>>2821>it would be raised in a environment where it understands it's a clone and its purpose
So "it" would be raised from birth to be content with "its" purpose? How can you control that without brainwashing and other procedures I doubt would be considered ethical?
My guess is that if we were to actually use clones in that way that at first, we would treat clones as dirt. But because clones are human, they'd eventually rise up over a long period of time and show the world how they are human. It would be akin to the holocaust, likely.
Let's suppose we clone some celebrity, like an athlete and we expect "it" to just become an athlete like its predecessor. The problem is, clones are human. At some point, it is likely this clone would be aware it is a clone. It would be interesting to see whether they'd be okay with merely being a shadow of another human or not. I think that some would definitely not like how they are treated and it'd become justified slavery, essentially.
To answer OP: >Why would it be okay for you to claim consent on another version of yourself if they're not actually you?
I think this is really asking why is it okay for people to make babies. You didn't ask to be born, and in this case, neither did your clone. I think it is interesting to frame clones as "versions" of you; considering a clone is probably going to be even more different from you due to epigenetics and the fact they're born in a different generation, i.e. a totally different environment. I see clones in actuality as just humans that share your dna, and even at that, only your base dna.
A true "clone" of a person would have to be you with your exact brain state.