Postrel is pro research cloning. Her last statement serves as her thesis: “We should let the process continue.” According to her, research cloning as of this time is still at its initial stage, “ACT and others in the field are still doing very basic research, not developing clinical therapies.” Then she shows the difference between science and politics: “Science is about exploring the unknown and cannot offer guarantees” while “politics… feeds on fear, uncertainty, and doubt….” She then refutes the three basic arguments for banning therapeutic cloning: that a fertilized egg is a person; someone may be tempted to implant a cloned embryo in a woman’s womb and produce a baby; and that random reproduction may lead to “manufacturing” that “robs one of autonomy.”
Moreover, she cites specific examples from actual results of the researches by the Advanced Cell Technology that “it took 71 eggs to produce a single success, and in the best case, the embryo grew to only six cells before dying.” She adds that since it is difficult to obtain eggs so “therapeutic cloning may ultimately prove impractical for clinical treatments” and “could be more important as a technique for understanding cell development or studying the mutations that lead to cancer.” She also uses definition and analogy to prove her points....
According to him, permitting the conduct of one may lead to the conduct of the other; since research cloning is allowed for therapeutic purposes, there is a tendency for a temptation to pursue reproductive cloning for other purposes aside from giving a childless couple an offspring.
Like Postrel, he defines the scientific terms and processes involved in this issue. He also gives analogies and examples. He contrasts science and morality. He cites the different issues debated in the House regarding this. He is very specific and clear in his arguments, and passionate too. His passion about his belief makes his argument effective. According to him, "reproductive cloning is universally abhorred" despite its promise of "study or cure." He argues that research cloning is not therapeutic. He then proceeds to discuss why he considers cloning as "ruthless exploitation of the embryo" and "dangerous" through his three objections: "First, the Brave New World Factor: Research cloning gives man too much power for evil. Second, the Slippery Slope: The habit of embryonic violation is in and of itself dangerous. Violate the blastocyst today and every day, and the practice will inure you to violating the fetus or even the infant tomorrow. Third, Manufacture: The very act of creating embryos for the sole purpose of exploiting and then destroying them will ultimately predispose us to a ruthless utilitarianism about human life itself."
Both writers have strong arguments. Postrel is more credible because of her presentation of actual facts about cloning that it takes 71 eggs to produce a single success and that it is even difficult to secure eggs in the first place. However, her credible presentation seems to end abruptly. The reader is left