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.
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.
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.