These sorts of arguements tend to give me headaches because for the most part, people attach meanings to a word but then don't understand the actual science - which you can see in recent hollywood films like The Island - in which "perfect clones" are not considered fully human, questioning if they even have a soul. Or the film Areon Flux, that clones are inheriting the dreams and memories of thier "previous people"
Okay - there is a process in nature in which two or more organisms can occur with the identical DNA called twinning - when the egg itself seperates into two.
Currently cloning is done by taking the nucleus from one egg from one animal and replacing the nucleus from an egg from the second animal - and putting it in the uterus - thus when it is born from the second animal - it is actually a genetic copy of the first animal.
However, simply because of the influence of the egg from the second animal, it is likely that the clone will be LESS exact than a naturally born twin. And yet no one debates whether twins have one soul shared in two bodies or just one of them gets the soul and the other has no soul.
It is ironic that many of these same arguements were made several decades ago for what is now one of the most common form of treatments for lesbian impregnation or infertility problems: invitro fertilization which used to be called under the spooky name of "test tube babies"
The most common procedure is where several eggs are fertilized and cells have begun to split and become embryos (thus they are viable) - these are "grown" outside the body and then frozen for later use while one or more is transplanted into the body (which over time has found to be more effective with fertility hormones - which also causes a lot of twinning).
It used to be argued that because these embryos were "grown by science" (putting sperm in eggs, and feeding them nutrients until viable) that the children born from these were somehow not "real" children because they had not gone through the typical process and many religious magazines wrote of the threat of "test tube children" who would be souless because the soul starts at the holy connection of sperm and egg or that they would be amoral or cold and psychotic because they were grown outside the body (the fact that there wasn't any organs, much less a brain just an embryo seemed to escape these people). Now, 35 years on, we know that is rubbish.
If human cloning takes place it will likely not be with the procedures in place today which are far to difficult and costly - but that's how all things start, even IVF - (yet IVF humans seem to have the same human rights are us - they aren't randomly harvested for organs) If you are really worried about whether cloned humans will have souls, I suggest you wait a decade or so when you will be able to ask them yourself.
The technology does not have morals; and if you are really concerned about harvesting of organs, it is far, far, cheaper to simply harvest orphans and other "forgotten" people in lands of difficulty - already Guatamala has a GNP which is reliant on selling the eggs, babies, and other fertility aspects of its citizens - no advanced science there - just a will and desire to make money - that, in the end, will be what makes any particular technology or simply desire one which is satisfied with moral ends or not - and sadly, as we can see anywhere in the world, the capacity to treat current human beings and artifacts to be carved up for profit is already amoung us.
