Cloning shakes us all to our very souls. For humans to consider the cloning of one another forces them all to question the very concepts of right and wrong that make them all human. The cloning of any species, whether they be human or non-human, is wrong. Scientists and ethicists alike have debated the implications of human or non-human cloning extensively since 1997 when scientists at Roslin Institute in Scotland produced Dolly. No direct conclusions have been drawn, but compelling arguments state that cloning of both human and non-human species results in harmful physical and psychological effects on both groups. The possible physical damage that could be done if human cloning became a reality is obvious when one looks at the sheer loss of life that occurred before the birth of Dolly. Less than ten percent of the initial transfers survive to be healthy creatures. There were 277 trial implants of nuclei. Nineteen of those 277 were deemed healthy while the others were discarded. Five of those nineteen survived, but four of them died within ten days of birth of severe abnormalities. Dolly was the only one to survive. Even lan Wilmut, one of the scientists accredited with the cloning phenomenon at the Roslin Institute agrees, 'the more you interfere with reproduction, the more danger there is of things going wrong.' The psychological effects of cloning are less obvious, but nonetheless, very plausible. In addition to physical harms, there are worries about the psychological harms to cloned human children. One of those harms is that cloning creates serious issues of identity and individuality. Human cloning is obviously damaging to both the family and the cloned child. It is harder to convince that non-human cloning is wrong and unethical, but it is just the same. 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 time began. Humans in general have no problem with seeing animals as objects to be used whenever it becomes necessary. But what would happen if humans started to use animals as body for growing human organs? What if we were to learn how to clone functioning brains and have them grow inside of chimps? Would non-human primates, such as a chimpanzee, who carried one or more human genes via transgenic technology, be defined as still a chimp, a human, a subhuman, or something else? If defined as human, would we have to give it rights of citizenship? And if humans were to carry non-hum, an transgenic genes, would that alter our definitions and treatment of them? Also, if the technology were to be so that scientists could transfer human genes into animals and vice versa, it could create a worldwide catastrophe that no one would be able to stop. The arguments that cloning will have harmful effects ______.