Like them, cloning is to be regarded as a neutral technique, with no inherent meaning or goodness, but subject to multiple uses, some good, some bad. The morality of cloning thus depends absolutely on the goodness or badness of the motives and intentions of the cloners . . . by the way the parents nurture and rear their resulting child and whether they bestow the same love and affection on a child brought into existence by a technique of assisted reproduction as they would on a child born in the usual way. The liberal perspective sets cloning in the context of rights, freedoms and personal empowerment. Cloning is just a new option for exercising an individual's right to reproduce or to have the kind of child that he or she wants . For those who hold this outlook, the only moral restraints on cloning are adequately informed consent and the avoidance of bodily harm. The meliorist see in cloning a new prospect for improving human beings minimally, by ensuring the perpetuation of healthy individuals by avoiding the risks of genetic disease inherent in the lottery of sex, and maximally, by producing optimum babies, preserving outstanding genetic material, and with the help of techniques for precise genetic engineering enhancing inborn human capacities. Here the morality of cloning as a means is justified solely by the end, that is, by the outstanding traits or individuals cloned beauty, or brawn, or brains (Kass 22). .
The detractors of cloning cite the loss of human dignity as the primary adverse effect. The process of cloning includes extraction of human cells from early life - the use of aborted fetuses. Many people find this repugnant and recoil from the potential uses such knowledge could be put to - like Frankenstein and his creation, is Man playing God? and what are the unforeseen consequences? God created life from the firmament. Dr. Frankenstein created life from what was once living matter.
