Every pet owner loves his pet. There is no argument here. But when we asked our readers whether they would clone (, )their beloved animals, the responses  were split almost down the middle. Of the 228 readers who answered it, 108 would clone, 111 would not and nine weighed each side without offering an opinion. Clearly, from readers' response, this is an issue that reaches deeply into both the joy and _ . It speaks, as well, to people's widely differing expectations over the developing scientific procedure. Most of the respondents who favored the idea strongly believed it would produce at least a close copy of the original; many felt the process would actually return an exact copy. Those on the other side, however, held little hope a clone could never truly recreate a pet, many simply didn't wish to go against the natural law of life and death. Both sides expressed equal love for their animals. More than a few respondents owned "the best dog/cat in the world". They thought of their pets as their "best friend", "a member of the family,""the light of my life." They told moving stories of pets' heroism, intelligence and selfless devotion. Then the loss is so disturbing---and the cloning so attractive. "People become very close to their animals, and the loss can be just as hard to bear as when a friend or family member dies," says Gary Kowalski, author of Goodbye, Friend: Healing Wisdom for Anyone Who Has Ever Lost a Pet. "For me, cloning feels like an attempt to turn death away...It's understandable. Death is always painful. It's difficult to deal with. It's hard to accept." But would cloning reduce the blow? This question seemed to be at the heart of this problem. What is the key question at the heart of the problem of cloning pets?
Can cloning make the pain one suffers less when a pet dies? Can pet owners afford the cost of cloning? Does cloning go against the law of nature? How reliably does cloning produce an exact copy of one's pet?