Why not just teach a machine to do it?

You are quite possibly making this shit up as you go along.

There are not millions of muslim terrorists.
The terrorists I mentioned all pretend (and probably claim in honesty) to be on the side of the greater good, like they all do.

As for small and unimportant, how are you counting? If you include all use of guerilla tactics ion hot conflicts, you have to do som on the other sides too. All of them, all over the world.
If you don't, there is not a clear difference in numbers, although one specific attack had an admittedly spectalular bodycount.

Troll.

This moves in waves.
Let's not forget about IRA, ETA, RAF, various other left-wing bombers in Europe, untold guerilla movements in Africa and South America.
With some exceptions it mostly follows where there are active separatist movements at any given time
Do your homework.

They don't build machines to do it.
You could build stuff that way yourself too, manually using a hot glue gun or an icing bag or whatever (I won't get into the more literal or imaginative emulations) and it would probably not be patentable, and certainly not covered by current 3D printing patents.

Wrong.
There is no such thing as a natural ownership of any kind of knowledge.

Patents and other intellectual rights are articifical limitations on personal freedom, devised and enforced by societies in order to acheive specififc aims. From the start of patents and until this day, "to promote progress" is the rhetoric used in order to justify the otherwise draconian measure of punishing people for using what they know.

It is not obvious that this tradeoff is a good one for all times and all societies. Similarly, a society is not bound by the self-imposed limitations of any another, unless it agrees to be.

Really?
Did you just make that up?
Source?

Mod up.

... or possibly bazium.

Not to mention: Mars will be worse.

Only you would do that.

Heat is just atoms moving around, after all, so negative temperatures are easy:
just make the atoms move backwards.

That would be manslaughter.

I'm sure they can't wait to put them selves in a position to very publically benefit financially from the first such murder...

In simple standard case, it's just a matter of an identical twin with a different age. Can't see what's ethically questionable or complex about that.

But there's a hidden snag: normally, there would be no reason to do that. Once there is a more specific motive, the questions start popping up. Most cases have parallels already, but safe, efficient cloning would make them more accessible and likely:

Clueless idiots raising a clone to be a replacement for a lost child isn't in principle any different from clueless people today raising a normal sibling to be a replacement. But it might be more *likeley*.

Conceiving with the specific aim of transplanting is already an ethical conundrum we have to handle today, but with cloning it would be a lot more promising in fulfilling its aim, and the request much more common. Hopefully w'ed be able to grow organs without a clone by then, but you never know.