OK morale issue out. What about over population? Cloning for armies? If they aren't an exact copy what's the point in cloning a human other than to create disposable beings?

@Ben13 Awesome questions! This'll be fun.

Overpopulation: Remember that right now, even if we could clone humans (which is fairly likely), we still can't go all-out "Clone Wars" on the process. Everything about generating a human baby (or any mammalian offspring for that matter) still requires incubation and development in a female body. Hence, why I relate it to in-vitro and why there'd still be high limits on how often it gets used. In fact cloning is even more difficult (read, "costly" ) than in vitro and so the latter will generally be the better way to go with producing another human. The cheapest way to produce new people is (and probably always will be) the old fashioned way. That's why the over-population issue is far and away a problem via people who don't have the finances to do it high tech, not the other way around.

Armies: While it may be tempting to think that having an army of perfectly identical humans would be good in war-time, think again. First, cells and small life-forms stopped cloning themselves for a reason: Immunity. A clone and it's parent are significantly more likely to fall to the same disease and illness than a child and either of it's parents. Extrapolate that to a military: If so much as one of us catch something, me, my brother, my cousin, and a stranger have vastly better chances of some of us not falling to an illness than four copies of me. Second, apply this to brains. While it is non-trivial to understand the variety of ways a single brain could come to see the world, it is guaranteed to be more limited than two genetically different brains. While this may seem initially unimportant in simple masses of armed humans, that'd be a naive way to approach military tactics even on the fairly small-scale. There a variety of perspectives, knowledge, and capabilities is more likely in general to result in a successful operation. Thirdly, there are such a variety of different tasks in a military, that it's better to have a variety of different bodies to do different tasks.

Basically, I don't see how cloning is going to do much better than having a good selection system (like our military does). You'll risk getting an army that's too uniform, way too expensive in production, and with a bunch of clones which you'll have no idea what to do with once they get old. Regular civilian humans can come in, be used, get rewarded, and leave. (sort of ideally, though obviously not even close to that nice in practice.)

Why Clone: Getting back to the in-vitro issue, I could see a case where you have a man or a woman who would like to have a child of their same sex, but due to some mis-fortune is not able to have any children (and doesn't have any of their own frozen sperm or eggs) may want the option to produce a genetic clone. The clone would still require a surrogate, and would basically be an ordinary human like an in-vitro baby or a traditional baby.

I simply don't see how cloning would ever result in disposable beings. Given the social context in which they are produced, and the unusually high cost that will always be involved in their production, they'd never be any less valuable to a society than a person produced in any other way. A clone will still need food, clothing, and care just the same as any other human, and so will still be as socially costly, thus not worthless to be expended with in war (even from a cold utilitarian standpoint, let alone a kinder humanist one).

@Rhetoric things I haven't thought about. All good points.