The Instigator
david0306
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
SarcasticIndeed
Con (against)
Winning
16 Points

Human cloning should be legalized

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 3 votes the winner is...
SarcasticIndeed
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/20/2012 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,744 times Debate No: 23010
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (3)

 

david0306

Pro

Produced with their own rights and life, a replica of a human being should walk on earth.
If there is the abillity to clone a human being, it should happen.
Why?
Exponentially the produce and usefulness crease by doubles and triples.
science can potentially advance greatly
SarcasticIndeed

Con

I accept the challenge. Since Pro posed no rules, I'll give the basics:

1. No semantics.
2. A forfeit results in loss.
3. Dropping an argument results in loss of a conduct point

I'd also like to note that since human cloning is not possible today, the resolution should be "Human cloning should be legalized when it becomes possible."

I look forward to an interesting debate.
Debate Round No. 1
david0306

Pro

In this debate, for I am not a professional nor do I know much of these "rules," I would like to keep it simple; let us see who reigns supreme with words and not rules.

Human Cloning (hypothetically speaking) should be legalized because:

Human cloning technology is expected to result in several miraculous medical breakthroughs. We may be able to cure cancer if cloning leads to a better understanding of cell differentiation. Theories exist about how cloning may lead to a cure for heart attacks, a revolution in cosmetic surgery, organs for organ transplantation, and predictions abound about how cloning technology will save thousands of lives.

People whose lives have been destroyed or have not been able to reproduce in this lifetime due to tragedy could arrange to have their DNA continued and fund research at the same time. For example: A boy graduates from high school at age 18. He goes to a pool party to celebrate. He confuses the deep end and shallow end and dives head first into the pool, breaking his neck and becoming a quadriplegic. At age 19 he has his first urinary tract infection because of an indwelling urinary catheter and continues to suffer from them the rest of his life. At age 20 he comes down with herpes zoster of the trigeminal nerve. He suffers chronic unbearable pain. At age 21 he inherits a 10 million dollar trust fund. He never marries or has children. At age 40 after hearing about Dolly being a clone, he changes his will and has his DNA stored for future human cloning. His future mother will be awarded one million dollars to have him and raise him. His DNA clone will inherit a trust fund. He leaves five million to spinal cord research. He dies feeling that although he was robbed of normal life, his twin/clone will lead a better life.

With human cloning you could give a couple in the future both a child from your DNA and the financial assets from your lifetime to start out financially secure instead of struggling as most couples do now.

Through the research leading up to human cloning we will perfect the technology to clone animals, and thus we could forever preserve endangered species, including human beings.
SarcasticIndeed

Con

I thank Pro for posing his argument. I will go on and refute the posted arguments and then pose. However, prior to that, I'd like to define cloning:

clone
Noun
1. A cell, group of cells, or organism that is produced asexually from and is genetically identical to a single ancestor.

Verb
1. To produce or grow a cell, group of cells, or organism from a single original cell.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

Thus, human cloning is producing a human organism or its cells whose cells are identical to its ancestor. Cloning that produces cells for the sake of medicine is therapeutic cloning. Cloning a human is called reproductive cloning. [1] Thus, my objective in this debate is to prove why both are wrong.

Rebuttals:

"Human cloning technology is expected to result in several miraculous medical breakthroughs. We may be able to cure cancer if cloning leads to a better understanding of cell differentiation. Theories exist about how cloning may lead to a cure for heart attacks, a revolution in cosmetic surgery, organs for organ transplantation, and predictions abound about how cloning technology will save thousands of lives."

Everything in this paragraph is merely prediction and expectations. There is currently no way we can know that therapeutic cloning could backfire. Then there's the chance that mutations will arise, and create. "Stem cells have sometimes mutated, and thus been rejected by the recipient's body. In other cases, at least with experiments on animals, they have produced tumors. It is obvious that therapeutic cloning will not be feasible until these deficiencies have been overcome." [2] Therapeutic cloning can potentially create tumors, or, possibly, even worse cases. We cannot know when we will overcome these problems, or if even such cases can be overcome. In the end, we can never know whether or not complications will happen, no matter how much we develop the technology of cloning. Using therapeutic cloning is essentially either survive or worsen your state, possibly die.

"People whose lives have been destroyed or have not been able to reproduce in this lifetime due to tragedy could arrange to have their DNA continued and fund research at the same time. For example: A boy graduates from high school at age 18. He goes to a pool party to celebrate. He confuses the deep end and shallow end and dives head first into the pool, breaking his neck and becoming a quadriplegic. At age 19 he has his first urinary tract infection because of an indwelling urinary catheter and continues to suffer from them the rest of his life. At age 20 he comes down with herpes zoster of the trigeminal nerve. He suffers chronic unbearable pain. At age 21 he inherits a 10 million dollar trust fund. He never marries or has children. At age 40 after hearing about Dolly being a clone, he changes his will and has his DNA stored for future human cloning. His future mother will be awarded one million dollars to have him and raise him. His DNA clone will inherit a trust fund. He leaves five million to spinal cord research. He dies feeling that although he was robbed of normal life, his twin/clone will lead a better life."

