This argument seems specious to me. For $50,000, she could also have provided homes for humans; does that also make the action reprehensible? Would it be less so had she spent it on a car? For that matter, a number of people persist in having biological children, even though there are plenty still available for adoption. Is he arguing that that's morally problematic as well?
It seems to me that if there are ethical issues involved in this, the ones being discussed right now aren't them - but I'm a bit surprised to see so many scientists and ethicists jumping on this bandwagon. Is it just me, or is some deep fear of "cloning" - not a fear of the actual procedure, but of something subconsciously associated therewith - taking over the discussion?
Does someone have a sense of what the actual underlying fears are?
