[Poohbah]

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.

That's another human being you've just created, not "your own material."

Disgusting personal attack, but typical.

You're advancing the utilitarian argument; I'm merely extrapolating your position to its logical conclusion.

When you say that even manipulating genetic material is wrong, you paint yourself into an irrational extremist corner.

Deliberately altering the reproductive process to induce a gross birth defect, solely to give yourself a figleaf to pretend that you're not creating a human being, is irrational and extremist.

Should we also refuse genetic therapy for cystic fibrosis?

One involves creating human beings solely for personal convenience. The other does not.

And what of the possible evolutionary costs?

You don't seem to give a damn about them--you just want to induce massive birth defects so you can "maintain the fiction."

[Skywalk]

LOL

I'm not getting where you're referring to creating human beings(with or without programmed defects.)

Are you referring to the current use of embryos in cloning?
If that is the case, then I won't disagree with you.

However, I'm speaking of cloning of material, similar to taking DNA from blood or an organ or whatever and using that to clone organs or limbs even(with stem cells)

Now, I realize that to get to that stage of cloning technology, embryos and their stem cells are of importance to researchers, but I don't believe that is the ONLY way.

What I'm referring to is impractical now, but need not be impossible forever.

Would you still be opposed to THAT type of cloning(wherein no human was created.)

But then, it seems you think that anything that isn't part of your body that's cloned from original material is another human being. I don't see how that's the case, unless it is an embryo or fetus.