 Why does the writer use other medical procedures as evidence to support 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.
 To show that reproduction has always been assisted to the benefit of people one way or another, with good results.
 To show that there is a demand for more reproductive aids like cloning.  To show that the fear of cloning is not based on science.  To show that reproduction has always been assisted to the benefit of people one way or another, with good results.  To prove the science behind cloning and to show it is based in commonly used practices.