Does the non-identity problem block a class of arguments against cloning?

One class of argument against cloning human beings in the contemporary literature focuses on the bad consequences that will befall the clone or "later-twin." In this paper I consider whether this line of argumentation can be blocked by invoking Parfit's non-identity problem. I canvass two general strategies for solving the non-identity problem: a consequentialist strategy and non-consequentialist, rights based strategy. I argue that while each general strategy offers a plausible solution to the non-identity problem as applied to the cases most frequently discussed in the non-identity problem literature, neither provides a reason for putting aside the non-identity problem when applied to cloning. I conclude (roughly) that the non-identity problem does serve to block this class of argument against cloning.