Sometimes it looks hopeless. There are two types of cloning. One involves harvesting stem cells from embryos ("therapeutic cloning"). These are biological equivalent of a template. They can develop into any kind of mature functional cell and thus help cure many degenerative and auto-immune diseases.

The other kind of cloning is much derided in popular culture - and elsewhere - as harbinger of a Brave, New World. A nucleus from any cell of a donor is embedded in an egg whose own nucleus has been removed. The egg is then implanted in a woman's womb and a cloned baby is born nine months later. Biologically, cloned infant is a replica of donor.

Cloning is often confused with other advances in bio-medicine and bio-engineering - such as genetic selection. It cannot - in itself - be used to produce "perfect humans" or select sex or other traits. Hence, some of arguments against cloning are either specious or fuelled by ignorance.

It is true, though, that cloning, used in conjunction with other bio-technologies, raises serious bio-ethical questions. Scare scenarios of humans cultivated in sinister labs as sources of spare body parts, "designer babies", "master races", or "genetic sex slaves" - formerly preserve of B sci-fi movies - have invaded mainstream discourse.

Still, cloning touches upon Mankind's most basic fears and hopes. It invokes most intractable ethical and moral dilemmas. As an inevitable result, debate is often more passionate than informed.

I. Right to Life Arguments

According to cloning's detractors, nucleus removed from egg could otherwise have developed into a human being. Thus, removing nucleus amounts to murder.

It is a fundamental principle of most moral theories that all human beings have a right to life. The existence of a right implies obligations or duties of third parties towards right-holder. One has a right AGAINST other people. The fact that one possesses a certain right - prescribes to others certain obligatory behaviours and proscribes certain acts or omissions. This Janus-like nature of rights and duties as two sides of same ethical coin - creates great confusion. People often and easily confuse rights and their attendant duties or obligations with morally decent, or even with morally permissible. What one MUST do as a result of another's right - should never be confused with one SHOULD or OUGHT to do morally (in absence of a right).

The right to life has eight distinct strains:

IA. The right to be brought to life

IB. The right to be born

IC. The right to have one's life maintained

ID. The right not to be killed

IE. The right to have one's life saved

IF. The right to save one's life (erroneously limited to right to self-defence)

IG. The right to terminate one's life

IH. The right to have one's life terminated

IA. The Right to be Brought to Life

Only living people have rights. There is a debate whether an egg is a living person - but there can be no doubt that it exists. Its rights - whatever they are - derive from fact that it exists and that it has potential to develop life. The right to be brought to life (the right to become or to be) pertains to a yet non-alive entity and, therefore, is null and void. Had this right existed, it would have implied an obligation or duty to give life to unborn and not yet conceived. No such duty or obligation exist.

IB. The Right to be Born

The right to be born crystallizes at moment of voluntary and intentional fertilization. If a scientist knowingly and intentionally causes in vitro fertilization for explicit and express purpose of creating an embryo - then resulting fertilized egg has a right to mature and be born. Furthermore, born child has all rights a child has against his parents: food, shelter, emotional nourishment, education, and so on.

It is debatable whether such rights of fetus and, later, of child, exist if there was no positive act of fertilization - but, on contrary, an act which prevents possible fertilization, such as removal of nucleus (see IC below).

IC. The Right to Have One's Life Maintained

Does one have right to maintain one's life and prolong them at other people's expense? Does one have right to use other people's bodies, their property, their time, their resources and to deprive them of pleasure, comfort, material possessions, income, or any other thing?

The answer is yes and no.