Therapeuitc Cloning: why is this immoral?

Stem Cell Research & Cloning Forum

Here is a definition that I found on the Internet:

"Therapeutic cloning (a.k.a. biomedical cloning): This is a procedure whose initial stages are identical to adult DNA cloning. However, the stem cells are removed from the pre-embryo with the intent of producing tissue or a whole organ for transplant back into the person who supplied the DNA. The pre-embryo dies in the process. The goal of therapeutic cloning is to produce a healthy copy of a sick person's tissue or organ for transplant. This technique would be vastly superior to relying on organ transplants from other people. The supply would be unlimited, so there would be no waiting lists. The tissue or organ would have the sick person's original DNA; the patient would not have to take immunosuppressant drugs for the rest of their life, as is now required after transplants. There would not be any danger of organ rejection."

Is Therapeutic Cloning immoral because of the pre-embryonic death? Is this considered immoral from the stand point of pro-lifers? Is this messing with "God's" plan for all of us? If it is messing with his plan, why do we have the knowledge and know-how?

I'm writing a paper on this topic and was curious as to what other people thought.

I have heard three arguments against this technique:

1) As you mention, the process results in the death of an embryo which left in peace would develop into a full human child. Thus, jumping straight from the egg and into the chicken's butt, doing this is "killing babies."

2) Messing with God's plan more pertains to the act of tinkering around with God's fabric of life: DNA. Some people think that we have no business tinkering with something we don't even fully understand, and possibly were never "meant" to. Then again, those people tend to believe in holistic healing and that if God wants you to heal, thou shalt be healed and if not, then you're "meant" to die.

3) There is another rich source for human stem cells that does not result in "killing babies" : the umbillical cord of a healthy newborn. Thus the same experimental science could be performed by harvesting stem cells from this source given parents who are willing donors of their baby's umbillical and without the philosophical debate. This doesn't however improve upon conditions of the second argument.

Of course there are plenty of counter-arguments to be made on all three accounts.

Danaliza, knowledge and know-how don't provide sole justification for something. Like that line from Jurrassic park, "you were so preoccupied with whether or not you could, you didn't stop to think if you should ..."
For instance, i have the knowledge and know-how to kill somebody, but that doesn't justify the act.
As for the stem cell debate, the the crux of the question is is it ethical to destroy human life for the benefit of other human life. It's a difficult dilemma, but if unbilical chords can provide middle ground like sean said, perhaps stem cell research can go on with the blessings from both sides of the issue.