Cloning as a simple thought is making two of the same from one. There are two types, reproductive and therapeutic. This discussion is of the former scientifically referred to as asexual reproduction. Human cloning, for example, you could think of as taking a piece of one human and duplicating or making a copy of that person. It would not be of any traditionally known relation, just a clone. Cloning has been very a controversial subject capturing worldwide attention, as “Dolly” a sheep was the first animal successfully replicated in the UK by the reproductive clone method, born on 5 July 1996, and died 14 February 2003.

      First, the question arises to what is a clone. This paper will focus on reproductive cloning unless otherwise mentioned for argument or contrast. The answer is simple, the genetic copy of the cell or organism cloned. However, the process to get the clone can be very difficult to do and the costs of mass-producing would be prohibitive. Then there is the question of ethics that weight heavily on populations at large. Arguments for or against human or animal cloning run a large spectrum of thought and reason, from religious views, philosophical talking points, and general ethical issues at large to genetic technologies and known biological science.

      Arguments for cloning include; Men and women who can not produce eggs or sperm at all could be given assistance through these reproduction techniques and allow them have a child when modern technology fails to provide the means to regenerate by naturally occurring means whereby giving them offspring to carry family lineages. Cloning restricted to this grouping of people could be beneficial. This same reasoning argues also that it could eliminate genetic variations of the parent that are detrimental to a bloodline if sifted for deoxyribonucleic acid   (DNA) mutations that leads to various illnesses.

      An argument against cloning for carryover of bloodline linage is very strong given the...