the ethical issues raised by animal cloning projects. Some of us also believe that mechanisms to regulate should be part of a larger regulatory program governing all research involving human embryos, and that the federal government should initiate a review of present and projected practices of human embryo research, with the aim. But we are not only patients, and easing suffering is not our only moral obligation. Rather than bury these differences in search of a spurious consensus, we have sought to present all views fully and fairly, while recording our agreements as well as our genuine diversity of perspectives, including our differences on the final recommendations to be made. To engage in requires the irreversible crossing of a very significant moral boundary: the creation of human life expressly and exclusively for the purpose of its use in research, research that necessarily involves its deliberate destruction.
To be effective as long-term treatments, cell transplantation therapies will have to overcome the immune rejection problem. But we believe that in this case such reasons are apparent. Cloning-to-produce-children would affect not only the direct participants but also the entire society that allows or supports this activity. You sit down on the sidewalk and wonder if that individual is the only one like you. Indeed, our moral analysis of this matter leads us to conclude that this is not, as is sometimes implied, a merely temporary objection, easily removed by the improvement of technique. A few Council Members who favor do not share all the ethical qualms expressed above. Some objections to animal cloning (e.g., the impact of cloning on the population of unwanted animals) can be easily addressed, while others (e.g., the health of cloned animals) require more serious attention by the public and policy makers.