it as the instantiation of a fundamental right. Sin and evil are regarded the same. Second, a defender of the usefulness of the category of intrinsic evil might say that it helps us prioritize our actions, and that politicians have an obligation to oppose intrinsic evils, particularly those occurring within our borders, before addressing other sorts of evils occurring elsewhere.
They are not reasoned arguments at all; instead, they are statements of preference - of simple taste, if you will. It can be performed under the wrong circumstances; it is entirely good for a newly wedded couple to consummate their union, but not in the church vestibule immediately following the ceremony. And don't tell me that we should oppose cloning because of the potential bad things that might come from. Surely these must be the worst acts of all and the greatest acts of injustice, and therefore are the acts that the law needs to condemn most harshly. Second, the fact that an act is intrinsically evil tells us that it is always wrong to perform that type of act, no matter what the other circumstances are. Which letters get posted will be entirely up to us and our decisions are final. At the same time, however, the legal system ought to recognize that the first act, which is not intrinsically evil, is morally worse, both subjectively and objectively, than the second act, which is intrinsically evil.
Cloning is Evil: An Argument