OpinionJournal - Best of the Web Today
Under "Attack of the Clones"
Taranto writes:
"Libertarians say there's no need to outlaw reproductive cloning because it's unlikely very many people will want to practice it. That's probably true, but those who would are probably those we would least want to. After all, what kind of egomaniac wants to raise a carbon copy of himself?"

Then he goes on to conjure a parade of horrors, including a comparision of reproductive cloning to incest.

He writes, "Suppose a couple decide to produce a 'son' by cloning the husband. Who are the resulting child's parents? The man and his wife, who are raising the child? Or the man's parents, whose coupling produced the boy's genes?"
The next scenario is about a man whose wife is cloned becoming sexually enticed by the clone.

On the basis of these puzzles, he concludes, "Reproductive cloning is a monstrous proposition . . .." But I don't see how that follows from these two weird scenarios, any more than adoption should be banned because a man like Woody Allen falls in love with his adopted daughter. The real issue is whether a couple who is otherwise unable to have children would treat a cloned child of one or the other as a child of both, giving it appropriate love and nurture. This is not a new problem, it is confronted in all cases of proposed adoption.

I'm not sure whether I would approve of reproductive cloning, particularly where the proposed cloner was Ernst Stavro Blofeld or Dr. Evil, but I don't think we should make policy on the basis that life might imitate Ian Fleming or Mike Myers.