question:  How would jealously possibly factor into the issue of cloning?
context: Human Clones: Why Not? Some of the most powerful people in the world have felt compelled to act against this threat. Bills are in the works in both houses of Congress to outlaw human cloning--a step urged on all governments by the pope himself. Cloning humans is taken to be either 1) a fundamentally evil thing that must be stopped or, at the very least, 2) a complex ethical issue that needs legislation and regulation. And for a politician, making noise about cloning is pretty close to a fleshly temptation itself. It's an easy way to show sound-bite leadership on an issue that everybody is talking about, without much risk of bitter consequences. Probably almost none, because Clinton has maintained Ronald Reagan's policy of minimizing federal grants for research in human reproduction. Besides, most researchers thought cloning humans was impossible--so, for the moment, there's unlikely to be a grant-request backlog. There is nothing like banning the nonexistent to show true leadership. He also openly claims the authority to decide how people reproduce. So the pope's views on cloning are 1 st century rules applied using 15 th century religious thinking to a 21 st century issue. If humans have a right to reproduce, what right does society have to limit the means? Essentially all reproduction is done these days with medical help--at delivery, and often before. Truly natural human reproduction would mean 50 percent infant mortality and make pregnancy-related death the No. 1 killer of adult women. Less than two decades ago, a similar concern was raised over the ethical issues involved in "test-tube babies." The only difference is that the DNA of sperm and egg would be replaced by DNA from an adult cell. What law or principle--secular, humanist, or religious--says that one combination of genetic material in a flask is OK, but another is not? Even if people have the right to do it, is cloning a good idea? Cloning would only copy the genetic aspects of people who are already here.
output:  People would be "losing" a sexual advantage in not being able to reproduce a clone directly themselves.
options:  Clones would be genetically superior, as they'd be able to choose what traits to pass down.  People may envy the social recognition that clones would receive. They'd be missing out on the same popularity.  Clones get in between people and their spouses. They're too separate and impersonal.  People would be "losing" a sexual advantage in not being able to reproduce a clone directly themselves.