Cloning

Today (but you are referring to an event almost 20 years ago), what was once science fiction has become science fact. We have our first real clones, though they are not human beings — yet! The world was stunned by the news in late February 1997 (I'd suggest putting the time phrase at the beginning of the sentence) that a British embryologist (named Ian Wilmut) (make this parenthetical to separate if from the following clause), and together with his research team, had successfully cloned a lamb named Dolly from an adult sheep. The world media was immediately filled with heated discussions about the ethical implications of cloning.

Excellent - a little punctuation would help in the reading - particularly in the reading aloud.

Many people are convinced that the cloning of any species, whether they are human or non-human, is ethically and morally wrong. Cloning of human beings would could have result in severe psychological effects in consequences for the cloned child, and it is clear that (what does 'that' refer to otherwise?) the cloning of non-human species subjects them to unethical or unmoral immoral/amoral? treatment to cater for human needs. The possible physical damage (to what?) that could be done if human cloning became a reality is obvious (no it's not!) when one looks at the sheer loss of life that occurred before the birth of Dolly. (needs explanation)

On the other hand, some people think that potential benefits of cloning outweigh the potential harms of cloning. Cloning would be probably perhaps be used by infertile people, who now currently use donated eggs, or embryos. It may provide a way for completely sterile individuals to reproduce (immaculate conception, self-reproduction), and thus be a valuable basic research of in technologies related to reproduction and development.

Thus, the cloning of a non-human species subjects them to unethical treatment purely for human needs. What would happen if humans started to use animals as body the host for growing human organs? Where is the line drawn between human and non-human? It could create a world wide catastrophe that no one would be able to stop. That is why the majority considers/consider (is it singular or plural? think 'the majority OF PEOPLE' - then it is certainly plural) that the ethical and moral implications of cloning are such that it would be wrong for the human race to support it.

(commenting largely on the English, without really commenting on the argument)

Cloning

Today, science fiction has become science fact. We have our first real clones, though they are not human beings — yet! The world was stunned by the news in late February 1997 that a British embryologist named Ian Wilmut and his research team had successfully cloned a lamb named Dolly from an adult sheep. The global media was immediately filled with heated discussions about the ethical implications of cloning.

Many people are convinced that the cloning of any species, whether they are human or non-human, is ethically and morally wrong. Cloning of human beings would result in severe psychological effects in the cloned child, and that the cloning of non-human species subjects them to unethical or immoral treatment for human needs. The possible physical damage that could be done if human cloning became a reality is obvious when one looks at the sheer loss of life that occurred before the birth of Dolly.

On the other hand, some people think that potential benefits outweigh the potential harm of cloning. Cloning would be probably be used by infertile people who now use donated eggs, or embryos. It may provide a way for completely sterile individuals to reproduce, a valuable basic research for technologies related to reproduction and development.

However, the cloning of a non-human species subjects them to unethical treatment purely for human needs. What would happen if humans started to use animals as bodies for growing human organs? Where is the line drawn between human and non human? It could create a world wide catastrophe that no one would be able to stop. That is why the majority of people considers that the ethical and moral implications of cloning are such that it would be wrong for the human race to support it.