Given the current state of technology, reproductive cloning is not a safe and effective means of human reproduction. Cloning reduces genetic diversity, is beneficial neither for the child nor the parent, and without restrictions could create many legal and social problems.
While I strongly support therapeutic cloning and have no reservations about using embryonic stem cells for research, I think there are serious issues to consider with regards to human reproductive cloning. At present, given the current state of technology, I do not believe it is safe enough to be attempted. Furthermore, if done in the future it should only be with certain limitations, which I will address below.
The best way for me to explain why reproductive cloning is bad is to refute Kyle Munkittrick’s article “Daddy Wants a Clone.”
1. The Yuck Factor
I agree with Kyle: The “Yuck Factor” is neither a compelling nor rational argument. There are many things that people find repulsive, such as snakes, spiders, etc., but this does not make them inherently bad. Most technology is not good or bad in and of itself, but what is relevant is how we use it and the motivations of the individuals who wish to employ it. Furthermore, what people consider gross or unnatural is constantly changing and evolving. For example, when the first test tube baby (Louise Brown) was born, there was a lot of commotion and many people though it was wrong; however, IVF is now a successfully used safe procedure that gives greater reproductive freedom to couples everywhere.
2. Cloners Are Arrogant Narcissists
The second anti-cloning argument Kyle critiques is the assumption that the individual who wants a clone is arrogant, vain, and or an egomaniac. It may not be the case that any of these are true, however the motivation the individual has for cloning themselves is crucial.
For example, an individual who just wants to have a child and either doesn’t have a partner with which it is possible to conceive, or one of the two individuals has a genetic abnormality they do not with to pass down, then it would seem to make sense to use only one pair of genes. However, the idea of a person wanting to have one or multiple copies of himself does seem a little narcissistic. Where do we as a society draw the line of acceptable number of clones? One, two, or three clones is fine, but nine or ten is too many?
One of the core tenets of the American philosophy is having the right to individual freedom provided that it does not infringe on the freedom of another. However, considering American history, people whose views do not fit in with the dominant culture have consistently been marginalized and made victim to institutionalized oppression.
Therefore, what do we do if the people seeking to use this technology do have nefarious or questionable motives? Throughout American history there have been numerous examples of unethical means of achieving population control, such as forced hysterectomies on black women, experimental birth control in Puerto Rico, and Native American women who have been subjected to the above and more. The goal of these practices was to reduce the populations of certain racial/ethic minority groups.
Cloning theoretically could be used as the next dimension of skewing the balance of majority and minority demographics. There are certain groups of people who do not value diversity and who actually seek out ways to out-populate or suppress others (i.e. terrorists, religions extremists, racists). For example, there are minority religious factions that encourage members to have large families, arguing that this will strengthen the numbers of their community and eventually make them the majority. We also could imagine that certain individuals may want specific races of people represented in larger quantities, and the effects this could have on society must be considered.
If we further extrapolate this scenario to a future where we can quickly grow embryos without requiring their implantation and growth in a uterus (Brave New World comes to mind), the implications are quite scary. Moreover, think of what would happen if governments or private sectors used this technology - mass armies of individuals consisting of a single genetic makeup.
People have a right to reproductive freedom, but should they be allowed to produce an unlimited number of replicas of themselves? Until now, people have always known that despite whatever physical attributes or personality traits they share with their children, their offspring are fundamentally (genetically) in many ways different from them. That happens for a legitimate biological reason: to ensure survival through diversity.
Should individuals have a right to be genetically different from their parents? Where do the rights of the clone factor in? What if the original person wants to be cloned repeatedly, but the clone doesn’t want more copies of his or herself in existence? Who in this case has control or ownership over their genetic information/material? Most people today agree there should be privacy of genetic information. The full extrapolation of this argument invalidates cloning. By duplicating one’s self genetically (i.e. cloning), the person being cloned creates a conflict of interest that violates their clone’s right to privacy.
3. Cloning Decreases Diversity
The third argument raised is that cloning decreases diversity. Yes, it is true that even in cases of identical twins that share the same genetic makeup and probably environment as well there will be some genetic differences - namely, the exact genes that are turned on and off will vary with time (i.e. their epigenetic profiles will diverge as they age), also (in the hypothetical case of cloning) the clones mitochondrial DNA may change if they have different gestational mothers. However, for the most part they are the same genetically.
