> Bad point: It doesn't help in the overpopulation nor can it be morally justifying if we create defective kids.
>

I understand that an inherent defect of cloned individual animals, as the state of technology exists now, is that they have a shorter lifespan. For some reason still not completely understood, clones tend to age measurably faster at the basic cellular level. Not a problem, if you're wanting to raise identical animals to get a consistent product for market (or lab)--the length of their lives isn't a consideration anyway. But you could argue that it wouldn't be moral to create a human knowing they'd have a shortened lifespan.

However, having said that, everyone knows that all humans currently in production now--by natural or semi-natural means--are defective in one way or another. Some defects are just more obvious than others. I believe the more-obviously defective of us have as much right to enjoy life, as the less-obviously defective of us. So, I wouldn't object to cloning just on the basis of "defectiveness".

I would object to cloning because I'm not really convinced that it would be an advantage to us.
As someone else pointed out, what a person achieves/is able to contribute to society is a function of circumstances/environment as well as the genes they're born with.

koala"for genetic diversity"mom