The Instigator
debate1616
Con (against)
The Contender
SkySky16
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
debate1616 has forfeited round #3.
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: 3/28/2017 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 511 times Debate No: 101494
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

debate1616

Con

Human Cloning is not safe and there are many risks that we should not be willing to take. For one, what if someone gets this idea that they should bring back someone like Adolf Hitler or Osama Bin Laden? Yes, you may say, they may act differently, but how would we know until we actually clone someone. Also, waht about unknown diseases that they may have. Recently, there was a girl found in the ice, preserved from over 500 years ago. So what if we cloned, her and say we didn't know about a disease that she had, and she brought it back. Many people could die. The risk is too great to have human cloning.
SkySky16

Pro

I will address con's main two arguments and submit why we should experiment with cloning.

1. "We could bring back Hitler or Bin Laden"

I don't think con understands how cloning takes place, you aren't resurrecting this person and would need to have said person's DNA. Con's argument is also predicated on the assumption that Hitler and Bin Laden were inherently the way they were, which is not true either, or Con is just uninformed about how cloning works, both equally damning to the argument.

2. "We could bring back diseases"

Again, this is not how cloning works, we are resurrecting that body and everything in it. What happens is the DNA from that person is used to create a new person following the DNA's Guidelines.
The only disease that could be brought back is a genetic one, which is not transmittable.

Now for why we should experiment with human cloning, of course when it is legally consensual.
Most, if not all (I'll state when otherwise) of my statements are backed up or provided by humancloning.org

1. Stem cells

Stem cells are hugely advantageous and human cloning is logically a huge step forward for that science. This is because when we combing stem cell research and human cloning technology it may be possible to produce the tissue needed for suffering people that will be free of rejection by their immune systems.Conditions like Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, diabetes, heart failure, and degenerative joint disease may be made curable with human cloning and its technology if they aren't banned.

2. Infertility

With cloning, infertile couples could have children. People go through horrible and painful, emotionally as well as physically, procedures just to have a small chance at having a child. Cloning solves this.

3. Plastic, reconstructive, and cosmetic surgery. With human cloning research these procedures may not cause immune diseases due to foreign material in the body. We wouldn't have to use foreign material anymore.

4. Defective genes

The average person carries 8 defective genes inside them. These genes allow people to become sick when they otherwise would have remained healthy. Cloning has the potential to solve this, gene treatments are already a thing outside of cloning, let's improve them.

5. Other Issues are Solved

Down's syndrome, Tay-Sachs disease, liver failure, kidney failure, leukemia, cancer, cystic fibrosis, spinal cord injuries, genetic disease testing difficulty, etc. Are all potentially and realistically solved by human cloning research. This sounds pretty attractive right? That's not even the best part about it. The advantages I've stated only scratch the surface of what human cloning technology can do for mankind. The vast amount of suffering and misery solved, the amount of improvements to lives added, and the worry of a lot of aspects of our health removed are the biggest and mountanous reasons why we s
Debate Round No. 1
debate1616

Con

For one, plastic surgery is not a good thing. People should grow up knowing that they are beautiful, not how much they will need to spend. Also, Pro said "potentially" a lot, which means that it wouldn't necessarily work or change anything. SO there is no proof that Downs syndrome, liver failure, or cancer could be cured. There are a lot of "what ifs", and without hard, solid facts, we should not experiment. There are many dangers that do lay in cloning. Did you know that people shed millions of cells throughout their day as their skin cells fall off? Did you know that you can leave skin cells even on a computer keyboard, and those cells could be used to clone you if cloning becomes a reality. What laws would there be to defend your rights as the true non-clone compared to the clone? Would there be any defense against people collecting cells and cloning random people? Cloning has not yet been perfected and problems are likely to occur. Genetic abnormalities and diseases within the clone are known to happen through experimentation. When cloning becomes successful, the life span is still shortened. If someone is going to live, their life shouldn't be shortened just because they have been cloned. On the other hand, cloning is also very expensive, and only very wealthy people would be able to afford it. Cloning has not been successful and money is wasted on trying to improve on something that will never be 100% perfect. Another thing, the world isn't big enough. Do you really think cloning more people is the solution? Its humans against clones when it comes to competing for natural resources. There isn't enough resources in the world for the both of us, and everyone will suffer because of scientists' brilliant idea in thinking cloning is a good idea.

