Necessity is the mother of invention

Do you remember Emmeline Pankhurst? She became (in)famous as the leader of the women's suffragette movement in England which made itself known to the British people in the years leading up to World War I. She campaigned enthusiastically, but usually illegally, for the women's right to vote in political elections in England.
Wikipedia
BBC
The efforts of the suffragettes shaped the characteristics of British women irrevocably. Wikipedia

With the suffragettes in mind, then, it is interesting to consider the powerful position that somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) has also given women who, not long ago, were not even allowed to vote! Thanks to the work of Dr Jose Cibelli and others, it is now possible for women to live forever without needing men at all. Men are now just unnecessary ancilliaries that may or may not be of use to women!

So, what can men do to rectify this seemingly unjust situation? Well, I think I may have come up with the answer. We need to invent a cloning machine that can be installed in local hospitals to serve the male community. When a man feels it is a good time to have a son to replace himself, he visits the clinic and a doctor selects an oocyte from a suitable female (possibly cryogenically preserved) to receive the man's somatic cell. The oocyte is then enucleated, and the somatic cell introduced into the oocyte by micromanipulators. The resulting embryos are given an electric shock to stimulate cell division, and the resulting foetus would be incubated in an artificial womb for nine months. I think doctors should allow would-be dads to use the micromanipulators and actually implant their somatic cells themselves (after careful training). The man would later be encouraged to visit the clinic and the developing foetus at regular intervals to allow bonding to develop. After nine months, the clone would be taken out of the incubator and be 'born'. The clinic would check that the infant clone was 'doing fine' and the man should then be allowed to take his new son home to be raised as he sees fit.

When is a clone not a clone?

I have been deliberating further about why we have the technology to clone humans, yet no one has been 'officially' cloned. Before I proceed further, perhaps I should remind readers about the first unofficial human clone, Dr Jose Cibelli. Since then, there are a few other unsubstantiated sources that claim that a human has been cloned. It is possible, I suppose, that people might wish to keep the fact that they have been cloned a secret; which might allow a more normal childhood for the clone - away from the prying eyes of the media, but I am not so sure that this sort of secret could be kept forever.

So, why then, have the superstars turned away from the promise of eternal life? One possibility, that was inspired by a picture of some dogs, occurred to me the other day while I was researching a new post. Now, I understood from the article that these dogs were clones. However, I could see differences between the dogs. I think this is the reason no one has cloned themselves. Scientists cannot yet guarantee that a clone would fulfill the dreams of laymen who actually want an EXACT mirror-image copy of themselves?

I have found an article called, "Does the perfect clone exist?" In it, Professor Peter M. H. Heegaard, Tina Rødgaard Højbøge and Anne Lykke explain that the differences between cloned animals such as pigs, can be the same as the differences between normal pigs. This means scientists have yet to perfect a cloning technique that guarantees identical clones.