This is where I really defeat myself. I can talk about how the government shouldn't regulate this and that but I'm really against choosing the genes for to-be-born children to change eye color, affect mental potential, etc. But that's just my belief, that it's wrong... but believing the government should not regulate things like, say, gay marriage "Because it's just wrong," that's no reason to regulate manual gene selection. So instead of that I'll just give the evil eye to parents who do this. It's almost exactly the same as creating a Pokémon with perfect stats, moves, and abilities using a cheat device, and that's something to be frowned upon. The difference is that we do know for sure who created the "world of Pokémon" (that is, the games) and they don't want players to cheat.
As for cloning, I don't see too much wrong with that. Unless your intentions are to make the clone a fanged evil version of the original so that you have a formidable underling to do your bidding, or if it's cheating in Pokémon. That's not a good thing. A cloned person will just be a person with the same genetic makeup as the original, which without religion in mind isn't really terrible...
Blacked for your convenience, highlight for my long speech about stem cells or skip. But this is my argument for "We're all going to die someday."
Stem cell research could lead to the discovery of cures for terminal diseases, which wouldn't be that bad at all. Hmmm... let's say my sister is dying of cancer. Would it be wrong of me to want to save her? The fetus whose stem cells could do it would be born to a pair of irresponsible teenagers who got drunk one night and voila. Well, they're either going to have him aborted or try to raise it because if he's born there's no sending him to an orphanage. Then the girl gets with another guy, so it's the guy, the baby and the new, unwilling grandmother (and she does not like to hold that title so young) of the baby. The grandfather doesn't really want anything to do with him but the grandmother is just too sweet to abandon him. Time spent with his father is time spent almost completely unsupervised, which is whenever the grandmother is working or spending time away from her train wreck of a life. So the baby is now three or maybe three-and-a-half and can't talk because no one has taught him to. He just screams. And hits. He'll destroy a get-together so he can't be taken to dinner. His life will be pretty short, living in a valley with a brown sky in a smokers' home, liable to become a smoker himself at an early age. That is, if he lives long enough to let that kill him--his father's also involved in gang activity. Now, I didn't just make all this up. Everything after the word "orphanage" is true of a family I know. The point I'm trying to make--that poor child is not truly loved and will live a life a fraction as great as it could be, but some cancer patient would have loved to live the life ahead of them, become an author and seen the world... selfish, perhaps, and all men are created equal. So I'm already battling this one out in my brain--I simply cannot choose a side on abortion. But I will say that if you're going to end a life before it starts, save another one if you can. Like when you have excess eggs in Pokémon. You could fry 'em up for a convenient recovery item and save your established team members, or take the thousand or so steps to hatch it and release it to something else to raise it at the expense of your established team members. Which is right?
I can't believe everything I just typed. I guess Pokémon is a pretty realistic game.
