Knee-Jerk Anti-Cloning Rhetoric

Opposition to human cloning is nearly ubiquitous wherever cloning is discussed. Oddly enough, there are few reasons given for the opposition. Perhaps there are valid reasons to oppose human cloning, but if there are, you don’t hear those reasons discussed. The only discussion one hears is the statement that human cloning must be banned followed by nodding and applause.
Am I the only one asking why? What is the problem with cloning someone? Essentially your just making that person an identical twin sibling. Why is that so objectionable? Is there a fear that the clone will be regarded as inferior to the person from whom they are cloned? If so, why? If the two are genetically identical, why would a person and his clone be thought of as any different from a person and his twin? Why would anyone even think of granting the clone fewer right or liberties?

Are people worried about having their identity stolen? Clones, like any other child would have to be issued birth certificates with their own identification numbers and so forth, and they would likely be a great deal younger than the person from whom they were cloned, so there would be little chance of mistaken identity. Even if there were a chance of that, there is a far greater chance of it occurring between twins, but you don’t hear about twins separated by adoption stealing each others’ identities.

What other possible objection could there be? Are people worried about deformities or other medical issues? In that case cloning should be restricted until it meets the necessary standard of any medical or reproductive technology about to undergo human trials, but that’s not a reason to ban it outright.