But I do not believe that cloned offspring can be equated to twins. For one thing, there is a finite number (two) vs. theoretically an unlimited number. Furthermore, since they are not growing up at the same time there are psychological differences, for example in the experiences shared between a mother/daughter clone set and a set of twin sisters. Additionally, the power difference caused by age and financial dependency early on of children to their parents presents another unique variation to a traditional twin relationship.
This may not seem like a crucial issue at the present time, but diversity within our species is key to our survival. Human beings do not reproduce asexually for a reason - because sexual reproduction increases diversity and makes us biologically more fit. 
As a whole, Homo sapiens are not very genetically diverse (only .1% nucleotide diversity) when compared to other organisms like Drosophila (fruit flies). Reduction in the overall diversity of our gene pool decreases the likelihood of survival in the future due to changes in the environment or resources.
In his article, Kyle makes the argument that we only need to achieve sufficient diversity (50,000 individuals) to survive as a species, but we have to consider whether we want to survive or flourish. If we rely only on maintaining the minimum necessary amount of genetic diversity, there is no safety net or protection in the event of a natural disaster or major event (such as a world war).
Kyle also argues that in the future genetic engineering will solve these problems, but there is no guarantee that this is true and I believe it is foolish to think this way. Relying on future technology to save us from problems being created right now is like saying we should continue polluting the earth and perpetuating global warming because eventually we will find a solution.
What if this solution comes too late or is not as effective as we would hope? Although I do not doubt there will be tremendous advances made in synthetic biology, currently we use genetics primarily as a diagnostic tool. We know how to knock gene function in or out, but creating new genes or replacing major defects caused by inbreeding and reduced genetic diversity will not be an easy feat and may never be entirely possible. In any case, we still have a long way to go with gene therapy as there currently is no reliable and effective delivery mechanism.
4. Psychological and Physical Harm
Physical and psychological harms to the cloned child can be addressed together. The harm to the child comes from the fact that a parent seeing a “carbon copy” of him or herself will not be able to treat that child purely as their offspring and not as some weird second chance extension of themselves.
There are too many examples already of pushy parents who live vicariously through their children; though this is not by itself bad parenting or even surprising, we can understand how this effect would be magnified if the child looks identical to the parent their whole life growing up. The parent may try to control more decisions in the child’s life than would be considered normal, seeing it as a chance to plan their own life all over again. This should not be equated to the situation faced by parents who have invested large sums of time, money, and resources into conceiving (i.e. couples that have undergone pre-implantation genetic diagnosis or complex fertility treatments), because although they also are highly invested in the well-being of their children, they are still sufficiently genetically diverse from them.
Here we get into questions of free will and autonomy. Do individuals have a right to be genetically different from their parents? Especially since the matter of who controls the genetic information and privacy of that information becomes questionable (this will be discussed more later).
It may seem like a great opportunity in a way for the clone - seeing your future in your parent, what you will look like, any illnesses you are likely to face, etc. On the other hand, the risk of the confusion and psychological trauma this may cause to the child far outweighs any marginal benefit.
Kyle argues that it is opponents of reproductive cloning who will cause the most harm to the cloned child. However, the main psychological problems will arise within the relationship between the clone and those raising him or her. Even if the different or unequal treatment of the clone is not intentional, it is hard to imagine that the child could have a normal healthy upbringing and not be treated differently by family and friends (for all of the reasons described above).
It terms of physical harms, there currently are many. Cloning is still not safe enough to be practiced on humans. Animals that have been cloned “successfully” still exhibit advanced aging, tumors, and other types of illnesses. Until we have more knowledge and full clones can be produced without any series physical defects, we should not even be thinking about trying reproductive cloning on people.
5. Legal Ramifications
The last argument and probably the most convoluted to understand is the social/legal ramifications of cloning. There are several ethical issues to consider. First, who owns genetic information and material? If a parent decides to clone him or herself once and then, say, 20 years later wants to try it again, does he or she have the automatic right to do so, or is consent of the clone required as well? (I will admit that this would then also be an issue affecting twins and requires more clarification of issues surrounding privacy and ownership of genetic information.)
Another possible problem is the stress this would add to the criminal/legal system. Most biometrics tests employed for security purposes or to screen potential perpetrators of crimes would appear identical in all clones. Without some type of restriction in the number of individuals being cloned this may overwhelm our system for crime and punishment and provide for a plethora of new ways to evade penalties and scapegoat innocent individuals.
To conclude, while interesting in theory, thinking about reproductive cloning in actuality raises all sorts of metaphysical questions about personhood, identity, and rights. These need to be resolved before we can address whether or not reproductive cloning is an ethical, reasonable, and safe methodology to employ.
IEET Blog