Buddha wrote:If you are unwilling to stop x, or even so much as try, stopping z, is immoral. You can't say that one means to an end is wrong, and the other is right when there is no real difference between the two.
It's possible to be immoral by not stopping x, but moral in trying to stop z, even if they're similar. Let's say, for a ridiculous example, that you spend your days watching someone else torture both puppies and kittens. It is not immoral to say "You should stop torturing the kittens" without even talking about the puppies, or even condoning the puppy torture. It's probably inconsistent, and perhaps you're being immoral by condoning the puppy torture (depending on the moral system,) but that does not mean that it is more moral to do nothing than to stop this hypothetical man from torturing kittens.
Or for a more real world example, your logic leads directly to the conclusion that if you're not trying to stop war crimes based on diamond mines, that it is immoral
to try and stop the war in the Congo based on other minerals.
That's what that first sentence implies. Looking at the second one, though, it's possible that I'm misunderstanding. If your point is that the means don't really matter, it's the end that matters, than I think most people would agree to you. No one here's simultaneously holding the position that people who would have kids for whatever reasons they believe are wrong should be allowed to while holding the position that having a cloned kid for wrong reasons should be disallowed.