"Can reasonable people disagree over cannibalism
in order to permit cannibalism, without doing violence to civilization?" If one opposes cannibalism, it would not be reasonable to leave the debate at 'agreeing to disagree'. Agreeing to disagree accomplishes the goal of those who don't want opposition to their chosen behavior. In this case, by withholding opposition to cannibalism, or agreeing to disagree without action to prevent it, the techniques of this form of cannibalism will become part of the active medical armamentarium.
There are people in the scientific community actually trying to achieve this 'acquisition by our default' by obfuscating and dissembling, because they believe at present our society will not easily embrace their form of cannibalism. If we in the pro-life movement don't act now to emphasize this relation to cannibalism, the society will be drawn into accepting cannibalism/therapeutic cloning under the guise of utilitarian value.