a

In addition to physical harms, there are worries about the psychological harms on cloned human children. One of those harms is the loss of identity, or sense of uniqueness and individuality. Many argue that cloning crates serious issues of identity and individuality that forces humans to consider the definition of self. Gilbert Meilaender commented on the importance of genetic uniqueness not only to the child but to the parent as well when he appeared before the National Bioethics Advisory Commission on March 13, 1997. He states "children begin with a kind of genetic independence of [the parent]. They replicate neither their father nor their mother. That is a reminder of the independence that [the parent] must eventually grant them.To lose even in principle this sense of the child as a gift will not be good for the children" (Expert Opinion). .
             Others look sourly at the child, like philosopher Hans Jonas. He suggests that humans have an inherent "right to ignorance" or a quality of "separateness." Hum! An cloning, in which there is a time gap between the beginning of the lives of the earlier and later twin, is fundamentally different from homozygous twins that are born at the same time and have a simultaneous beginning of their lives. Ignorance of the effect of one's genes on one's future is necessary for the spontaneous construction of life and self (Jonas 1974). Human cloning is obviously damaging to both the family of and the cloned child. It is harder to convince that non-human cloning is wrong and unethical, but it is just the same. The cloning of a non-human species subjects them to unethical treatment purely for human needs (Expert Opinion: Price 97). .
             Western culture and tradition has long held the belief that the treatment of animals should be guided by different ethical standards than the treatment of humans. Animals have been seen as non-feeling and savage beasts since the beginning of time.