Ethics

Human cloning can be identified as the creation of genetically identical copy of a human, human cell, or human tissue. More lightly, it can be taken as the artificial process of making a genetic twin of a person. It involves the creation of hereditarily identical person either living or dead. A clone is an animal who is genetically identical to its donor. It is carried out by the substitution of the cell nucleus with its DNA into an egg cell in a way that effective fertilization can take place. Human cloning can either be natural or artificial. Naturally, there is the existence of identical twins whose cloning occurs during the natural process of reproduction
(Baird, 2002).
Therapeutic cloning, also known as artificial cloning entails cloning a creature with the intent of harvesting either stem cells or organs from that creature, mostly for medical use. In this case, the nucleus of a cell donated by a person would be transferred to an egg mother cell (an oocyte), the embryo would then be grown to generate stem cells which could then be induced to form the type of cell or tissue required for medical purposes (Childress, 2003). 
There is another cloning known as replacement cloning, currently existing only theoretically, which would involve the replacement of seriously damaged, failed, or failing body tissues through cloning followed by whole or partial brain transplant. The most commonly employed technique in Human Cloning is the Somatic cell nuclear transfer. In this method, the nucleus of an egg cell taken from a donor is removed. This original cell is then fused with another cell of the same generic material which is supposed to be cloned. Another method in application is parthogenesis, which is only effective with male. In this method, unfertilized egg is induced to divide and grow as if it were fertilized (Dresser, 2003).

Pioneer cloning activities
The initial attempts at artificial cloning were commenced as early as the beginning of the twentieth century. The first successful cloning took place in 1952 when a tadpole was cloned. At first, clones were created from embryonic cells, this continued until the creation of Dolly, the first mammal cloned from the cell of an adult animal. This generated a lot of research interest in this area which led to the cloning of a number of large and small animals including sheep, goats, cows, mice, rabbits, and a gaur. In all these cases, nuclear transfer method was employed. Today, many cloned animals exist however, there is a limitation in terms of species. Cloning has never been possible in certain species. This can be attributed to the fact that some species are more resistant to somatic cell nuclear transfer than others. It is anticipated that improvement of cloning techniques will enable cloning of most species (Hopkins, 1998).
    The first cloning that was successful was reported by Advanced Cell Technologies (ACT) and is reported to have been carried out by extraction of DNA from the skin of a mans leg and then later inserted into a cows egg whose nucleus had been removed. The cloning is alleged to have occurred in November 1998.  The cloned embryo was allowed to develop for about twelve after which the experiment was stopped. Many other cloning experiments are alleged to have been carried out with the aim of getting stem cells from embryos. It is possible to harvest stem cells inside embryos within the first two weeks of their development and they can be developed into any type of cell in the human body. The stem cells differentiate into more specialized cells after two weeks of development (Laing, 2006).
Why human cloning should be illegalized.
    Human cloning is an expression of hubris. Cloning is seen as both an offence against God and also against nature. This is an offence against God in the sense that reproduction should only remain to be solely Gods domain. When we make it as our responsibility to create human through reproductive cloning, then we are acting as creators and thus infringing on the holy domain. From most religious literature, man is given the duty to take care of the rest of the creation. Creating human beings appear to be antagonistic to this view. Human cloning is thought of as an immoral and equally dangerous intrusion into Gods domain. Scientist have unfortunately found a way of avoiding criticism by claiming that research cloning is a useful and legitimate science and distinguishes it from reproductive cloning which they term as being dangerous. This should be known to us as just a plan to blindfold the people. Scientists do not believe that human cloning offend God, after all they say there is no scientific proof that God exists (Looney, 1994).
    Children who are begotten are gifts from God while human cloning treats children as manmade products who are designed with genetic order. This project by all aspects violates human dignity. From most religions, anything that undermines human dignity undermines the whole of humanity and even God. It is not easy to prove moral arguments as the existence of God cannot be proved scientifically. Parents who will have to engage their money and technology to have children will tend to value their children as products or commodities (Walters, 2004).
    Identical twins are considered to be naturally occurring clones but they tend to have very different personalities. This is even evident on Siamese twins. Thus, two people, conceived at the same moment, gestated in the same womb and raised in the same environment can be unique individuals. This is not the case with human clones who will be raised in a different era, habits, tastes and culture from their DNA donors. The differences of influences and experiences will lead to a difference in personality traits, habits, tastes and values. It is admissible that human clones are not copies that lack in individuality and autonomy. Since some people think of them otherwise, clones will suffer psychological damage. It is better that we illegalize cloning is bad before the time comes when a bigoted public cause mental torture and suffering to children who are not even supposed to exist in the first place (Walters, 2004).
    The efficiency of reproductive cloning is still very questionable as almost ninety percent of all cloning trials do not lead to viable offspring. The expense is also great and thus would remain to be a reserve of the chosen few. Cloned animals are susceptible to diseases and infections as their immune systems are considerably weak. The safety of human cloning still remains very questionable. Some of the reasons to support these arguments are among others, the possibility of epigenetic changes in the donor cells DNA which has the likelihood of not reversing in the course of cloning there may also be complications associated with paternal and maternal imprinting of the DNA in the clone. There may also be some damages in the DNA of the donor somatic cell and telomere length. There may also be some changes in the programming of the donor cells DNA. All these problems are not experienced in natural reproduction or to the other forms of assisted reproduction. There is a higher possibility that most adult clones will have abnormalities. It has been observed that cloned mammalian fetuses grow very large in the uterus this will most likely be very risky to the woman in the course of the gestation period and during birth. It is not clear why the fetuses grow so large but it is thought that it may be due to faults in nuclear reprogramming in the course of nuclear transfer (Snead, 2009).
    The cloned child may experience psychological harm by feeling that his fate has already been pre-determined and may not have the option of choosing their own identities. The other cause of psychological harm may be the unrealistic expectation that they will acquire particular qualities or resemblance to the genetic donor in some useful aspects. Human cloning comes with the possibility of complete control of reproduction and the childs precise genome. This will make parents place high expectations on their children which may in the long run turn out to be unrealistic. While expectations can be argued not to be unique to only the cloned children, parents who want cloned children will have an exact genetic make up, meaning that they will be expecting that from their child. Also, psychologically harmed will be the DNA donor, by knowing that there is another individual with the same genetic identity (Roy, 2003).
    The society will also be affected because parents will be encouraged to improve their offspring genetically uncertainty in family relations support of commodification and commercialization of progeny human diversity will be lost increase in population distributive bias and threat to the democracy of individuality and independence (Macintosh, 2005).