The Instigator
gibsonm496
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Miyasana
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Cloning

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/18/2008 Category: Science
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 11,429 times Debate No: 6278
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (13)
Votes (0)

 

gibsonm496

Pro

I was recently assigned a persuasion paper for school. My chosen topic is cloning. Before I began my research I knew very little about the topic, only that it was highly controversial. But after only some beginning research I now believe otherwise. Cloning is a process that should be continued.
I feel this way because cloning has many health benefits. Such as, cloning can be used to clone failing organs to replace old, or damaged ones. Also, by cloning a child from a single parent hereditary diseases could be averted.
Additionally, cloning can be used to advance medical research. Using the process of cloning scientists could clone diseased cells and genes. By doing this scientists could have a large supply of specimens to test with no effects to a patient.
These reasons and more lead me to believe that cloning is a process that could benefit the world.
Miyasana

Con

Okay, I'm going to try and make this short and sweet. First, I can see the ups of cloning--I truly can. I can see benefits and advancing medical. But here's the thing--it's inhumane.
I see no problem with duplicating cars, shirts, etc., but when you start to duplicate living things, you step into the Lord's territory. As a Christian, I find that completely wrong.
Next, anything cloned won't live as long. That's a fact. Before banned, cloned animals died early; as well, they were sickly and weak. Is that want you want? Instead of a donor organ, a cloned organ that last half--or less--as long? And while cloning a child from a single parent may get rid of hereditary diseases, the child will look exactly like the parent. We don't want a boring world where you look just like your mom or dad. Seriously. Again, the child would be weak and get sick a lot. That's not a good life, if you can call it one.
Cloning animals is bad enough. But cloning humans is even more inhumane, inhuman, and blasphemous. These are only a few of the reasons that lead me to believe that cloning is not a good way to gain knowledge for the world.
Debate Round No. 1
gibsonm496

Pro

First of all I would like to address the religious side of this debate. I believe what you mean by blasphemous was that scientists would be creating people which is what God does. As a Christian that was why I was against cloning before I started my research. But now I feel differently. Scientists have no drive to establish cloning as a reproduction process. In fact, they feel the opposite. Scientists feel that there will be enough humans in the future that there will be no need to establish cloning. Also, in my opening statement I said that cloning should be continued. I do not believe that cloning is at the best quality it could be, but that it should be helped to improve. Scientists are far from establishing cloning as a normal process. They feel that it would be unethical to even begin cloning humans, because of their low success rate. Most clones become disfigured. I have read two articles that prove my statement.
Also, cloning is not what some people think it is. Cloning does not create an exact duplicate of the person. Instead it creates a person who looks the same on the outside but clones would have different experiences than their counterparts. So they would be different people.
Additionally, cloning of a child from a single parent I do not believe will be widely used. Instead some parents might choose to have a clone because they have a known hereditary disease.
In conclusion I would like to state that cloning is not perfect. I know that. But with help it could be a process that could help change the world for the better.
Miyasana

