A clone of a person is a person. What's so hard to grasp about this blindingly obvious fact?
In general, I agree with you. Yet, consider the abortion debate:
- One side passionately maintains that the developing organism within the mother is a person (and thus possessing of various rights) from the moment of conception
- Another side passionately maintains that the same entity cannot be considered a person until some (varying) period of time subsequent of conception
Two different views of "personhood" with strongly divergent results as to what can be done to the thing in question.
If the quote in the summary is followed:
... in the near future people would overcome their concerns if cloning became medically useful.
Then I expect that for some "utility" could stand in as a valid justification to viewing a clone as not-a-person.