"Janu" <janubas at yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3A848D35.CF396C94 at yahoo.com...
> > 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.
>
But in doing so you end up with a question that is of little value, and
indeed fall into the trap of having one big generalisation to aqvoid a small
one.
> >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.
In which case I don't think that our two positions differ greatly, except
that I don't accept that human reproductive cloning should be allowed right
now. I can see arguments in favour of some work in that direction (e.g., to
ensure that kids aren't born with terrible debilitating conditions).
