I have been thinking about your response for about four days now, out of sheer surprise, simply because the premises upon which the aforesaid responses are based should seem to be self-evident to any rational person. I think the best way to answer is to say that the responses that you characterize as "aesthetics' are simply the logical conclusions that flow from certain moral presuppositions. The aforesaid responses are value judgments based on rational and moral propositions regarding the essential worth, dignity, and inalienable rights of human beings, and thus are of a different sort than, say, a subjective aesthetic value judgment regarding a piece of music.
If you wish to challenge the moral premises, or the logical conclusions that flow from such premises, please have at it.
Cordially,
There is a sizeable number of persons in the US, and vastly greater numbers outside that think little of these qualities. I am deadset against both abortion and human cloning, for neither aesthetic nor ethical reasons, but for religious reasons. However, for those who lack the concept of religious reasons in these questions, neither ethical nor aesthetic theory will provide much basis for judgement until some thought is given to development of these concepts. It is clear that our representatives won't give any thought to religious reasons in these matters, therefore they must be provided with ethical or even aesthetical reasons. Legal precedent is being established right now--to wait is to lose.