The animals that do live have a shorter life expectancy, if a family were to lose a child I feel it would be a sick joke to give them their kid back only to watch it die again in their lifetime, that to me just seems to painful, once is enough.
Where do you get this information? lol
They don't have a shorter live expectancy - or at least mice don't. Most of the other animals, having been cloned only within the last decade, haven't yet lived long enough to hit middle age, much less old age so don't know if their life span is affected (although most scientist doubt it will be).
Although of course the brat could still die in a car crash or disease or other mundane death, like everyone else.
Also, I don't think I would
ever advocate someone cloning their kid. That already seems painfully masochistic and freaky.
I just keep thinking of the parents comparing the brat to his previous version, and what if he's deficient (or just
different) in someway? (Genetics do not 100 percent make up a life, environment and random chance plays a part too, and I really doubt they'd be able to replicate the life the previous version had and even if they did, nothing saying the angelic choir boy won't decide he prefers goth and rock this time around! Uh, as a random example.)
I doubt they'd be happy, (furious and wanting to "return obviously damaged goods" possibly, since if they were cloning, they were probably wanting an exact clone) and I see that scenario being much more painful for all parties concerned then an early death for brat 2.0 ever could be.
Or have you never seen that scenario played out, in minor key, with child 1 verses child 2?
Why would you want your kid back in that way anyways? Sheesh, just have another or adopt. o.0
Well, I would be against it just for the forensic/scientific standpoint... If your DNA is identical to another person's, and you look the same, there's going to be problems for the criminal justice system when DNA is a deciding factor in solving a crime.
Also, suppose someone was cloned JUST so they could be sure of having internal organs in case of emergency, sickness, etc. Then wouldn't the clone have just as much right to live as the original person did?
True, and I read a very cool sci fi book all about that! An old mobster/drug lord who cloned himself, gave the brats a great life and told them they'd be his successor, then chopped them up for parts once they got big enough.
Anyways, the forensic thing is also an issue in chimeras. Those are people born with two sets of DNA. I watched a special on it, where a couple women weren't even related to their children genetically, because the DNA in their blood/skin/organs was different from the DNA in their ovaries.
One woman's kids were genetically her husband's and her brother's!
One woman was in a custody battle for her kids (they thought she'd stolen them or something!), and only managed to prove something was up because she was pregnant at the time - they checked the newborn and found the same deal - not related to her! Luckily someone found an article on chimeras, or she would have been trying to prove she wasn't a surrogate for another woman.
A judge said something along the lines of wondering how many fathers he'd denied the right to see their kids because of this condition.
And by that same token, how many had been proven innocent of a crime they committed because of DNA evidence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lydia_FairchildAnd now that I've went off topic, let me return by reiterating my stance on the original question - against cloning a person, because frankly there is no point, but I have no problem with animal cloning and other experimental cloning.
Although if the goal was replicating bodies so you could transplant brains and circumvent the aging process or diseases? Maybe, but depends on if said body had a brain of it's own to begin with.
I'm against cloning a person to be an organ donor, which I think is the majority viewpoint.