The Instigator
Harlan
Con (against)
Winning
48 Points
The Contender
gonovice
Pro (for)
Losing
9 Points

Cloning Humans for reproductive purposes.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/16/2007 Category: Science
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,048 times Debate No: 83
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (31)
Votes (19)

 

Harlan

Con

Several complications and issues would arise if even just one Human being was created through cloning. While the idea at first, often sounds attractive, it is something that we must avoid. I do not debate this from any type of religious ideas, merely logical, political, and moral ones.

First, this person would have a brain that has to follow instincts and frames of mind, such as having parents, and having your own identity. They would not have parents of any sort. They would also not have their own identity. This "person" would be ultimately confused through life, as the instincts and standards of their instinctual brain could not be fulfilled. They would be the exact DNA copy of another.

This leads us to a legal issue. Because this hypothetical person is manufactured and is an exact copy of another, they would never be "born" which leads to whether they are a citizen or not. The manufacturers would then "own" the person.

They would be utilized for research and organs. A person would get a clone of themselves in order to use their organs, which are exact DNA copies, for later use. These "people" who do not have their own identity, would no doubt be used for purposes such as research and labor, as they would not have rights.

When Humans begin manufacturing other Humans, then we have truly, truly gone too far in what nature has the capacity for. We may not play god and still have nature work with us. And I can assure you, cloning humans for the purpose of creating Humans is wholly unnatural. When we break our natural limitations to this extent, we are truly crossing the line, and it will not fit with all of the laws and concepts, and even nature about what a "human" is.

-Harlan
gonovice

Pro

Harlan I would love to debate you but can you explain a little more.

I think that cloning is cool. It would be a new development in science. I am a science freak i guess and to reach the level of intellegence to recreate a human would be WOW!!!
Debate Round No. 1
Harlan

Con

Hello, qonovice,

Though it may sound "cool" it is not a good idea. I do not see how I can explain more without repeating myself. What part don't you understand? I will respond to what you have and then see if maybe I could make it clearer. Though it makes a great sci-fi movie, and the idea is very cool sounding, this is probably not a good basis for doing something so drastic (because it is cool).

What are some reasons that you would want to clone a human:

-Organ transplants.

-Labor

-Research

All 3 of these are horrible. A person that was manufactured would have no rights. They would not legally have any rights, as they were never born. They would be the property of the manufacturers.
Their natural instincts would be confused. They would have no parents. They would not have their own identity.

There is no reason why you would need to clone humans that would not be deeply immoral and horrifying. Unless you can provide some reasons for cloning that would be a little more ethically acceptable, in which case we may discuss those.
gonovice

Pro

I think that they could be used wisley for organ transplant. Some people in dier need of a kidney or liver may need a despereate act ande may be willing to go through with it. Like you said the research you could do with the clones would be absolutley AMAZING!!!. I love science and to reach a level of intellegence would be wonderful. I'm not saying they need rights. I think that if scientists who could properly create and destroy them should be able to use them. This isnt a creepy sci-fi thing its a develpment in science. whats so wrong with it? You're making it sound like if we clone someone their goingt o tyr and take ofver the world. Come on are you living in some fantasy world? cuz thats what it sounds like to me.

I dont think that we need to give them rights. The creators of the clone would of course be in charge of what happens to it. It is a very slim chance that a clone would take over the world. I mean there would be a lot of security in the environment in which it was created and it would take a lot to have a clone take ofver the world.

-nikki
Debate Round No. 2
Harlan

Con

Hello,

So…You are saying that it is "good" to manufacture human beings to use as slaves, for cheap labor, and the usage of their organs. Disgusting. You would test dangerous and poisonous chemicals on them? You would treat them as slaves? You would harvest their organs and leave them to die? Wow. Do you realize what you are saying?

I never suggested or even implied that they would "take over the world". You are being na�ve. Republicanview was the one who said this, in the comments, not me. Of course they won't take over the world; that is silly. I am not living in a "fantasy world". You might be, though. You randomly assumed that I was of the belief that they would take over the world.

Tell me are you a fan of slavery? Did you think that the Atlantic slave trade was morally acceptable? Because it is the same thing, essentially. These slaves were born and died in an environment of being inferior. Most did not question their treatment, because they never knew what it was like to be free. By your logic, this is OK.

This vision is also very similar to the holocaust. They tested medicines and dangerous bio warfare weapons on prisoners in holocausts. Just like you are suggesting. They used them for labor without paying them. Just like you are suggesting.

"I mean there would be a lot of security in the environment in which it was created"

Yep…that's the holocaust all right. Do you perceive the Holocaust to be morally acceptable, gonovice? If you do, then the idea of cloning humans will still fit with your ideas. If you don't, then maybe you don't truly believe in this topic. For I enjoy challenging peoples beliefs to the limit, so they must rethink every aspect, and either end up even more confident in their beliefs, from understanding it more, or accept a new belief. Either way they become wiser.

