Debate Rounds (4)
I would like to know what you classify as unknown fears, because my understanding is that the fears are known, and that is why we are afraid of them. These include massive expenses, and birth defects of the clones. In general, what are these "unknown fears" you are speaking of?
How can you say cloning will improve the length of life, when studies show most clones die early?
This type of biotechnology (Cloning) Is very dangerous and should NOT be permitted. One reason for this is that cloning is extremely dangerous. In reproductive cloning cases, the process has failed 95% of the time. Do we really want to take that risk on humans? Cloning could lead to many deaths of new organisms, such as miscarriages, and abortion. In mammals, reproductive cloning has resulted in more deaths than sexual reproduction. The organisms that do survive often have birth defects, and more health issues in development. Another issue with cloning that I would like to go into further detail about is cloning for agricultural purposes. I think that cloning animals will benefit in some ways, like producing the best animals for food purposes. But, it is only beneficial if it works. Dolly"s experiment took 277 tries to get the final production. Putting animals at that kind of risk is not beneficial, in fact it is animal cruelty. Also, animals that are produced are more likely to develop diseases, even if they are considered "the best of the herd." Now that I have mentioned all of these issues, do we really want to invest our taxes in the risky processes of cloning? In case you were wondering, the answer to that question is no. With the amount of risk factors and ethical issues, cloning is not something we should legalize. Do we really want to risk that on humans? There also stands the ethical issues with cloning. According to Pew-research.org, 78.4% of all Americans are Christian, and more are other religions. Over half of our country is religious. Many religious people believe that by cloning organisms, we are "playing God." They claim that since we are choosing the traits/organism cloned, we are making babies, and not reproducing them. Working alongside of God is not something Christians believe is right in this context. There are also many unknown theories about how the cloned child will be raised if we decide to clone humans. Clones won"t be "exactly" the same as their donor, the environmental factors change their personalities and actions. Will clones consider their parents their "parents?" Clones may be beneficial because Gays will have the chance to have a child, but there are so many theories about the issues of raising clones. Will it be different from raising other families? Why take the risk? Clones may also have issues with fitting in at school or in public. Many kids bully others who are different, or have a characteristic that makes them less superior compared to others. 93% of teenagers hear negative words being said directed to another kid in their schools. If kids get bullied for being gay, lesbian, or any other reason, what would stop them from getting bullied if they were a clone? What is the point of cloning organisms if there stands all of these risks?
In the case of reproductive cloning, your questions include the "massive expense and birth defects of the clones". It is true that we are currently lacking the knowledge and technology to clone human beings successfully at a reasonable cost. I would like to bring to your attention two points: (1) every new achievement in biotechnology begins with an idea that has not been successfully accomplished, and (2) new technology is usually expensive until it becomes widely available. If we stop our research now, we will never be able to succeed in reproductive cloning. This raises the question of whether reproductive cloning should be a goal and I believe the answer is yes. Consider the possibility that, with time and more research, reproductive cloning of animals who are endangered could be used to save their species. Another advantage to reproductive cloning is that it has potential for same-sex and infertile couples to have genetically related children. In fact, scientists argue that it may be possible to use cloning combined with genetic modifications to safely create children who are genetically related to both partners. Keep in mind that this technology will not be used on humans until it can be used in a safe and reliable manner. Regarding your concerns about tax payers and funds for cloning research, I believe this is an issue that should be left to the voters to decide.
1.) You argue that most people in our country are religious, primarily Christian, and therefore are against reproductive cloning because it is "playing God". How is it that other infertility treatments are not considered "playing God" but cloning is? Shouldn"t all reproductive strategies be legal?
2.) Why would babies who are clones be treated differently than any other child conceived with biotechnology assistance (test tube babies)?
I probably should have addressed the issue of "playing god" in a more detailed manner. I do address it in my next argument, but let me clarify. What I should have said about christians believing we are playing god is that we are using possible life forms for our own needs. "Playing God" is when you create potential organisms only to use them, which is displayed in therapeutic cloning. We take an embryo to perform a task/create an organ, and then it dies. Sorry about my misunderstanding.
