The argument has been made in Congress that it is slippery slope if you allow therapeutic, what people people are calling therapeutic cloning, then you will get reproductive cloning.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
If one is seriously interested in preventing reproductive cloning, one must stop the process before it starts.
I think we can allow the therapeutic uses of nuclear transplant technology, which we call cloning, without running the danger of actually having live human beings born.
You cannot be against embryonic stem cell research and be intellectually and therefore morally consistent, if you're not also against in vitro fertilization.
While that amendment failed, human cloning continues to advance and the breakthrough in this unethical and morally questionable science is around the corner.
I would not want to see any relaxation of the law prohibiting human cloning.
We're not interested in cloning the Michael Jordans and Michael Jacksons of the world, but rather assisting infertile couples that deserve the right to have a biological child to have one.
I am opposed to both cloning and the destruction of human embryos and adamantly opposed to funding of embryonic stem cell research.
I take the view that anything you can do to relieve suffering or improve human health will usually be widely accepted by the public - that is to say, if cloning actually turned out to be solving some problems and was useful to people, I think it would be accepted.
Cloning represents a very clear, powerful, and immediate example in which we are in danger of turning procreation into manufacture.
I am in favor of stem-cell research. I am not in favor of creating new human embryos through cloning.
No opposing quotes found.