The Instigator
shopkins7
Pro (for)
Winning
16 Points
The Contender
Arjunaoh7
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Human Cloning

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 3 votes the winner is...
shopkins7
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/10/2011 Category: Technology
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 18,743 times Debate No: 14344
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (3)

 

shopkins7

Pro

Is it ethical to clone humans?
Human Cloning: the creation of a genetically identical copy of a human specifically for medical research or for a medical treatment. To be used strictly as a last resort.
Arguments:
  1. It is useful for learning about the human body and biotechnology.
    1. The cloning of humans would allow for any number of tests to be done on essentially human guinea pigs.
  2. It can help with women who cannot produce children.
    1. Many women undergoing fertilization treatments are only able to produce one egg over a period of time. Cloning can help in making more eggs so that there is a better chance of fertilization.
  3. It can help those who need an organ.
    1. There can be an exact replica produced. Sometimes waiting on the donor list takes too long, or a perfect match isn’t able to be found, or the body may reject another person’s organ. Being able to use cloning as a treatment to get an exact replica would allow for a perfect match every time.
  4. It provides treatments for a variety of diseases.
    1. Research on the clones can help scientists gain knowledge about various diseases. A clone should only be made to test a cure for a disease once all other possibilities have been ruled out.


Arjunaoh7

Con


Ethical Question: Is it ethical to clone humans?
Human cloning is not ethical because it violates human and moral rights, may cause psychological harm to children, is ineffective and expensive, and it violates the precautionary principle.
Definition: The process of producing a cell, cell product, or organism that is genetically identical to the unit or individual form from which it was derived.
Arguments Against:
1. The issue of human cloning raises too many questions. For instance, does that clone have the same rights as an individual or is it property? As a result, human cloning may violate human or moral rights. It is noticed that every human being has a right to have a unique identity and a right to ignorance about one’s future or to an “open future”. While this could easily be disputed because of the nature of identical twins, the right to ignorance and an open future is a separate issue. Identical twins have the same exact genome but have different lives and futures. In their case there already exists another version of the clone and they already know certain things about themselves and the future they have to live up to. The later clone will lose the spontaneity of authenticity creating and becoming his or her own self. One will lose the sense of human possibility in freely creating one’s own future. In addition, human cloning would lessen the worth of individuals and diminish the respect for human life. Human life would be seen as replaceable.
2. Cloning may cause psychological harm to children. Children could suffer from a reduced sense of individuality, and a cloned child may feel that their future is worth less as it now rests in a cloned individual. Cloning could also encourage parents to value how well children can genetically meet their expectations rather than loving them for being just their child. In addition to this, parents and society may see their children as objects and not as human beings with actual feelings. If human cloning becomes a reality and a regular social practice, it could also make parents who want to have their own children, and not genetically choose their child, be cast out of society.
3. Cloning can be ineffective and expensive. It took scientists 277 times to clone a stable, healthy sheep called Dolly. Cloning research is very time demanding and expensive costing thousands of dollars that could be put somewhere else. Getting eggs from donors could easily cost up to $50,000, meaning costs to treat/clone only one person could reach up to $100,000. Aside from the cost, human cloning procedures provide many risks. The many risks include: risk to an ovum donor, a nucleus donor, and the woman who receives the embryo for implantations, along with all of the risks to the clone in this procedure. There is another problem in regards to the chronological age versus the biological age. The clone has already gained many years by the time it was born because it was taken from adult cells. This also results in the clone not having as long of a life expectancy.
4. Human cloning violates the precautionary principle. Cloning is a break from the natural process of evolution, which is known to strengthen species and improves their survival instincts through diversity. This could potentially produce a new race of individuals who could be easily manipulated. Creating clones would lead to everyone having the same genetic material, and if ever the ability to clone had been lost or unavailable, the human race would have to resort to natural reproduction causing inbreeds. Human cloning is also seen as taking nature into one’s own hands. No doctor, scientist, or geneticist should be given the power to create life by means of genetic technology. This power could easily be abused, and to tamper with nature equals disaster. If the process of cloning was allowed, humans may also face extinction if evolution is not allowed to follow its proper course of action.
Debate Round No. 1
shopkins7

Pro


Rebuttal to argument 1:
Under our definition of cloning, the clone would be used strictly for medicinal purposes such as research. This means that the clone would not have a chance to live out a life that they wished. They would be created for an advancement of science and technology. The argument that the clone should be able to live with the same rights as a natural born human cannot be used because the exact purpose of the clone is determined by scientists and doctors. Under a circumstance in which cloning would take place, the person being cloned would have to be aware that the human clone of themselves would not have equal opportunities. The clone will not have a chance to prove his or her authenticity, because in reality he or she is not authentic; simply a clone created for a technological purpose.
Arjunaoh7