Babies who are clones wouldn"t be treated differently than any other child conceived with biotechnology assistance. They would still have a higher chance of getting bullied at school, most kids with something that makes them different do. Take Gay kids for example, we say they deserve to be equal to us, and that includes anti-bullying circumstances. But they still get bullied more on average than straight children.
You stated in your introduction that cloning saves many lives. But how can you consider it saving lives if at the same time it is killing hundreds of possible living things? (The process of therapeutic cloning involves an egg/many eggs.)
I know this was a while back, but you stated in your introduction that cloning saves many lives. But how can you consider it saving lives if at the same time it is killing hundreds of possible living things? (The process of therapeutic cloning involves an egg/many eggs.)
You may think that therapeutic cloning is beneficial, but many consider it a case of murder to a living organism. In the process of therapeutic cloning, they take the DNA out of an embryo to make stem cells for the desired organ/tissue. Doing so is taking away the chance of an organism to develop, which is why people consider it a case of murder. By taking the DNA out of an egg you are killing the chance of a living thing to grow. Another reason why therapeutic cloning is a horrible idea is the fact that the egg comes from another woman. You may think, "well why is that a problem?" The issue is, most woman would not want to donate their egg. The only way woman would want to donate their egg is if there is something in it for them. Many politicians, scientists, and citizens of the general public think that poor woman would give up their eggs for money. In fact, currently woman sell their eggs for $1000 to $2000 each. This is just for the eggs. Scientists round up the total cost, averaging about $200,000 per treatment. But, this total doesn"t take into account the growth of the egg demand. These treatments often fail, so there is a need for more than one egg. This will make the price even higher. Is all this money really worth it? This is morally wrong, and I don"t think we should be stirring up this issue along with the many other problems in society. Therapeutic cloning also takes many attempts, according to explorestemcells.co.uk. With the hundreds of failed embryos, this goes along with the murder concept. Therapeutic cloning along with reproductive cloning also deals with the issue of "playing god." By creating life only to use it, we are interfering with religious concepts. This process may be beneficial in the sense of creating organs in order to help a human, but I don"t think it is worth it, We still have not perfected this project. According to a Wall Street Journal published on May 20, scientists have already poured in 100 into this biotechnology, and 40 billion has been lost. This shows the many failed attempts of therapeutic cloning.
The bad things do go on. Most people believe we will benefit from the performance of therapeutic cloning. Through therapeutic cloning, you are able to cure diseases and heal organs. But on the contrary, therapeutic cloning is very risky and has not been perfected. Also, in order to perfect a process, you need subjects to test it on. Do we really want to test this dangerous process on our society? I would like to address the issue of killing a young embryo. You say you don"t consider an embryo at this young of an e a "potential piece of life" but I do! Think about it, an organism has to start somewhere, you can"t just assume its not an organism when it is beginning to develop!agIf we allow therapeutic cloning, that will influence others that reproductive cloning is ok. We all know that it is not. It may be an advancement in technology, but it is not necessary in society? Do we really need unhealthy animals roaming our farms? By the time we perfect the process, we will be in massive debt! Imagine the amounts of money being wasted away for this silly project. Also, I don"t think it is necessary for another human classification group to evolve. If we allow any of these processes, especially reproductive, then "clones" will become a group of human beings! We don"t need another reason for kids to get pushed around and bullied. This kind of classification could lead to school shootings, and suicide attempts like other cases. Kids who get bullied are likely to do so.
Many people state that therapeutic cloning cures diseases, and helps failing organs. Did you know that embryonic stem cells often cause tumors? This was shown in recent animal studies with cloning. Humans are extremely close to animals, so this is a huge problem. Curing diseases is not an exceptional argument if this likely causes another detriment.
Overall cloning is a big "no-go." It is financially similar to putting money in a paper shredder. Using billions of dollars on this project, there is no profit made with the expenses to perform the task. We shouldn"t be using our taxes to fund this risky and insane process. Cloning is illegal for a reason, so why change it?
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.