You suggest treating them like animals, euthanizing them on impulse, harvesting their organs, mentally breaking them down and using them for labor, and using them for medical research. This is what they do to Animals. You are promoting that one human being be a slave to another.

-Harlan
gonovice

Pro

Arent you the one who said they arent real people harlan? I am not in favor of slavery. its not slavery they arent real people are they? When did I say cheap labor? oh yea never. i wouldnt make them work they arent real!!!!!! i dont think that you understand that clones are recreations of REAL PEOPLE!!!! which they arent!!!!!!!! you said yourself that they wouldnt have any rights. so why is it such a big deal to you!! personally i dont think that well you and I are alive they will figure out to clone humans. we havent reached that scientfic intelligence.

well i got to go so i guess i'll finish my argument later.

but harlan stop putting words in my mouth!! just deal with your own argument and stop making up mine. read my argument then judge!!!

*-nikki-*
Debate Round No. 3
Harlan

Con

HELLO, GONOVICE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Let's calm down, gonovice.

We have both had misunderstandings about what the other is saying. You just said that I said that they weren't real people. What? I never said that. I also never said that they would take over the world. WE have both had our misunderstandings. Calm down. You just ignored everything else I said, though. I hope you will properly respond to it next round.

"i dont think that you understand that clones are recreations of REAL PEOPLE!!!! which they arent!!!!!!!! you said yourself that they wouldnt have any rights. so why is it such a big deal to you!!"

If they are exact copies, then they are the same thing, and thus "real" humans. Though you think of them as inferior, and believe it is OK to harvest their organs. Do they not have emotions? Do their brains not work the same way?

You misunderstood what I said to mean that they SHOULD not have any rights. In fact, I was actually lamenting on the fact that they would not have any LEGAL rights, and providing it as a reason why you should not clone them. Who is putting whom words in their mouths now, gonovice?

It sounds as if the realities I put forth made you doubt, or confused you. Whatever the case, you reacted unnecessarily defensively (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!). At the end, you reverted to the "they don't have the technology yet, so it doesn't matter, anyways". A little evasive, aren't we?

-Harlan
gonovice

Pro

Harlan-

You know I am calm.
This argument makes no sense to me. i get what youre saying about it being immoral but I dont get how?

"They would have no rights as they were never born"
see, you did say it and that was all that you said in your last argument. I get that they would have no rights and that makes sense to me but why are you contradicting yourself?
They were never born all clones are of exact copies of someone already living. This person is like a robot basically, The person who they were created from is the one that has rights and belongs to themselvesm not the clone.

I said that we havent reached the scientific intelligence yet to be able to create a clone of someone.
But the thing is how is it immoral to create something to use for research Maybe organ transplants are to much of a touchy subject for you to deal with. Clones are not going to get ANY rights because they are copies of already living people. So they will never go out in the real world they wont work or pay taxes. I think that IF scientists can figure out how to clone that they should use them for reserach and organ transplant. It's not immoral because the REAL version of the person isnt the one being tested. Just the clone.

The whole cloning thing is sort of a easy subject to figure out. There really isnt anything wrong with it. They are using it to save real live peoples lives. Also for research. Whats so wrong with receating an already living human to research things we cant on living humans?
Debate Round No. 4
Harlan

Con

Gonovice,

You continuously misunderstand what I am saying. I am LAMENTING that they would not have any LEGAL rights. I am saying that is a bad thing. People would not give them any rights, and that would be sad.

"I am not in favor of slavery"

I'm glad to hear it. So…The clones would be free to do whatever they want? They could get up and leave? You've made it clear to the contrary. I am not sure whether you favor slavery or not. You seem to contradict yourself.

"They were never born all clones are of exact copies of someone already living. This person is like a robot basically, The person who they were created from is the one that has rights and belongs to themselvesm not the clone."

The proposal you have set forth is both shocking and disgusting in every aspect. You said it yourself: "exact copies". Lets look to the dictionary.

Exact:
"Admitting of no deviation, as laws or discipline; strict or rigorous"

So…an "exact" copy would have no deviation from the original; the same exact thing, there fore if the original is a "real" person, the clone is accordingly a "real" person also. They would think the same way that you do; they breathe the same way that you do; their hearts would beat the same way that yours does; they would have emotions like you; they could cry just like you; they could laugh just like you.

Yet you think we should treat them the same way prisoners of the holocaust were treated. That makes me want to vomit.

"The person who they were created from is the one that has rights and belongs to themselvesm not the clone"

That is slavery. You cannot deny that EVERYTHING you have described has been the likes of both slavery and the holocaust. Did you know that they tested chemicals on Holocaust prisoners?

All the arguments you have made make me further assured that it is a horrible thing to try to clone people.