Con


1. It is unethical to use cloning as a way to learn about the human body and biotechnology. Cloning is ineffective and it is almost guaranteed that there will be either deaths or some kind of failure. The majority of cloned animals have something wrong with them. They die in the womb, or soon after birth. Typical defects are malfunctioning lungs, a heart that doesn't work as it should, an imperfect immune system and abnormal size. The scientists have theories about why so many clones seem to go wrong. One is that molecules attached to the genetic material which are important in ensuring that only some genes are "switched on" at any given location in the body (so that, for instance, your brain cells are in your head, rather than in your stomach), are scraped off or damaged when the cell to be cloned is manipulated by the experimenters. Manipulation by experimenters is inevitable, not just when DNA is removed from the egg, but also when the new cell is inserted into it. The process disrupts development in other ways.

Debate Round No. 2
shopkins7

Pro


Rebuttal to argument 2:
Parents would not have the opportunity to clone their child for self-pleasure. Cloning would be strictly regulated and only used as a last resort. For instance, a family could not clone a child and then proceed to raise that child in their family and give him the same opportunities as the original child. Any human that is cloned would be closely watched for the rest of their life and it is very unlikely that a clone would ever be allowed out of a medical research facility. Therefore, there is no way that cloning could become a "regular social practice," because standards for cloning a child in particular would be extremely high and hard to reach. If a child were to be cloned, specific rules would have to be signed off on by a lawyer, the family, and multiple doctors and scientists before the procedure. The rules would include a part that insured that the family understood that the clone is being used for medical purposes and is in no way going to become a family member. The clone belongs to the sciences, and will be kept under the regulations of the doctors and scientists involved. The purpose of medical cloning of humans is not for the clones to have "actual feelings," but instead to cure a disease or help solve a medical problem.

Rebuttal to argument 3: The risks of the people involved in cloning, such as the ovum or nucleus donors, or the woman who receives the embryo for donation would have to be well aware of all of the risks. Again, a legal document would have to be signed by a lawyer, the person at risk, and multiple doctors and scientists. The procedure is not to be taken lightly, and for that reason, every precaution necessary would be taken, including making sure that everyone who is involved is aware of the risk. Next, because the clone will not have the same treatment as a natural-born human, as that they are being used for scientific purposes, the biological age will not be an issue. The clone will be aged based on what the doctors choose. While it took 277 times to clone a sheep, that breakthrough was a scientific miracle and was well worth the time and money. There is no denying that cloning is expensive and dangerous, but with the benefits and research that could be achieved, it is a risk worth taking (however, only as a last resort).

Rebuttal to argument 4: Human cloning is undeniably taking nature into one’s own hands. Most of science can be seen as such. However, the question of clones becoming their own race and potentially having everyone have the same genetic material is absurd. Based on the principles that we have laid, cloning is guaranteed to stay under control. Used only as a last resort means that there won’t be billions of clones wandering the earth. Also, in some cases, such as infertility or incurable diseases, nature needs to be taken into the hands of humans. In order to prolong the life of the human race, technology needs to be used to keep up with the ever-mutating diseases that are destroying our population.
Arjunaoh7

Con

Rebuttal to argument 2: If cloning is used to help women who are not able to produce children, there will be an over-population. Overpopulation could then lead to fewer resources for everyone, increased poverty, less space for everybody else, and we would be more susceptible to diseases.
In addition, if a child had gotten killed for whatever reason that mother could feel free to get their child cloned. However, this cloned child would not be the same as the original child. There are also many other solutions to women who can not have children. These alternatives include In Vitro Fertilization, sperm donors, surrogates, and adoption. These ways are much more effective and there is a much better chance that your child will be healthy. Why risk the health and safety of someone if there are better options out there?
Rebuttal to argument 3: If you need to get an organ from a human clone you would have to kill that person. It raises too many questions such as: if the person is an individual or if it is considered property? In this nation of America, every single person has undeniable rights including cloned people. Because of this, human cloning would lessen the worth of individuals and diminish respect for human life. These clones could also be subject to discrimination based on the fact that they are a human clone and not a product of sexual reproduction. In addition, human cloning would divert resources from other more important social and medical needs. The expected benefits from human cloning are limited and the funding could possibly be used in other areas that have more and better expected outcomes.
Rebuttal to argument 4: While cloning may be another way of providing treatments for many diseases, there are other more effective ways of finding treatments. As said before, cloning is very dangerous and there could many defects. It took 277 attempts to successfully clone the sheep Dolly. If you use these clones for treatments, this would be unethical because the clones get no rights. In this situation, they do not get a say in whether they want to be used in experiments. It is as if they are being treated as animals rather than human beings. In addition, it raises too many questions on whether these clones should be treated like experimental subjects for diseases.
Debate Round No. 3
shopkins7

