I love citing this example as I think you're right- this is why I mentioned hubris in the stem cell post. The problem with Dolly (I think she's been dead for quite a while now) is fundamentally very simple, in that as a high-school student, when I researched the process of the cloning, I saw the premature ageing coming from a mile off (I like to say it's to do with the telomeres). That said, scientists must always be guarded against being prematurely excited or presuming that we understand more than we do. It's a tricky balance to navigate. I just finished a component on genetics and I bet by the time I finish my degree, the cirriculum will have changed dramatically.
It'd be interesting to think about what kind of contexts cloning would ever be used in, if not in direct relation to stem cell therapy. The major discussion is more pertinent below, but the easiest way to distinguish a clone from its parent would simply be chronological age. Since a clone is a genetic identical, it's in fact only very slightly different from monozygotic twins.
Insofar as the creation of a human life specifically for an ulterior motive is wrong, yes. My main concerns are how this might affect the upbringing and environment for the child. Kinda reminds me of the French couple who underwent IVF (the mother was 60) so that they might gain their multimillion dollar share of an inheritance. So we're thinking exploitation here (with specific disregard to the value of the life).
Hence one big reason why Bush's veto was broadly criticised.
This inevitably stems from a series of simple misconceptions about the role of genetics in human development among many many other things. But it's a hugely political area of discussion and sadly, this tends to get in the way of the dissemination of knowledge gained from advancements in the field. In fact, I've already drafted out a fiction based specifically on this premise 
