I was watching debate on the cloning bill in the House today, and saw Jerry Nadler speak in favor of allowing "therapeutic" cloning. He dismissed the opposition as being based on the religious view that "six cells in a petri dish is a human being." He said that there are differing religious views, and that "they are all valid." He then said that the anti-cloning bill was immoral because it imposed one of these views on people who have differing views.
Ok, some points: the Democrats are continually using the dismissive language that what is at issue is something that happens in a petri dish. Somewhere Chesterton says that it is vulgar to argue against human dignity based on the largeness of the universe. It is similarly vulgar and cheap to argue against human dignity based on the size of the human involved.
Also, Jerry, how can all religious views be valid? We claim contradictory things! Mr. Nadler should read up on the principle of non-contradiction, that states that a statement is either true or untrue, but not both. Either the Catholic position is right, or it is wrong; it cannot be the case that the Catholic position and the opposing position are both right.
Finally, Jerry Nadler exposed the silliness of the argument ad tolerance: he argues from the point of view of tolerance for differing religious views that a particular position (that cloning is moral) should be adopted. Tolerance becomes intolerance!