Pro

Rebuttal to Rebuttal:

Argument 1: It is perfectly ethical to clone humans for the purpose of research. The research victims will be treated like patients of research. They would not have the same rights as every natural born human would have. Only clones born of human intent (egg clones) would have the same rights as other human beings. This would help with research for other biotechnology such as the cloning of organs and other important factors.

Argument 2: In the argument, it states that the cloning of an egg will lead to over population. However you imply that In Vitro fertilization does not. The cloning of an egg would aid in the process of In Vitro for women who cannot produce enough eggs. This would not cause over population because In Vitro fertilization is already legal. Also, we are talking about cloning the eggs in this case. Not dead people. As we have stated many times before, this would be last resort only. Also, to say that cloning humans would be ineffective is a false statement. Cloning humans still needs to be perfected and this is where the research would come into play. With research, cloning humans would become a great alternative.

Argument 3: Human cloning does not necessarily mean that the clone would have to be killed after a single organ is used. The successful process of cloning a healthy human into a healthy clone would allow for multiple organs and body parts to be used to benefit humans already in need. Under the standards set for clones, which would need to be legitimate legal documents, a clone would NOT have the same undeniable rights as a human born through sexual reproduction. This standard, along with the understanding that cloning is strictly being used as a last resort, would not only mean that clones do not have rights, but it would also mean that cloning, and the expenses involved in cloning, would not become a regular, everyday process. It is obvious that cloning requires large amount of money, but the benefits such as keeping multiple people alive through organ donations, seem to outweigh the detriments.

Argument 4: The ultimate goal of human cloning is to successfully end up with a healthy clone that can be used for vast amounts of medical research and technology. Yes, it took 277 times to clone a sheep, but that was progress. Everything in the medical community takes time, and eventually cloning will become less difficult. As stated multiple times, the clones would certainly be used strictly for medical purposes. We are in no way cloning humans to increases the living, working population. We are cloning humans to help find cures to diseases and allow for essentially unlimited testing. The standards of ethics, in relation to human cloning, will need to be changed. Clones will not have the same rights as humans, because they are not born with the same freedoms. Clones are created with a purpose. There are too many diseases in the world, such as AIDS and cancer, which are destroying our population due to a restriction on research. For this reason, clones would broaden the bounds by which scientists could test and create cures.
Arjunaoh7

Con

Arguments 1 and 2: In your original arguments you said that human cloning could help women who could not produce children. What changed your original argument to something where it would only be used for research? Even if cloning would only be used for things like research, this means that the clone is not considered an actual person but instead it is considered as an object. This also means that the clone would have no rights and would therefore have no say in anything. The situation that the clone is put in is considered unethical. Every human being has a right to have a unique identity and a right to ignorance about one’s future or to an “open future”, as stated in our first argument. It is not ethical to test on clones because there could be many implications. The cloning process itself is very dangerous. As already discussed, typical defects are malfunctioning lungs, a heart that doesn't work as it should, an imperfect immune system and abnormal size. In addition to something going wrong during the cloning process, so many things could go wrong while testing on these clones for treatments for diseases. Testing on human clones is just as bad as testing on animals. If something goes wrong during the testing, then that clone is stuck with that defect. It is not right to make them suffer for something that could potentially become a treatment.

Argument 3: If cloning costs a lot of money, and there are other means of getting organs to people, then why should cloning even have to be an option? Why wouldn’t a human clone have the same rights as a human being? So many questions arise from this one issue that there would be many complications. Human clones would have a mind of their own and who’s to say whether or not they would go along with any of this. Also, if you clone a human and use their organs for someone else there could potentially be something wrong with that organ. Because the process of cloning takes up so much time and costs too much money, it simply is just not worth it to go along with human cloning. There is no reason to put someone in danger like this for something that might not even work out.

Argument 4: Again, while you now state that human clones would be used strictly for research, your earlier arguments stated otherwise. Even so, if the cloning process was used only for research, it is a very dangerous process and there are many implications that come with human cloning. In addition, if humans begin to mess with nature, there could be many other problems. No doctor, scientist, or geneticist has or should be given the power to create life by means of genetic technology. Such power is lethal and could be abused. No mortal is above the natural law, and to tamper with nature equals disaster.


