There is nothing "evil" about cloning, it is simply an oddity nature and a triumph of science. Abortion however, is one of the most disputable of subjects that can't be properly discussed without being pounced on and disfigured by other people's views. My personal stand is that pro-choice and it is none of anyone else's business. Religious types might tend to disagree but those are their ideals. Now, why is one legal while the other is not? Currently this debate acts in a pardoxal fashion, destruction of a possible human being verses creation a copy of an already living human being. In my mind this cuts back on overpopulation, thus reducing pollution, thus delaying global warming, thus delaying what our eventual fate will be at the hands of such things. Politically this is already a moralistic/religious battle within abortion and I doubt politicians want to open another can of worms with cloning. From wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloning) Although the practice of cloning organisms has been widespread for several thousands of years in the form of horticultural cloning, the recent technological advancements that have allowed for cloning of animals (and potentially humans) have been highly controversial. Many religious groups oppose all forms of cloning, including the potentially life-saving cloning of individual organs, on the grounds that life begins at conception. Concerns also exist regarding the protection of the identity of the individual and the right to protect one's genetic identity. In addition, if technology eventually does allow for successful cloning of humans, prejudice may develop against clones, as if they were a "lesser" form of human being. Such prejudice could force clones into a kind of slavery or caste system. The possible social implications of an artificial human production scheme were famously explored in the novel Brave New World and also in the movie "The Island". ---------------------------------------------- From things I have read, I can derive that religious types maintain that cloning a human tears their soul in two, making a "sub human" of both of them. Legal issues are that clones may assume the identity of the original and commit crimes, then turning around and pointing the finger, conversely, the original may be the accusor. Another item that some groups are arguing about is organ and organic matter donation. Basically cloning yourself simply to harvest parts of them to save the original, this being pre-meditated murder, though it may be more acceptable if they are regarded as subhumans. Additionally, abortion has been around for much longer than the type cloning we are currently discussing, therefore having a higher acceptance rate. From wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion) The incidence and reasons for induced abortion vary regionally. It has been estimated that approximately 46 million abortions are performed worldwide every year. Of these, 26 million are said to occur in places where abortion is legal; the other 20 million happen where the procedure is illegal. Some countries, such as Belgium (11.2 per 100 known pregnancies) and the Netherlands (10.6 per 100), have a low rate of induced abortion, while others like Russia (62.6 per 100) and Vietnam (43.7 per 100) have a comparatively high rate. The world ratio is 26 induced abortions per 100 known pregnancies. If cloning became as common, then it would be more widely accepted. People have been cloning in agriculture for thousands of years and yet we attempt to make a copy of someone and religious groups launch into action. Things that we can't even fathom will conflict with religion and be in debate for the rest of human time. I feel that this will be accepted eventually. ------------------------------------------- After thoughts I would like to thank the creator of this question for the chance to exercise my analytical and argumentative essayist and I believe this will be one of my top ten greatest, most well thought answers.