Yet it is highly unlikely that China would embrace cloning when it has been so keen to restrict the old way of making people. I won't pretend to know how people draw clear-cut conclusions about things on which they have no observable data. I suspect that some religious people, especially those of an authoritarian bent, just make this stuff up as they go along, depending on what seems most likely to strengthen the impression that human life is sacred. Some materialist heathens might even characterize the soul as a metaphor for, or a function of, neurohormonal processes. But, regardless of one's religious or irreligious views, there is no more reason to call you clones soulless than to say that humans conceived in climate-controlled buildings are less human than those conceived in log cabins.
People are people, regardless of how the DNA strand got into the egg.
Maybe you're laughing about people today worrying that you have no soul. Minutes later he mocked the possibility of producing mindless clones for organ transplants, insisting that producing human bodies entails creating minds and personalities. In any case, there are easier ways to obtain organs for transplantation. The question of whether producing brainless humans is ethical applies just as much to childbearing as to cloning and therefore cannot be used as an argument against cloning. The debate over whether a pile of human tissue without a brain is in any sense a person is certainly worthwhile, but it is separate from the issue of cloning.