However, the benefits of cloning a living human being are questionable. The question asked is, why clone a human? The advocates of human cloning would say that they want to “weed out” genetic faults in people7. This is a viable answer, since we want as few problems as we can have. Also, a great number of people want an image of them to live on forever8. A clone would best serve this purpose, since it will look completely identical to the original. There are people that believe that cloning will cure the problem caused by infertile couples. Infertile couples are frowned upon by the world. Infertile men are made to feel as though they are not real men. Infertile women are thought of as useless, since their function of having babies cannot be performed9. Cloning would allow someone’s image to live on, and they would have a son or daughter to live with. There would be no need for expensive in-vitro fertilization, and the unreliability associated with it. To quote senator Tom Harken:

This has enormous potential for good, There should be no limits on human knowledge, none whatever. To those like President Clinton who say we can't play God, I say OK, fine, you can take your side alongside Pope Paul V who in 1616 tried to stop Galileo, they accused Galileo of trying to play God too…. I don't think cloning is demeaning to human nature, to attempt to limit human knowledge is demeaning. It's not legitimate  to try to stop cloning. What nonsense, what utter, utter nonsense to think we can hold up our hand and just say "stop". Cloning will continue, the human mind will continue to inquire into it. Human cloning will take place and it will take place in my lifetime, and I don't fear it at all. I want to be on the side of the Galileos and those who say the human mind has no limits, rather than trying to stop something that's going to happen anyway. 10

Now, with the positives and gains of cloning and genetic engineering established, there are of course the few negatives that always slow a technology's progress. The first such potential negative is that some unscrupulous person might acquire the genes of a monster. Hitler, Napoleon, Stalin, or Saddam Hussein for example. Once they get this DNA, possibly from a corpse or other bodily remains, there is the slight possibility that that person may be cloned using this DNA. However this is extremely unlikely for a number of reasons. First, the amount of DNA that is recoverable would be negligible, if that. If this small amount of DNA was able to be recovered, chances are it would be heavily damaged or deteriorated, so a clone of this person might not be at all like the original11. If, by some far stretch, the DNA was able to be recovered, and was in good enough condition to clone that person, the clone would not turn out like the original. The genetics of a person plays only a small role in the development of that person. Memories, experiences, parents, upbringing, and environment all play a key role in the development of a human being. If Hitler was a monster in the 40’s, chances are that his clone in the 90’s won’t be. The way that he was brought up plays more of a role on his actions and attitudes than his genetics does. And then there is the practical use of such a clone, in the time of World War II the Germans needed a strong leader, and Hitler had just the right combination of elements. Now, the world doesn’t need a leader, so he is useless today.

Moral implications exist on both sides of the issue. Would it be fair to clone a historical monster such as Hitler? Even though the clone didn’t kill millions of Jews, his original did, so a great number of people would discriminate against him. He could be attacked for crimes he never committed, he might be ridiculed for reasons he does not know. The mental torment of such a childhood would destroy him. Would it be moral to do this to a human? The answer is no. And on top of all that, the clone of Hitler wouldn’t be able to do anything for a number of years. The clone would have to be implanted in a surrogate mother and carried to term and born in the traditional fashion. After the baby Hitler clone was born, it would develop at the same rate that any normal child would. There is no difference in the cloning of a person, and the normal birth of a person12. The cloning of a normal person, one who does not stand out, would be perfectly acceptable, since there is no reason for that person to be acted against unfairly.

Through all of this proof, we now have the information to say that cloning must not be banned. The potential that this technology has is unparalleled. Nothing throughout history has had such a heightening effect on the entirety of humanity.

As a united people, we must act now to stop the attempts of cloning abolishment worldwide. We must accept this new technology, and its gains for mankind. Cloning is such a powerful thing that we cannot let it go to waste simply out of our own fear and ignorance. The far-fetched scenarios of science-fiction are not likely to happen in the real, now or ever. Just as 1984’s predictions of the future were wrong, so will be Huxley’s Brave New World, and Crichton’s Jurassic Park. Science fiction is just that, fiction.. “Cloning may benefit the world and it might destroy it. But it is not … going to go away just by a few people stopping the funding … Cloning was science fiction. But now it has become science fact.”13 Will we allow the greatest gift in history to go down the drain, just because we are afraid to take a little risk?