Alright, this is my opinion. Cloning human cells for therapy it's ethical, but an entire human being is unethical, as well as unnecessary.
For what purpose could this be done? I heard these answers:
1. making a duplicate of himself to continue his own life;
2. making a duplicate of a loved person to continue his life;
3. taking from a duplicated body organs biologically compatible at 100%.
In the first two cases, in addition to ethical issues, I say that the idea is totally useless, why would we duplicate only a biological body, not a personality, which is not bound to DNA alone, but to the circumstances of a lifetime, totally unplayable. Two twins, physically indistinguishable, grown in two separate environments, without contact with each other, have different personalities in general.
Personally I knew two indistinguishable twins, grown in the same family, with clearly different personalities.
The third case is even criminal: the cloned person would have the same protection of laws of any human being, and could not be treated as an organ bank, ready to be eliminated in favor of the original; criminal and useless. Someone to get around the objection, suggested to make a clone with the clipped brain: this is doubly criminal, as if mentally retarded by nature could be regarded as a living organ bank.
Kiraden
I was researching cloning the other day, and read about all the controversy that came with the theory of human cloning. The former pope said it was "A tragic attempt by man to imitate God's unique life-giving powers." When Dolly the cloned sheep was announced in 1997, Bill Clinton's cabinet said that human cloning would be immoral.
What do you guys think? I think it could be taken in moderation for, say, cloning skin cells to heal a burn victim. It shouldn't be used for selfish reasons like parents wanting to bring back dead children however (They would just be identical people anyway, you can't clone memories)