Debate Round No. 4
shopkins7

Pro

Closing Statement:

The cloning of humans is an ethical scientific advancement that should be pursued. The many benefits of cloning, such as the vast amounts of available study of the human body, research for diseases, assistance to infertile women, and the possibility of eventually finding a cure for fatal illnesses all outweigh the disadvantages. The question of what rights a clone would have and how a clone should be treated in society are all irrelevant. Clones would be created for medical research purposes only, and thus would not be given the same rights as a typical human being. Also, since the cloning of humans would be strictly used as a last resort and only in extreme cases, the objection that cloning would increase the human population and create a new race is extraneous. It is obvious that human cloning is a medical miracle that would greatly strengthen the medical and scientific community. Prohibiting the action of human cloning shows a lack of intelligence and an irrational fear against absurd results. In conclusion, the cloning of humans is an entirely ethical biotechnological method, and should be legalized all over the world. If you have a heart, and believe in the advancement of technology, science, and medicine, than vote Pro for Human Cloning.
Arjunaoh7

Con


We thank the opposing team, Sarah and Madison, for their challenge. However, we firmly believe that cloning humans for any reason is an unnecessary, dangerous, and ineffective process. Cloning humans is nothing more than a path that will lead to more ethical questions about the value of a human life. When it comes to any problems, human life is most important to us; people who support cloning do not have people in their best interest. They do not see the enormous amount of negatives that are associated with cloning humans including psychological damage to the clone of a human, overpopulation, and the potential to abuse such a powerful tool. Our opposition made some reasonable points for cloning humans such as single and infertile parents could have children, and certain people could be saved. Nevertheless, in contrast to all the positives of human cloning, the negatives related to the subject, mostly moral and ethical negatives coming from ethicists, psychologists, theologians and the church, as well as many mandated laws against the cloning of humans outweigh any benefits. Our main points highlight the difficult and danger with cloning; Dolly the sheep was only successful after 277 failed cloned sheep. We are concerned with how people will respond to the products of cloning, mainly how clones will be used. Are they considered individuals with rights or are they only seen as livestock waited to be slaughtered? Are they even considered people or just property? We see their views on cloning but we believe it is best of for the human race if cloning humans left alone. Cloning itself can be detrimental to society because of one thing: it does not causing a change in the gene pool. The same genes are being expressed, causing no biodiversity to occur. As a result, less organisms are able to adapt to a changing environment and species may even go extinct. In conclusion, the entire debate on human cloning boils down to one question, do the debatable benefits of human cloning outweigh the ethical and moral abuses? Scientists , Madi and Sarah want the world to believe that the answer to that question is yes. However, the ethical violations and scientific uncertainties far outweigh any possible benefits that human cloning could bring. Please don’t just vote for us, vote to save the world.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by iliak 5 months ago
iliak
Good debate. However, I disagree with the debate's results. Science and technology are two great fields especially when they improve, but creating a human clone is way far beyond acceptable. Creating clones just to use them for research or whatever reason is just unethical. Aristotle once said in order for humans to be happy, they have to be ethical. And just like what was mentioned in the debate, no mortal is above the natural law, and to tamper with nature equals disaster. I believe creating human clones will lead to unexpected problems. People have always been finding natural solutions for their diseases, and at the same time, other people were dying of the same disease. That is not because one's medication was better than the other, but because it's this person's destiny. Even if human clones got legalized in the future, it doesn't mean that will be work successfully for everyone. It all depends on your destiny. So let's not defy God's creation of our nature and focus on better medications for diseases instead of wasting money and time on an infective process as human cloning. Thank you.
Posted by Enivitable 5 years ago
Enivitable
I personally don't think cloning should be used as a means of reproduction, but the arguments that it could lead to defects isn't substantial. Using this logic people with genetic diseases wouldn't be allowed to breed.
Posted by gavin.ogden 5 years ago
gavin.ogden
Good debate all the way around, but on the whole, pro made the logical arguments. Thanks for the debate everyone.
Posted by dylanandtimpareweenies7 5 years ago
dylanandtimpareweenies7
this is terrible. im going to vote bomb you
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by dylanandtimpareweenies7 5 years ago
dylanandtimpareweenies7
shopkins7Arjunaoh7Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by gavin.ogden 5 years ago
gavin.ogden
shopkins7Arjunaoh7Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
shopkins7Arjunaoh7Tied
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