There are a couple arguments from the opposing side of the controversy of therapeutic cloning that are hard to refute. These include the idea of destroying an embryo as immoral, there is no clear line between reproductive and therapeutic cloning, and there are better alternatives to use.
I will refute the argument of destroying an embryo is immoral by offering an opposite argument. The embryo is not allowed to live past the fourteen day stage, women with pro-choice can freely have an abortion after that point (liberty), and embryos are taken from in-vitro fertilization clinics where they would have been thrown in the trash can otherwise. I will use the value of liberty while adding in opposite arguments as to why destroying the embryo should not be considered destruction in the first place.
The second argument is harder to refute. Seperating reproductive and therapeutic cloning is hard for anyone to do. They are two completely different processes yet if you add just one step to therapeutic cloning it becomes reproductive cloning. I will refute by offering an opposite argument to the premise saying there are laws against reproductive cloning now just how there will always be and if scientists really would like to participate in reproductive cloning and laws wont stop them, nothing will stop them now or ever. I will also bring up the fact that therapeutic cloning research is legal in some other countries so if scientists once again wanted to practice reproductive cloning along with therapeutic at this point and time they could just go to another country. The problem I run into is refuting the fact that many scientists are wishy washy on this issue. Some scientists who support therapeutic cloning and support the ban on reproductive cloning still believe there could be benefits to reproductive cloning. Some scientists get my side into trouble by supporting the right idea while voicing ideas of hope on the part of reproductive cloning, the most controversial area of cloning.
I agree with the argument made that there are better alternatives to embryonic stem cell research. I will support both sides of my contreversy by saying adult stem cell research could have the same benefits as embryonic stem cell research and could someday eliminate the controversy of using embryos for research. The deal is, to use alternatives to embryonic stem cells scientists need to know exactly how embryonic cells work to be able to program the adult cells and make them adopt the positive qualities of the embryonic cells. Whether you support adult stem cell research or embryonic, the embryonic research needs to happen before scientific work goes further on adult stem cell research.