|
|
|
|
|
|
by dragonwriter
2812 days ago
|
|
|
> If a clone is given the same rights as a non-clone, I can't see how cloning is unethical. A child of rape has the same rights as someone who isn't a child of rape, but rape is still unethical. The equality of the rights granted to a person who is a product of an act indicate nothing about the ethics of the act. |
|
|
Cute, but irrelevant. Please tell me how something not too different from in-vitro fertilization is comparable to someone forcing themselves onto another person and giving them PTSD.
> The equality of the rights granted to a person who is a product of an act indicate nothing about the ethics of the act.
I'll clarify: Combining inanimate objects in a way that leads to the birth of a child, who has the same rights, is not unethical. Sexual reproduction utilizes biological pathways to achieve the exact same result. Why is an "artificial" (whatever that means) pathway unethical, exactly?