Con

I would like to say that you have stated your side very well, but I still disagree with you.
First of all, I would like to point out that I never said scientists wanted to use cloning as a form of reproduction. I have researched cloning on my own, and know that they think there will be enough humans in the future.
Second, skipping to the "cloning is not what some people think it is," comment. I know it does not make an exact copy. You cannot transfer one's memories into another. But how would it be for a child to grow up to look exactly like the parent--different experiences or not? Then, when Aunt Sally prattles on about, "Oh, you look just like your mother!", she's not kidding. I know every person is different. I have a twin sister, and we're extremely different for all our similarities.
Thirdly, going back to my comment on blasphemous, creating people is what our Lord does, and people have no right to step into that territory. It completely goes against my ethical standards, which I will not abandon. And I am not saying it is the only reason cloning a "homo sapien", as scientists call us, is religiously wrong. Another point is people would think they are God's level, creating clones.
I disagree with it being helped to improve. I don't think cloning could or should ever be a normal process. And the reason that scientists think cloning a human now is unethical now is because the clone would be terrible. Possibly misshapen, short lifespan, ill, etc. But if they could fix that, they would not find it unethical anymore. The low success rate may be a warning sign. And about having a cloned child, many hereditary diseases can be fixed, or at the least controlled.
All in all, weighing benefits and downs, I believe cloning is not a process that should be brought back. It was banned due to the continuously low success rate, and should not be brought back. People are not to be chemically made by scientists. That is not how it goes. I am led to believe that before we start cloning, we should exhaust all other possibilities, especially in the medical world.
Debate Round No. 2
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
What a shame. No one voted.
Posted by gibsonm496 8 years ago
gibsonm496
Quit trying to make yourself sound smarter Riikashi, you will only end up embarrassing yourself.
Posted by Riikashi 8 years ago
Riikashi
gibsonm496: *smiles* Would you happen to be... implying that I did not know that beforehand? Sadly, you'd be hard-pressed to make an argument over it. *sticks tongue out*
Posted by gibsonm496 8 years ago
gibsonm496
Sure Riikashi, sure.
Posted by Riikashi 8 years ago
Riikashi
Something else: I have done multiple studies and picked up information throughout my life about cloning. So, gibson, what party of my information do you find incorrect? If it's about the egg, then I'll revise what I said. I do in fact realize that the eggs used for cloning studies are UNFERTILIZED, but in writing that comment I assumed that it was knowledge already known. Also, when I mentioned the 'much-debated-about sperm' cloning process I meant years ago, when scientist were testing out cloning animals, which didn't work out well at all, as Miyasana mentioned. That topic is still being debated and being brought into today's debate over cloning, and that's why I mentioned that there.
Posted by Riikashi 8 years ago
Riikashi
Sorry, it's been pointed out to me that gibsom496 DID in fact cover party of what I suggested. But that was in his comment. I know suggest that he uses the same information in the debate. ;)
Posted by gibsonm496 8 years ago
gibsonm496
Riikashi and I-am-a-panda, you both need to do some research before you go shooting your mouths off. Both of your information is wrong. But I do enjoy the fighting. A debate between the two of you would be very intresting. but you better watch your back I-am-a-panda I know Riikashi and you do not want to mess with her.
Posted by Riikashi 8 years ago
Riikashi
I-am-a-panda, cloning doesn't always have to do with sperm and egg. Many parts of the unethical debate over cloning comes from the fact that the cells used for cloning are non-matured embryonic cells. And truth be told, researchers in Japan have found that they can 'mature' these embryonic cells into other kinds of cells, using chemical compounds -- oh dear, oh my, not natural and not in the womb!! -- that can also be used to study other cloning process, not just the much-debated-about sperm one.
Also, I get the idea that you implied that I "think cloning is putting cells, genes or whatever in a machine." That's most definitely not the case. In fact, I've never thought the like. To justify my position, the only cloning that I half-support is that of organs. In fact, the Japanese researchers at Kyoto (mentioned earlier) have succeeded in creating an artificial liver. I think that if we could make decent organs then many lives could be saved whereas they could not be before due to a lack of good organs from donors. But I want and believe that cloning should always be nothing more than that. The instant someone suggests, God forbid, that animals or humans could easily be cloned and it'll be all great and dandy with no mistakes whatsoever I will stop supporting cloning of anything. People are not meant to create others with man-controlled chemicals.
Lastly, many congratulations to both gibsonm496 and Miyasana. You have both debated convincingly, although I might mention that neither of you have gone over the subject as thoroughly you could have. Cloning incorporates a wide variety of topics, and the title implies to me that this debate is supposed to cover all of them. Or was it supposed to just be cloning in general? Anyways, when arguing or having a friendly debate with someone it is always wise to incorporate the other's point of view so that you're argument does not scream biased.
Posted by gibsonm496 8 years ago
gibsonm496
I forgot to add, I found my information for my previous comment from the following web site.
http://www.clonesafety.org...
Posted by gibsonm496 8 years ago
gibsonm496
I would like to comment I-am-a-panda's statement. He stated that cloning involves sperm and egg cell. That is false. I have found that the process of cloning involves taking cells that contain the complete DNA. This is called the somatic cell. Usually skin is taken. Then, an unfertilized egg cell is taken from a female of the same species and the two are combined and activated with electricity. Later, as the cell progresses, the cell is then transferred to a surrogate mother.
Miyasana, I admit defeat. I do not agree with you but at the current status of the cloning process I find that maybe cloning should be more intensely studied before begun again.
I agree with Riikashi, cloning is not natural but someday it might be needed. Anything could happen in the future. Maybe they might even be able to clone a human and the resulting clone could be different. Who knows.
No votes have been placed for this debate.