This MSNBC report picks up on another side of the stem-cell debate: cloning. Recall that the controversial stem-cells are derived from human embryos, and it is the extracting of the stem-cells that destroys the embryo. The more embryos we have, the more stem-cells, a simple math that spurrs the creation of more embryos with the desired genetic code. Enter human cloning. The MSNBC piece looks at recent state initiatives to ban the cloning process, with stem-cell research as the collateral damage. Of course, we could flip the issue and ask whether live-birth human cloning is likely to be the collateral damage of an expanded stem-cell research policy? How likely is it that we’ll get one without the other?
Is anyone advancing any principled arguments against cloning? I really haven’t heard one, outside the Church, various religious groups, etc. The normal Pro-Life crowd. If this is the case, any resistance to cloning by legislatures and others who are not normally pro-Life is merely an unprincipled reaction against a process that has gained infamy through movies, books, etc. As time passes, this resistance will break down in the absence of a set principle people can agree on. I think this makes it fairly likely that embryonic stem cell research and other procedures will eventually lead to human cloning (perhaps even to harvest body parts).