Well, I tried to access from Locus Online an LA Times editorial by Michael Shermer on cloning. But the Times has already archived the article and they want $2.50 for it. Right.

Anyway, so you can't read the article unless you fork out some money, but the most interesting part were Shermer's "Three Laws of Cloning":

* A human clone is a human being no less unique in his or her personhood than an identical twin.

* A human clone is a human being with all the rights and privileges that accompany this legal and moral status.

* A human clone is a human being to be accorded the dignity and respect due any member of our species.

Now what do all you out there think of these? They seem more like principles than laws, really. They're inspired somewhat by Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics, but those were laws for proscribing and limiting the behavior of robots. These have to do with the way a society should perceive and subsequently treat a clone.

As far as the content of the "laws", I see nothing to really quibble with here. Many people are currently balking at the concept of reproductive cloning, but I'm not sure how many of them, if reproductive cloning were carried out, would seriously propose that the resultant person was not a human being deserving of basic rights. Then again...who knows?