Wow, there's some terrible reasoning in this thread, from treating holding moral beliefs as coterminous with wanting to snoop in other people's business to saying that making moral determinations is pointless unless you can enact them into law. Sad!
I'm not going to give my answers because I think the exercise is pointless and (on all but a few of these) needlessly reductive, but I will say that I'm surprised so many people are against cloning animals. Is there something ghastly that I don't know about the process by which it's done, or is it a slippery slope argument, or what?
I've seen that for a long time. There's long been this weird view that if you don't like something then you should advocate to ban it, as if it is impossible for a libertarian to reject libertinism. It doesn't bother me too much since other people don't define me, but it is well offbase.
