At what point, to you, is the "tampering with animals" aspect of things developed enough to warrant "tampering with people" and why? I'm not trying to make a point here and I'm not trying to create a right/wrong situation. I'm also not trying to paint you as unreasonable - there are a number of Ph. Ds in my family and in 10th grade I actually took the "pro human cloning" side of a debate in class (I lost, entirely on emotional grounds). My argument is that knowledge of the situation does not aid one in finding a different philosophical position on cloning, it allows one to find a different practical position on cloning. And while your position is certainly more nuanced than, say, the Catholic Church, there's still an inherent "we shouldn't muck about with things that have souls" in the discussion. I'm interested in having my argument disproven, however. Show me what you got.