After a 1997 experiment in which a sheep was cloned, the argument of cloning humans came up. The argument surrounding cloning pits the views of two different groups against each other. Similar to the pro-life activists in the abortion argument there is the conservative wing who claim the utilization of cloning would be unjust. Then there are the scientific and progressive left activists on the other wing who believe that society could make great strides in the medicine and other fields through the use of cloning. In the defense of the conservative wing there are some negative effects that could be avoided by banning the research and use of cloning. But it seems the possible positive effects would outweigh the negative. It is a simple risk-reward equation that must be resolved to figure out whether cloning should be used. Although we may have to do some unethical things on the way, unethical is not necessarily unlawful. Therefore all in all the legalization and further investigation of cloning would be beneficial to society.
             The conservative side points out that the use of cloning will turn the world into a dull and boring place lacking in the diversity we have now. Kluger the author of an article in Time magazine quotes a Boston College bioethics professor as saying " 'It is in the diversity of our population that we find interest and enthusiasm'"(71). Then again Alex Kahn writes in "Clone Mammals...Clone Man?" "part of the individuality and dignity of a person probably lies in the uniqueness and unpredictability of his or her development. As a result the uncertainty of the great lottery of heredity constitutes the principal protection against biological predetermination imposed by third parties including parents" (324).
             Basically, the opposing conservative side argues that cloning would take away the individuality and differences in personality in the population. But what they fail to reco...