[RS]

Good Link - Thanks

There are some interesting points buried in it -
"The immediate intention of transferring the nucleus is precisely to produce just such an entity: one that is alive (rather than nonliving),"
According to this the unfertilized ovum is non-living -
which makes sense to their argument-
If the ovum were to be considered living - then it would be just an earlier stage of human life, would it not ?

[hocndoc]

The paragraph doesn't say the oocyte or the donor cells are not living cells. The authors are contrasting the desired outcome with other possibilities in three different qualities, in three different phrases.

""It would seem, then, that – whatever the reason for producing it – the initial product of somatic cell nuclear transfer is a living (one-celled) cloned human embryo. The immediate intention of transferring the nucleus is precisely to produce just such an entity: one that is alive (rather than nonliving), one that is human (rather than nonhuman or animal), and one that is an embryo, an entity capable of developing into an articulated organismic whole (rather than just a somatic cell capable only of replication into more of the same cell type). This is the intended primary product of performing SCNT, whether the ultimate motive or purpose is producing a live-born child from the cloned embryo or conducting scientific research on the cloned embryo. Also, the blastocyst stage that develops from this one-celled cloned embryo will be the same being, whether it is then transferred to a woman's uterus to begin a pregnancy or is used as a source of stem cells for research and possible therapy for others.""