Cloning is suggested as a means of bringing back a relative, usually a child, killed tragically. Some parents can understand that wish, but it must first be recognized that the copy would be a new baby and not the lost child. Here lies the difficulty, for the sad parents are seeking not a new baby but a return of the dead one. Since the original would be fondly remembered as having particular talents and interests, would not the parents expect the copy to be the same? It is possible, however, that the copy would develop quite differently. Is it fair for the new child to be placed in a family with such unnatural expectations? Copying is also suggested as a means by which parents can have the child of their dreams. Couples might choose to have a copy of a film star, baseball player or scientist, depending on their interest. But because personality is only partly the result of genetic inheritance  , conflicts would be sure to come up if the cloned child failed to develop the same interests as the original. What if the copy of Einstein shows no interest in science? Or the baseball player turns to acting? Success also depends upon fortune. What if the child does not live up to the hopes and dreams of the parents simply because of bad luck? Every baby should be wanted for itself, as an individual. In making a copy of oneself or some famous person, a parent is carefully specifying   the way he or she wishes that child to develop. In recent years, particularly in the United States, much importance has been placed on the right of individuals to reproduce in ways that they wish. So I suggest there is a greater need to consider the interest of the child and to refuse these suggested uses of cloning. According to the author, in cloning a lost child parents   _  .
lose the talents of the lost child expect too much from the copy are sure to have an identical copy are sure to have a baby of their dreams