The Instigator
AllieTheKat
Con (against)
The Contender
c4444
Pro (for)

Human 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  
Debate Round Forfeited
c4444 has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/14/2016 Category: Technology
Updated: 3 weeks ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 101 times Debate No: 97015
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

AllieTheKat

Con

The first mammal clone to be born was 20 years ago. With as much as our societies medical knowledge and technology has advanced in those 20 years, logically speaking human clones should be a possibility. Yet they are not, for good reason, besides the ethical issue involved with cloning there is also a very large political aspect which makes cloning a poor choice for society.
c4444

Pro

Sure politically we are not in the correct atmosphere to be talking about human cloning, but that's just how it works with science. We make leaps and bounds through scientific discovery and then laws have to catch up. We can't choose to limit ourselves just because of the potential problems in the political environment when we consider the upsides of what genetic research and technology could breed. The medical applications of such technology is infinite. As for ethics if you are arguing a religious standing, being non religiously affiliated is now the worlds 3rd largest category, and as for the playing "god" role. I would make the argument those in the scientific community, and many outside of said community are just as likely to see it as the next logical step in science. I could also make the argument that there is no god and to limit ourselves on whats possible because some people believe in a so called higher power goes against human nature, our curiosity. If we never wondered what was possible, we never would have done countless things throughout history to advance us through technology and as a race.
Debate Round No. 1
AllieTheKat

Con

It is not just the atmosphere being wrong that is the problem, cloning would require a complete overhaul of our system. The immediate problem would be documentation. Would clones get their own SSN? Birth certificate? Would the documents be tied to the person they were cloned from? The other major change would be with the judicial system. A major factor for solving crimes uses DNA identification. Having a large amount of clones around would make DNA no longer a unique form of identification. But that brings up the fact of identical twins share DNA and we have ways to get around that in the judicial system currently. Although that is true it is a very different with identical twins fingerprinting can be used to differentiate between twins. Even with the same DNA fingerprints will be drastically different based upon situations in-eutero. Depending on the types of cloning being used the embryonic situations may not have any effect causing clones to have the same fingerprint. This means if a clone commits a crime the original or any other clone could be placed in jail for those reasons. This doesn't seem so bad when its a couple days jail time but what happens when the person is facing the death sentence for a crime they did not commit. Where the ethical and political mix is the rights of clones. Would clones have all the same rights as the original? One of the major benefits, as supporters put it, is the medical benefit of having an extra heart walking around that your body would not reject. So if some accident were to happen to the original would the clones be required to give up their body autonomy for the sake of the originals livelihood. That would make the clones a lesser citizen.

I am not saying that cloning itself is either a great or a horrible idea just that politically we are not anywhere near a place of readiness for cloning. Certain things must be discussed and decided for the sake of life running smoothly, before cloning begins.

http://www.livescience.com...
c4444

Pro

Of course the system would need a complete overhaul, we're talking about a completely new branch of science. Of course there will be hundreds of different things that various people from scientists to law makers would need to discuss and that will take time and be its own process. Just because laws aren't around today is no reason to stop looking into the technology and its benefits. As for talking about crime because we don't have technology yet, we are speaking in a completely hypothetical realm. That being the case I can hypothetically, and reasonably say cloning yourself or anyone for that matter is going to cost exorbitant amount of money especially in the early days. From that point we can deduce even if there isn't a registry, even though I think it's fair to say that there would be, it would still be easy to prove if there was a clone involved it whatever crime. From that point finding the original would be easy, and then can be brought down to traditional police work, comparing alibis , likely hood, motive ect ect. We also aren't considering the fact that because of the cost to make a clone it is likely that you couldn't afford to make one until you were older, lets say 35 just to have a number. That means that there is a 35 year age difference between you and the second you, even if genetically you're identical you aren't the same age which would eliminate most crime case where both beings could be responsible. You're next statement is most valid saying a clone may have to give up an organ, its also the biggest hole in the argument because we're debating a hypothetical clone that is a full clone, it functions just as any human would but there is no reason we have to clone a sentient being, eliminating most law arguments as far as its rights ect. There's no reason we can't just make a mass of cells that grows the heart we harvest, no brain or making of a being required. Sure eventually down the line when we can clone things for cheaper, or the technology advance where making whole sentient beings more things will need to be discussed but that's no reason to stop advancing because on the way to that fully functional clone there is what we learn. We could reverse the process of aging, grow new organs, repair failing organs with genetically modified stem cells, gene therapy, elimination of genetic disease, possible elimination of caner, and once technology is there that ability to give genetic children to infertile couples. That just scratches the surface of whats possible in what would be a new era in technology and medicine for mankind.
Debate Round No. 2
AllieTheKat

Con

"We could reverse the process of aging, grow new organs, repair failing organs with genetically modified stem cells, gene therapy, elimination of genetic disease, possible elimination of caner, and once technology is there that ability to give genetic children to infertile couples." None of your examples require full human cloning. Those can all be done without running into the issues I mentioned previously. I believe the world is ready for advances like you mentioned, those are not what I am speaking against. What the world is not ready for is somatic cell nucleolus swapping where a full clone is "born" either through implanting into a womb or through other technological means.
As for your point of it being expensive and therefore automatic age difference between clone and original you are wrong. Yes, it will be expensive, but it wont be a private sector maneuver, at least not completely. The government will be a large part so that means choosing people of whom to clone where variables can be seen. Experiments with clones will most likely be very similar to the twin experiments of yesteryear. Wanting to see how much the clone would resemble the original given change in circumstances. For proper experimental process the two should be near the same age. This means cloning either newborns or even prior to birth. Meaning, although you are correct that within the private sector there will be a drastic age difference, at least within the researching phase there will not be an immense difference.
c4444

Pro

First statement, blatant contradiction, cloning a human organ is human cloning, just not a 10 on what that hypothetical spectrum would be, and second giving an infertile couple a child through cloning is in fact cloning. As for what the world is ready for and what it isn't really isn't up to the world to decide. Looking at it as science, we don't get to decide what's right and wrong just what's possible. Let law makers debate and decide, let people vote, work that side out however you want, but the science side will come first. We can't debate what rights a fully functioning clone would have because we haven't made one. It would be like debating if we could make a sentient dog, yeah it might get more rights than a normal dog, but we aren't going to talk about it until it exists at least from a legal standpoint. Until then its just scientific theory, and won't have laws made around it because its just too out there at the moment. As for government testing with a theoretical science I can't say what they will or won't do, for all we know maybe they start with one guy and he signs away all his rights to himself and his genetic makeup and they go from there. Who's to say the first thousand won't be brain dead, non sentient organ sacs, until that testing actually shows results of something we can turn our eye to the legal side of things, until such I believe it is to early, and we should not intervene in the growth of this science.
Debate Round No. 3
AllieTheKat

Con

I agree that laws cannot be fully made prior to more understanding of how cloning will work. But the discussions have to be had prior to it becoming reality. People must be educated before the issue is there and huge. The clones being possibly brain dead is also a very important thing to discuss. At that point the body autonomy aspect and whether they have full human rights is extremely important. Who gets to choose how long they live and how their lives are ended? There are just so many issues to be discussed before millions of dollars of government founding in funneled into it.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.