"There really isnt anything wrong with it"

Well…You may be all right with imprisoning people, holding them as your slaves and testing lethal chemicals on them, as they live their whole lives imprisoned in a cloning facility, but I would never want to do that to another Human being. I treat all that I come across as my equals. I would never be so delusional to think that it is OK to treat them as you suggest.

-Harlan
gonovice

Pro

Look harlan i'm sorry but i'm not finishing this debate. it is pointless. it has become really stupid.

you win!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

congrats!!
i'd love to debate you over something else though. challenge me if your interested.
Debate Round No. 5
31 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
A person who acts immorally becomes immoral by that action :D
Posted by gonovice 9 years ago
gonovice
you know i don't expect you to know what i mean. what argument am I starting up again?

how do you figure I have sub-consicous motives? you make absolutley no sense.
Posted by Harlan 9 years ago
Harlan
Gonovice, I am no longer certain what it is that you want me to do or stop doing or whatever. One minute you tell me that you are done and that the debate is over...the next you try to re-start the argument. I don't want to argue about these trivial, petty things any more, and I thought that was what you wanted. I guess it just goes to show that people actually enjoy arguing. Youre last post on this comments forum was wholly unecessary. The only meaning I could gather from it was that you're anger, or whatever else, was not fulfilled because I simply stopped arguing. After all that about leaving you "the hell alone" and what not, you seem to be trying to start the argument again, or take advantage of my sudden neglection to reply to these arguments and try to be triumphant in an argument to which I no longer to wish to take part in, and to which I am not sure whether you want to keep up or not. You seem to have started interrogating me or something. I post this reflectively, and reflectively only, and please do not take any offense or become irritated, as I assure you I intended nothing of the sort. If I am mistaken to you're sub-conscious motives, please correct me, but I absolutely do not want to start another pointyless argument. Good day.

-Harlan
Posted by gonovice 9 years ago
gonovice
what harlan? are you finally done telling me that i am misunderstanding you?
Posted by gonovice 9 years ago
gonovice
It wasnt even a argument that was between you and I so sorry for getting defensive or whatever else i did wrong.
get over yourself and stop making it sound like I'm being over dramatic, im really calm and you wouldnt know b/c your not with me are you?
Posted by Harlan 9 years ago
Harlan
Let's get this straight, this whole discussion between us began fom you responding to audra's comment, and you responding to Nerdy's comment. You were the one to first post an ARGUMENTIVE comment. Do not get mad at me for continuing the dicussion to which YOU began, gonovice. No one is forcing you to post any replies to my comments, I simply answer things as YOU put them out there. I have NEVER acted like you are "stupid or something".

You got frustrated and quit in the official debate, and you restarted it in the comments, and then did it again.
Posted by gonovice 9 years ago
gonovice
oh my god i'm done with this!!!!!!!!!!!!! come on the debate is over stop acting like I'm stupid or something.
Posted by Harlan 9 years ago
Harlan
Robot:

"1. a machine that resembles a human and does mechanical, routine tasks on command.

2. a person who acts and responds in a mechanical, routine manner, usually subject to another's will; automaton.

3. any machine or mechanical device that operates automatically with humanlike skill. "

They are not mechanical, they act in the same manner as all humans, they do not operate automatically. They are not "frickin robots"

How do you define real, qonovice? They are tangible, no? They exist do they not? OF course they are real, and of course they think, feel, and act exactly like any other humans, so they should not be treated any other way. I am glad you conceed that they are humans, for science IS everything.
Posted by gonovice 9 years ago
gonovice
Hello!! their frickin robots!!! dont you get that. you can't have two copies that are REAL of one human!!!!! maybe scientifically if you really look at the fine print but not in any other way!!
Posted by Harlan 9 years ago
Harlan
lets see, what IS a Human...

-got 2 eyes
-bipedal
-omnivorous
-mammal
-vertebrate
-land animal
-2 ears
-lungs
-brain
-2 lungs
-etc.

They are Exactly the same. You admit yourself that they are exact copies. If x is the exact same as y, are they different? nope. In the scientific sense, which you can not dispute, they ARE humans...in the scientific sense.
19 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by K.Syeda 9 years ago
K.Syeda
HarlangonoviceTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by kels1123 9 years ago
kels1123
HarlangonoviceTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by easy2know 9 years ago
easy2know
HarlangonoviceTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Jokerdude 9 years ago
Jokerdude
HarlangonoviceTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Jezebel888 9 years ago
Jezebel888
HarlangonoviceTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by mariahsaywhaaa 9 years ago
mariahsaywhaaa
HarlangonoviceTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Gege 9 years ago
Gege
HarlangonoviceTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by bethanyann09 9 years ago
bethanyann09
HarlangonoviceTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Ineffablesquirrel 9 years ago
Ineffablesquirrel
HarlangonoviceTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by earl_alcala 9 years ago
earl_alcala
HarlangonoviceTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30