There's no point in cloning, because there are too many risks.
SkySky16

Pro

1. Plastic surgery

Irrelevant, your personal opinion doesn't matter. Human cloning would decrease the risk of it and people are always going to do it so there is a net benefit for the human race compared to the status quo.

2. "Potentially"

I am not a psychic, I can't see the future. This argument is used for every new scientific subject. In this context, it means we can't quantify how much it would be helped. We can't definitively say that it will solve X amount of cancer or Y genetic diseases. This doesn't prove anything and con hasn't showed any sources so even human cloning has a small chance to proceed I still win the argument.

3. "Too many risks"

Again, irrelevant. How do you think every single new modern medicine is tested? Consensual lab ratting. That is, volunteering to be experimented upon given the risks and benefit. Besides, this just shows Con's lack of knowledge on the area yet again, most of cloning has little to do with the original patient. It's mostly manipulating DNA and creating a life.

4. "Skin cells"

This is pure speculation. This again shows how little con knows about cloning. You can't just take apart of a person and slap it in a computer and, BLAMO, cloned. Besides, it's a fallacy to not do something because their might be downsides. Everything has a downside, it's about showing if it has more upsides. My list clearly shows this.

5. "Cloning hasn't been perfected"

Again, a fallacy, circular thinking. Cloning has not been perfected therefore we shouldn't look into cloning because it isn't perfect therefore we should't look into cloning... You get the point.

6. Morality argument

Con states what I can only assume to be a morality argument. He claims that the life span is shortened of the clone, and that shouldn't happen just because someone was cloned. Not only is this most likely due to lack of research in the field but also the science around it. Still, con has a point. But it's flawed. Bringing this life into the world is not immoral. Do we not have dogs because they die faster than us? Con seems to think the clone is purposefully being set to live less time with his statement "If someone is going to live, their life shouldn't be shortened just because they have been cloned." We did not do this on purpose and that is actually the main point of debate on how to erase this blemish on cloning. Is the natural death of a child with a birth defect immoral? No, so why would this.

7. "Cloning is expensive..."

Irrelevant. Cars were also only for the wealthiest people and now they are essential to western society. Every technology in it's rawest and most unresearched form is always expensive.
Wasting money on it because it won't be 100% perfect? First, what is con's source? That is a very scientific claim? Second, how does one quantify the perfection of human cloning. Is it by length of the clone's life? Brain activity? Normality to other people? There is no measurable thing to claim it wont be 100% perfect.

8. Overpopulation

Overpopulation is a myth. I will be using the following article to back up my claims. This article is a collection of 11 credible sources: https://www.lifesitenews.com...
a. Food
There is enough food, this is a fact. We make enough for 10 billion people while only having less than 8 billion. Starvation is an issue, but not one of overpopulation but of politics and poverty. "Famines are not natural phenomena, they are catastrophic political failures." Further research will make food even more accessible and prosperous. I personally believe the ocean is a prime place for this, but that is neither here nor there.
b. Water
The earth is literally 70% covered in water. We cannot use up or destroy water, this is because of the water cycle. Solar desalination is potentially the new frontier in water production.
c. "We are growing exponentially"
That is just simply untrue. Our rate of growth is actually on the decline. 1950-2000: 1.76% increase. 2000-2050: Projected .77% increase. Most of the growth will come from developing countries, the life expectancy there is expected to spike up in the next half century.

9. "No point in cloning because there are too many risks"

Do you know how many risks there were to the first manned space mission? That was walking into a part of this plane of existence no human had ever done before. What about ships? Planes? Any scientific discovery? Risk is necessary for reward. Besides, the patients will be voluntary. They can make the decision to do what they want with their body.

Con has provided no scientific or logical substantiation for any of his claims, Pro should win this debate.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by debate1616 1 year ago
debate1616
GoOrDin, we have been able to clone animals, like cows, sheep, and dogs. So it is possible.
Posted by GoOrDin 1 year ago
GoOrDin
human cloning is impossible. It is impossible to either extract or to contribute DNA to or from a cell.
No instruments can penetrate a cell membrane without destroying the cell, to this day.
Severing the DNA of a cell ruptures it's components and nullifies it, preventing it from bonding from the egg, had it even been possible for a Cell that was not a sperm to achieve such a goal.
Meanwhile, it cannot be removed without desolation, nor implanted without equal desolation.
the sperm cell introduces more than just DNA, in addition.
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.