oning would deplete genetic diversity. It is diversity that drives evolution and adaptation (religious website). Each person is born with a mixture of chromosomes from a mother and father sexually with the egg and fertilization from sperm. The new cell is called a zygote, which then multiplies, creating new cells all with that same DNA (Stonebarge). Cloning would be creating a person non-sexually. The baby would only possess the DNA of one person. As you look around, do you see everyone looking exactly the same? No, and this is variety, except for the few exceptions where about 1/1000 births are identical twins. Identical twins are each others clones, they happen because a single cell, for no reason splits and permits to separate embryos to form such a cell called a zygote. Identical twins are, therefore know as monozygotic (Ebon 95). One of the arguments for human cloning is that it would help science to find out whether heredity or environment has a great influence of individual development. We already have clones, look around: twins! Also, if cloning a human were to occur, no sperm would be need. If cloning became into general usage, there would be no genetic need for men. This shows that all human males could die off (Robinson). The bottom line is, cloning a person would change the definition of what it means to be a human, said George Annas, a professor of heath laws at Boston Universitys School of Public Health (Masci 409). George Annas is right. If you want a clone you have a 1/1000 chance with twins, almost more successful than a human clone, and youll have a lot better chance than having a baby with defects.Human cloning is too expensive for general use. If someone were to want a clone, it would far too expensive to even want to risk it, with the chances of it surviving being so low. Nobodys sure right now, but it looks like it could be anywhere from thousands and even millions of dollars to have a clone. I ...
