 How do plants factor into the cloning argument?
Human Clones: Why Not? 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. 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. The only difference is that the DNA of sperm and egg would be replaced by DNA from an adult cell. 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.
 They are another example of it happening in nature, and being normal in our day-to-day lives.
 They show that the idea of cloning is a possible one because some plants undergo a similar process.  Plant cloning is unnatural and a human-made process.  They are another example of how humans have influenced reproduction before.  They are another example of it happening in nature, and being normal in our day-to-day lives.