Time and time again we see opponents of these sorts of medical techniques changing their tune when they come face to face with the reality of what these treatments can do.

Senator Conroy a staunch Pro-Life Senator from Victoria has just fathered a surrogate baby in NSW because the techniques used were illegal in Victoria. Whilst I note his hypocrisy I wish him and his family every happiness.

I've a few issues with this article.

Firstly - the debate was about embryos. Not fertilised embryos.
It takes a sperm and an egg to create a person, which is a crucial difference.

The slippery slope argument applies to many things, but ultimately we have to rely on common sense to prevail.
You can point at just about any decision and say it is the first on the road to danger.

As far as "transformation of our ethical sensibility" goes, there is the issue of who decides what is ethical and what isn't.

In a democracy, that is left up to the majority. That is what has happened.

As far as the 'valid research' goes, on an issue that divides the community so closely, figures can be found either way. Here's some that show polls in favour.

http://www.roymorgan.com/news/polls/2006/4036/

3. Stem Cell Research
Respondents were then told: “A very important new avenue for research using human embryos involves taking cells called stem cells from the inside of a five day old embryo. The embryo is no longer capable of further development. Scientists are working on techniques to turn stem cells extracted from an embryo into any type of cells in the body such as nerve cells and muscle cells to treat diseases such as heart disease, Alzheimers, cancer, spinal injuries and many more. Put simply, stem cells can be extracted from human embryos to be used in the treatment of many diseases and injuries.”

They were then asked: “Do you approve or disapprove?”

Those aged 14-17 and 25-34 (both 86%) are the most likely to approve of the extraction of stem cells from human embryos to treat injuries and disease."

Here's another.

http://researchaustralia.republicast.com/PublicOpinionPoll2003/pop2003.pdf

The reason people are against human cloning is that when it is shown to be successful it will tear to shreds all the BS about babies being gifts from God and where the place of homo sapiens fits into the scheme of things.

Let me state from the onset, I have no problem what so ever with somatic nuclear transfer [SNCT] or therapeutic cloning. Clearly by dint of the appropriate treatment any somatic cell can be induced in theory at least to be metamorphosed into a blastocyst. It is from this amorphous ball of cells that stem cells are to be harvested.

It would therefore follow from Dr. van Gend argument that blood sampling and surgical biopsy should be prohibited, since any live somatic cell is a potential human.

Dr, van Gend argument is a collection of emotional statements and fears that are neither explicit nor implicit in the proposed legislation:
• Cloning babies and grown cloned foetuses for their organs – [an argument reiterated 2 or 3 times].
• The slippery slope. The slippery slope from therapeutic to human cloning. SCNT cloning produces knowledge that can achieve human cloning.
• Senator Paterson changes her mind over 4 years. Did not Maynard Keynes remark, when new facts become available I change my mind, don’t you?
• Creating in order to destroy

I can understand that Dr. van Gend is offended by SCNT as it possible violates a personal religious principal or a “yak factor.”

However, SCNT has no moral problem for me. It is further confirmation that life obeys the laws of chemical combination, the laws of physics and neo-Darwinism. SCNT does not cause my moral compass and respect for fellow humans to deviate from “true north.”

"Firstly - the debate was about embryos. Not fertilised embryos.
It takes a sperm and an egg to create a person, which is a crucial difference."

The embryos are created articially, they are still an embryo. There is no such thing as a "fertilised" or "unfertilised" embryo. The embryo has already been created. In the world of mad scientists, it no longer takes a sperm and an egg. The result is still a human embryo. An embryo is an embryo, even if it is created artificially. Do you get that you were once an embryo?

"Those aged 14-17 and 25-34 (both 86%) are the most likely to approve of the extraction of stem cells from human embryos to treat injuries and disease.""

You mentioned all the information they were told, were respondents also told that so far there has been no success only tumours?? Were they told that adult stem cells have had many success’s and are already treating diseases that the pro-cloning lobby can only dream about? Probably not.

"The reason people are against human cloning is that when it is shown to be successful it will tear to shreds all the BS about babies being gifts from God and where the place of homo sapiens fits into the scheme of things."

And it has removed your own humanity as well. We might as well declare it every many for himself, since there is no absolute moral standard.

The Morgan public opnion poll cited by TurnRightThenLeft as supporting human cloning is not valid, as the information given to respondents was false and misleading.

In the questionnaire, no mention was made of either the word cloning or the fact that human embryos would be created specifically for destructive research. Instead of saying the embryo would be killed by extracting its stem cells, the Morgan poll inferred that stem cells would be taken from embryos "no longer capable of further development." Also, no scientist has yet made an embryonic stem cell from a cloned embryo as the poll wording wrongly claimed, nor can embryonic stem cells currently be "used in the treatment of many diseases and injuries" because they cause tumors in animals. That is why no human trials using embryonic stem cells have ever been conducted, whereas there are now more than 1200 human trials being conducted worldwide using ethically innocent and scientifically superior adult stem cells.

As for the biotech industry-commissioned poll in 2003, that is entirely irrelevant as it dealt only with the question of whether scientists should be permitted to experiment on left-over IVF embryos that were going to die anyway.

The most recent in-depth research into public attitudes to human cloning was carried out by Sexton Marketing Group in January 2006 through a national telephone poll of 1200 people.

It found that only 29% of respondents support the cloning of human embryos as a source of stem cells while 51% opposed the cloning of human embryos for stem cells. This increased to 55% when it was clarified with respondents that these embryos are destroyed in the process of obtaining stem cells from them. (43% of respondents were not previously aware of this fact.)

In order to determine whether the majority of Australians are opposed to human cloning, you have to examine how objectively worded the questions and preamble of the poll are.

A dispassionate appraisal of the polls on the issue shows that a clear majority of Australians are uncomfortable with cloning for research, contrary to the claims of the cloning lobby.