Close, but cloning isn't inherently bad. For instance, we can make clones today. The process is similar to natural child-bearing. We just take DNA out of what we want to clone, put it into an egg cell (and sperm cell), and implant it in a womb. There are services that will clone your pet.
So what is the moral argument against cloning your dead son, ala Erio? You simply create a new life, like you would if you had sex and got a woman pregnant normally. No child has a choice as to how they are born, or whether they are created in the first place. One might say, then, that it is immoral to have children since they have no choice.
Is it the tinkering we have a problem with? We can scan for genetic defects in a very early embryo or fetus, and to some degree, tinker with them to fix those defects. What about improvements, then? Soon, we'll have the technology to give a child better hearing or thinking processes, or enhanced reflexes. Star Trek dealt with this issue to, if you watched DS9. Should we ban all playing around with the fetus, then, and let it be born as is, even if we know it is coming out with Down Syndrome? Isn't that cruel to the child? What if other countries genetically enhance their babies and we don't, and our children thus fall behind? Isn't it cruel to our children to let them be born with a deficit compared to everyone else?
Do note that I am partially playing Devil's advocate, and there is a line here somewhere. But that line is different for different people. The situation can get murky.
To address the more specific issue of cybernetics in Nanoha, so what if a child is engineered with the ability to accept cybernetics? It still doesn't mean they have to go into combat. As long as they are given the choice about what to do with their life, then I'd argue they are in the same position as any other child born naturally.
Note that if we continue this philosophical debate, we might want to do so in a different thread, as it is getting off of Vivid.