 What would the world be like if people stopped having children naturally and started producing clones of themselves?
Human Clones: Why Not? If you can clone a sheep, you can almost certainly clone a human being. Cloning humans is taken to be either 1) a fundamentally evil thing that must be stopped or, at the very least, 2) a complex ethical issue that needs legislation and regulation. Probably almost none, because Clinton has maintained Ronald Reagan's policy of minimizing federal grants for research in human reproduction. Besides, most researchers thought cloning humans was impossible--so, for the moment, there's unlikely to be a grant-request backlog. He also openly claims the authority to decide how people reproduce. Essentially all reproduction is done these days with medical help--at delivery, and often before. Truly natural human reproduction would mean 50 percent infant mortality and make pregnancy-related death the No. 1 killer of adult women. With in vitro fertilization, the sperm and egg are combined in the lab and surgically implanted in the womb. Less than two decades ago, a similar concern was raised over the ethical issues involved in "test-tube babies." To date, nearly 30,000 such babies have been born in the United States alone. The only difference is that the DNA of sperm and egg would be replaced by DNA from an adult cell. Even if people have the right to do it, is cloning a good idea? Suppose that every prospective parent in the world stopped having children naturally, and instead produced clones of themselves. Cloning would only copy the genetic aspects of people who are already here.
 The same as now.
 More dangerous than now  Less individualistic  The same as now.  More unique