It continues the trend of commoditizing human life.
You'd have a better argument if you said that you should not change the coding of a full human to an incomplete one.
The human reproductive process goes awry enough as it is without human intervention. Are you so arrogant as to assume that we would never make a mistake?
As for if somehow something goes wrong, well jeez, if something goes wrong with anything I guess we should just sit still and not leave the house.
Some things have very high price tags attached to their going wrong. I realize that you frankly don't give a s**t about your fellow man unless he's personally useful to you; I sincerely hope, for your sake, any offspring you sire have a significantly better attitude, or they're going to put you out of your misery when they want your assets.
Somethin' might go wrong. BTW, are you a death penalty proponent?
In cases where there is overwhelming evidence that the accused did it, yes.
That means I also accept the 14-20 year appeals process as the price of doing business.
Wow, it went from a debate about cloning and the morality of cloning YOUR OWN MATERIAL(not killing and harvesting others, where are you getting that from?) to me being a cold-hearted user of my fellow humans. Disgusting personal attack, but typical. You might have instead just made your point without launching into such attacks, as you don't know me enough to make such a statement. For there to be a moral cost, I must assume that you speak of cloning and killing full humans. When you say that even manipulating genetic material is wrong, you paint yourself into an irrational extremist corner. Should we also refuse genetic therapy for cystic fibrosis? And what of the possible evolutionary costs? We've been genetically engineering plants and animals for millenia. It's been much less precise, but it's been DELIBERATE which is what really separates it from "natural selection." I don't see you condemning that or the hue and cry over commodifying life(human or not.)