Question: What would therapeutic cloning create?
About the article "Cloning", section "Ethical issues of cloning".

Candidate passages:
Kahn has said: "But, from the ethical point of view, I'm totally opposed -for some reasons- to the legitimisation of the cloning-based reproduction of human beings.
This authorisation would entitle some individuals to create human beings in their own image… This kind of subjection -even though it is only corporal- is intolerable.
What could give somebody the right to choose the sex, the eyes' or hair's colour, the chin's shape or any other characteristic of a human being?
As a consequence, I see no reason for legitimating reproductive cloning.
As regards therapeutic cloning, a problem can be pointed out: before making a supposedly therapeutic cloning, a human-cloning technique must be found."
He has also said that therapeutic cloning simply will not work. 
President George W. Bush said that human cloning was "deeply troubling" to most Americans.
Kansas Republican Sam Brownback said that Congress should ban all human cloning, while some Democrats were worried that Clonaid announcement would lead to the banning of therapeutic cloning.
FDA biotechnology chief Dr. Phil Noguchi warned that the human cloning, even if it worked, risked transferring sexually transmitted diseases to the newly born child.
The White House was also critical of the claims.
Panos Zavos, a former professor of the University of Kentucky, at the time had plans to create human clone embryos, but he stated to the effect that Clonaid's claims were without merit and that Eve did not exist.
Severino Antinori, who had worked with Zavos on the development of human clone embryos, was critical of Clonaid's announcement, and said of it that, "An announcement of this type has no scientific corroboration and risks creating confusion."
Robert Lanza of Advanced Cell Technologies said that Clonaid has no record of accomplishment for cloning anything, but he said that if Clonaid actually succeeded, there would be public unrest that may lead to the banning of therapeutic cloning, which has the capacity to cure millions of patients.
The Vatican said that the claims expressed a mentality that was brutal and lacked ethical consideration.
The Christian Coalition of America urged a human cloning ban and saw the alleged clone baby as an "aberration".
University of Wisconsin–Madison bioethicist Alta Charo said that even in other ape-like mammals, the risk for miscarriage, birth defects, and life problems remains high.
Arthur Caplan, the director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania, expressed concerns that many dead and sick children could result from the cloning of human beings. 
Much of the concern related to human cloning stems from a fear of overstepping the bounds of the natural order.
Through the act of creating another human being, Christians have also posed the question as to whether this would be too much like playing God.
Not only this, but some Christian ethicists argue that human cloning would "create substantial issues of identity and individuality."
This could be seen through the confusion of the child resulting from cloning as to who his parents are, what connection he has to his genetic duplicate, etc. 
Another point of misunderstanding arises in the separation of human reproductive cloning and therapeutic cloning.
While most Christians do not support reproductive cloning, therapeutic cloning is a branch of cloning which has garnered slightly more support from certain denominations.
Some Christian traditions, such as the United Church of Christ, believe that cloning can be conducted ethically for this purpose, in order to help treat disease and improve the public health, as they do not see the fertilized ovum as constituting a person.
Courtney Campbell, director of the Program for Ethics, Science and the Environment at Oregon State University, says, "Some traditions and leading figures in conservative Protestantism who were opposed to human cloning for reproductive reasons have come to see that given the ambiguity about their own views about the status of embryonic life, and given the potential for health benefits, they could be opposed to reproductive cloning, but affirm therapeutic cloning.
The main reason, she says, is the tradition of emphasizing the individual choice over central dogma.
Catholic support for therapeutic cloning is conditional on the stipulation that it does not involve any kind of infringement upon human embryos.
John Paul II states, "These techniques, insofar as they involve the manipulation and destruction of human embryos, are not morally acceptable, even when their proposed goal is good in itself."
Thus, according to the Catholic ethical system, even a good that might come from therapeutic cloning would be morally unacceptable, as it would be the result of an act which, according to Catholics, is itself intrinsically immoral.
This, for many Christians, is hard to abide by, for, as one Professor of Christian Ethics states, "our society is preoccupied with death and the pursuit of health seems to justify anything.
"The Church of England put out a statement on the Church's website which reads, "human reproductive cloning was made unlawful by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990.
Few members of the Church of England would dissent from such a position.
However, therapeutic cloning may be thought of as ethical, as it does not result in another human being."
Thus, while reproductive cloning is again discouraged, therapeutic cloning is more acceptable.
In a statement given by the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, on the other hand, therapeutic cloning was rejected as "contrary to the Word of God and our 1998 resolution.
For this particular group, therapeutic cloning is assumed to involve the destruction of human embryos, and is therefore against the Synod's resolution to "reaffirm and celebrate life," and "protect the sanctity of human life."
In bioethics, the ethics of cloning refers to a variety of ethical positions regarding the practice and possibilities of cloning, especially human cloning.
While many of these views are religious in origin, the questions raised by cloning are faced by secular perspectives as well.
Perspectives on human cloning are theoretical, as human therapeutic and reproductive cloning are not commercially used; animals are currently cloned in laboratories and in livestock production.
Advocates support development of therapeutic cloning in order to generate tissues and whole organs to treat patients who otherwise cannot obtain transplants, to avoid the need for immunosuppressive drugs, and to stave off the effects of aging.
Advocates for reproductive cloning believe that parents who cannot otherwise procreate should have access to the technology.
Opponents of cloning have concerns that technology is not yet developed enough to be safe, that it could be prone to abuse (leading to the generation of humans from whom organs and tissues would be harvested), and have concerns about how cloned individuals could integrate with families and with society at large.
Religious groups are divided, with some opposing the technology as usurping God's place and, to the extent embryos are used, destroying a human life; others support therapeutic cloning's potential life-saving benefits.