 What is the underlying defence that the writer has in defence of cloning?
Human Clones: Why Not? If you can clone a sheep, you can almost certainly clone a human being. Some of the most powerful people in the world have felt compelled to act against this threat. President Clinton swiftly imposed a ban on federal funding for human-cloning research. Bills are in the works in both houses of Congress to outlaw human cloning--a step urged on all governments by the pope himself. 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. But what, exactly, is so bad about it? Start by asking whether human beings have a right to reproduce. I say "yes." I have no moral right to tell other people they shouldn't be able to have children, and I don't see that Bill Clinton has that right either. When Clinton says, "Let us resist the temptation to copy ourselves," it comes from a man not known for resisting other temptations of the flesh. And for a politician, making noise about cloning is pretty close to a fleshly temptation itself.
 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.