Human cloning is a topic of much controversy. Many questions concerning the matter have come up, such as, "What if a child dies and one parents wants to clone but the other doesn't? Who owns the rights to a dead person's DNA?" When people die, they don't have much say over what happens anymore. This leads to the question, "What if people don't want to be cloned after they die? Will they be able to insert a do-not-clone clause in their will?" A popular question amongst skeptics of cloning is this one, "What if it becomes acceptable to clone a person once. What about 10 times? One hundred?" Firm believers in Darwin's theory would begin to ask, "What if cloning becomes popular and supplants natural selection? Will that skew the course of human evolution?" Human rights activists would have much to discuss about cloning, one of the questions will be "What if a clone develops unforeseen abnormalities? Could he sue his parents or the cloners for wrongful birth?" These are all important questions addressed by Nancy Gibbs in her article, "Human Cloning is Closer than you Think.".
If a child dies at a young age, one parent may want to consider cloning that child, as a shot at a second chance. What if one of the parents doesn't want to do this, would own the DNA of the child? One thing parents will have to realize is that the child will not be an exact carbon copy of the pervious child. As the CopyCat has taught us, there can be very different physical differences between the original, and the cloned subject. Not only will the child look different, he, or she, may be completely different emotionally as well. If the parents learn the risks of cloning, and one of them decides not to do it, but the other still does it becomes a question of ethics, and law. I think that the best way to decide who would own the rights of the deceased child's DNA would be through the court systems.