Cloning Wars

Yes, it's a trite and overused headline for a seriously debated topic, but you're reading right?  Anyway, the Minnesota legislature is currently debating a bill that would "ban human cloning" in Minnesota, so I thought I would ring in.  The only background I will give (this is a source of opinions, not information) is that it appears to apply only to reproductive cloning, so research using embryonic stem cells appears to be as safe as ever for the time being (there are already some laws "banning" this research in MN, but there are loop-holes as well).  There was an expert on MPR this morning, and I think he hit the nail on the head when he observed that this topic is the perfect storm of politics, ethics, religion, and science, making it the perfect fodder for some casual blogger trying to get back in the game.
The intent of the bill, as I understand it, is to leave the topic of embryonic stem cell research open (for now) but to make it illegal for this research to actually produce a new human being.  In other words, it recognizes that there are many potential benefits of stem cell research, the ethics of which can be debated elsewhere, but puts an absolute cap on what those techniques can be used for.  My initial reaction is to say "Sure, why the hell not".  After all, what possible good reason is there for making a new person through cloning?   Here's what I came up with:
1) "If we could clone Martin Luther King, Jr., Abraham Lincoln, Mohandas Ghandi, or Albert Einstein, wouldn't that be a good thing?":  Well, sure there's a chance they would grow up to be a great leader and bring about world peace, but there's an even better chance that, all things being equal, they'll end up being just another person.  Let's focus on creating the kind of environments, in our families and communities, where great leaders can develop rather than trying to relive the glory days by resurrecting our heroes.  Besides, how much would it mess a kid up to be told "You were born in a Petri dish to save the world.  Don't let us down!"?
2) "I'm awesome!!":  You know that if Richard Branson were legally allowed to, he would clone himself for the sole reason of preserving his greatitude.  No thanks.
3) "Our son died at age 6.  We don't want another child, we want our Billy back.":  To be blunt, that's not going to happen.  Billy is gone, but he lives on in your hearts.  To create a new person who looks very similar to Billy will not bring him back.  And again, can you even imagine the psychological damage of growing up with your mother crying every time you remind her of your brother AND crying every time you fail to remind her of your brother?
4) "We can't have kids the normal way, but we want biological children.":  Even assuming you were both adopted and, thus, did not have biological relatives to help you out, AND you both had non-functioning gonads, there has to be another solution.  Actually, if that's the situation, maybe it's time to accept the fact that you weren't meant to have biological children.

There are a couple more I considered (and may add in later), but that last one made me think of two tangents.  First, the US Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld that each person has the right to reproduce whenever, with whomever, and however they see fit.  That being the case, is reproductive cloning really any more or less ethical than in vitro fertilization?  That brings me to my second line of thought, which is whether there are other situations to consider.  For instance, if IVF is fine but cloning is unethical, what if we developed in vitro meiosis to create gametes from existing individuals' somatic cells, which could then be combined and implanted the same way as clones?  Is this a form of IVF because it creates a new person from two parents, or is it cloning because it turns somatic cells into embryos?