Now, this talks about reproductive cloning. To this, I just pose a question: Why would this guy want a copy of him to live a better life? The money factor means nothing here. His future mother might get money, but that doesn't matter in this case. So, this guy, who had a pretty sucky life, creates a clone just so he could live while he could not? I don't see how this is good for him.

First, let's note that a theist wouldn't like to create a human being, since it goes against his religion. So let's say he's an atheist. Still, this copy of himself is just a fake, it isn't himself. He just stole his identity and poses as him. He won't live a life through him, he won't feel anything he does. And, really, what's the point of creating a being just so it could enjoy life? Not to mention that this being might just be an empty shell, soulless. I, personally would see this clone as an impostor, he's not a real human, just artificially produced to be exact like me. I pretty much think everyone wants to have his identity. Cloning would destroy the sense of identity, because you can be recreated a billion times.

"With human cloning you could give a couple in the future both a child from your DNA and the financial assets from your lifetime to start out financially secure instead of struggling as most couples do now."

Giving children to a couple can be done through other means, and cloning is totally redundant in this way. People donate sperm, have surrogate mothers. There's no reason to create children by cloning, when we have ways to do it today, way more simpler. And I'm not going to talk about finances. The couple would be given money for mostly scientific research, to see how the child will develop, however, this makes no difference in the case. Just because people get money by raising clones doesn't mean it should get legalized.

"Through the research leading up to human cloning we will perfect the technology to clone animals, and thus we could forever preserve endangered species, including human beings."

The animal part has nothing to do with the topic, so I won't talk about it. About the endangered species, it might seem beneficial in the first place. However, preserving humans through cloning will still seem highly unethical to many, and, again, identities will be stolen. We, the extinct humans won't feel their lives, and will have no benefit by cloning them.

My Arguments:

Reproductive Cloning

1. If reproductive cloning was allowed, many, many theists would go against this and rebel. In fact, not only theists, but all pro-lifers. That's because, in order to create a clone, you have to kill an existing embryo [3]. This is, technically, killing a living being. Thus, many religious people will be against reproductive cloning.
2. Another religious objection would be that creation is for God, we would be immoral to try and create a human life.
3. The cloned human might have a defect we cannot know about. Such defect could potentially not be found out by an ultrasound. This would lead in a human born with a defect. Now, we don't want to create those, can we? [3]
4. If cloning was done in large scales, there would be less genetic diversity in the world. We want genetic diversity, as it leads to evolution [3].
5. Again, we cannot know what kind of a defect might the produced human have. We could create a potentially terminal disease. We will never be able to totally manipulate our DNA to make this impossible.
6. I'll bring up the identity case again. People don't want exact copies of them laying around. They want to be unique, one and only. If cloning was possible, this kind of identity would vanish.

Therapeutic Cloning

1. This kind of cloning as well includes destroying an embryo, and thus, many people will go against it. [2]
2. It is estimated that we need a 100 eggs to produce a usable stem cell line. "This means that if a cure for diabetes involving therapeutic cloning is found, it would take 1.5 billion eggs to cure the 15 million Americans who have diabetes." [2] And, then, removing eggs from a woman is both painful and costly [2]. It could also cause injuries. Thus, it would take a large amount of women to donate their eggs, paying a lot and with the risk of having an injury just to wipe out diabetes.
3. Once again, I mention the defect point. There's no way we can guarantee that therapeutic cloning won't produce a defect, potentially very dangerous.


To sum up, for these reasons, cloning shouldn't be legalized. Religions and pro-lifers are strongly against it. It would potentially cause defects and diseases, leading to possible death. Cloning requires taking a cell for a woman, which is painful and might cause injuries. I believe I had managed to explain why cloning shouldn't be legalized.

Sources in comments.


Debate Round No. 2
david0306

Pro

david0306 forfeited this round.
SarcasticIndeed

Con

My opponent has forfeited the last round, leaving my arguments strong and his refuted. I urge everyone to vote CON.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by SarcasticIndeed 2 years ago
SarcasticIndeed
I hope you manage to make your argument in time.
Posted by SarcasticIndeed 2 years ago
SarcasticIndeed
I must say, this is an interesting topic to talk about.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
david0306SarcasticIndeedTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con gets points due to FF and the only person who actualy used a source
Vote Placed by imabench 2 years ago
imabench
david0306SarcasticIndeedTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: dismantled argument plus an ill timed forfeit equals a well earned win for the con
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 2 years ago
1dustpelt
david0306SarcasticIndeedTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: ff