 What is the underlying defence that the writer has in defence of cloning?
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. And for a politician, making noise about cloning is pretty close to a fleshly temptation itself. He also openly claims the authority to decide how people reproduce. But calling for secular governments to implement a ban, thus extending his power beyond those he can persuade, shows rather explicitly that the pope does not respect the freedom of others. What law or principle--secular, humanist, or religious--says that one combination of genetic material in a flask is OK, but another is not?
 There is nothing intrinsically unnatural or immoral about it. Science supports it, and we already owe ourselves to previous new methodologies.
 There is nothing to fear about it. It can't be used for evil, and there is no evidence suggesting it will affect us negatively.  There is nothing intrinsically unnatural or immoral about it. Science supports it, and we already owe ourselves to previous new methodologies.  It will be a great way to continue the populace. It will give people different options in terms of raising children, and even continuing their own lives vicariously through their clones.  It is going to happen anyway, so people may as well accept it for what it is and move on.