> Ahh, but you avoid my question. Do you actually accept that this is a more
> appropriate question?
I agree that there is a great difference between reproductive cloning and the
cloning of embryonic cells. My first question focused on human cloning in
general. Yes, the question you suggested is more appropriate and clearer.
However I think this question should be reformulated. Due the moral gap between
both cloning applications, I would rather avoid generalisation.
>No one is advocating cloning 'human beings'. There's a big moral difference
>between reproductive cloning and the cloning of embryonic cells. The former
>is not a step that anyone considers neccesary, the latter is the most likely
>avenue open to us to treat/research a range of conditions, most especially
>neurodegenerative disorders. You seek to put a break on such research,
>delaying any possible treatments and condemning people in the future to
>unneccesary suffering.
No, I don't. Cloning of embryonic cells (as far as time restrictions are
respected) is for me acceptable. Reproductive cloning should be tested on
animals first, but I wouldn't prohibit research in this area as well. I think
cloning should, in all aspects, be allowed, yet it should be strictly ruled and
controlled.
Janu
--
http://welcome.to/scientific_cage
