 Why does the writer use other medical procedures as evidence to support cloning?
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. And for a politician, making noise about cloning is pretty close to a fleshly temptation itself. Probably almost none, because Clinton has maintained Ronald Reagan's policy of minimizing federal grants for research in human reproduction. Besides, most researchers thought cloning humans was impossible--so, for the moment, there's unlikely to be a grant-request backlog. He also openly claims the authority to decide how people reproduce. So the pope's views on cloning are 1 st century rules applied using 15 th century religious thinking to a 21 st century issue. Essentially all reproduction is done these days with medical help--at delivery, and often before. Less than two decades ago, a similar concern was raised over the ethical issues involved in "test-tube babies." The cloning procedure is similar to IVF. What law or principle--secular, humanist, or religious--says that one combination of genetic material in a flask is OK, but another is not? Even if people have the right to do it, is cloning a good idea? Cloning would only copy the genetic aspects of people who are already here.
 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.