Cloning is Ethically and Morally Wrong
             Hitler wanted to create a perfect race. If cloning were a possibility during his rein, would he have succeeded? The idea of genetically duplicating a dictator is not new. In Ira Levin's 1976 book, The Boys from Brazil an ex-Nazi bred a generation of Hitler Youth boys cloned from cells left behind by the fuehrer. To think this could be a possibility is frightening. To consider the cloning of the human race, forces us to question the concepts of right and wrong. The cloning of any species, whether they are human or animal, is ethically and morally wrong. Scientists and ethicists alike have debated extensively the implications of human and animal cloning since 1997 when scientists at the Roslin Institute in Scotland produced "Dolly". There were no direct conclusions. However, compelling arguments state cloning of both humans and animals result in harmful physical and psychological effects.
             The possible physical damage done if human cloning became a reality is obvious when you look at the sheer loss of life, which occurred before the birth of Dolly. Less than ten percent of the initial transfers survived were healthy. There were 277 trial implants of nuclei. Nineteen of those 277 were healthy while the others were discarded. Five of the nineteen survived, but four of them died within ten days of birth from severe abnormalities; Dolly was the only survivor (Adler, 1996). Four years from Dolly, cloning was still a waste of animal life. Clones die in the womb or develop deformities. Even clones, which look healthy, could be ticking time bombs destined to go awry. An example of this was a calf, which was cloned, had a bloated placenta, which was six times the fluid of a normal placenta. At birth, it appeared normal. It mooed, started breathing, and tried to stand. However, appearances were deceptive. Its blood oxygen levels were one-third of what was expected, and carbon dioxide was up...