 What is the underlying defence that the writer has in defence of 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. Start by asking whether human beings have a right to reproduce. 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. It's an easy way to show sound-bite leadership on an issue that everybody is talking about, without much risk of bitter consequences. 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. There is nothing like banning the nonexistent to show true leadership. 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. 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. If humans have a right to reproduce, what right does society have to limit the means? True, some forms of medical help are more invasive than others. Less than two decades ago, a similar concern was raised over the ethical issues involved in "test-tube babies." 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? No matter how closely you study the 1 st century texts, I don't think you'll find the answer. 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. Besides, such a trend would correct itself in a generation or two, because celebrity is closely linked to rarity.
 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.