So I've looked into it. It's just IVF reproduction where you take the eggs nucleus out and you put a sonomic cell in (any body cell). Bam, baby.
It turns out all the complications with Dolly were chance and a lot of 100% successful clones have been done of all kinds of species. It's not even that expensive to pull off.
Nobody has "rights" on the clone. It's a human child. I suppose the parent does but I wouldn't call that "rights" on the clone.
So GMOs are a lot harder than cloning. That involves gene splicing. Cloning is no harder than IVF which we do all the time.
Nobody has "rights" on the clone. It's a human child. I suppose the parent does but I wouldn't call that "rights" on the clone.
Someone always has the rights of a child. It gets a legal guardian if the parents can't handle them. But in the case of a clone of someone long deceased, who would that be? I fear it would be the lab which cloned it. "Yes as legal guardians we agree to medicinal tests".
So GMOs are a lot harder than cloning
Yes, but it has the same ethical, moral and legal issues.
Because the process requires a living body cell it would be unusual for the biological parent to be dead. In the rare case they are it would be a little like having a surogate pregancy where the egg donor and sperm donor die before the birth. So in that case I suppose gardianship goes to the surogate if she wants to keep the baby. Otherwise adoption.
On GMO it is not the same legal issues. So the genome of a modified organism that has been encoded with CRISPR can be patented. It's a designed work. With cloning it is just normal reproduction where instead you contribute both parts of the chromosome pairs.
Depends on who has the "rights" on the clone. It's different if some couple cloned their deathbirth than if some company produces patented good-gened workers.
As with GMOs, IMO IP rights on live are principally wrong, but the technologies aren't.