The Instigator
DrStrangeLuv
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
dinokiller
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Human cloning should be permitted

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 2 votes the winner is...
DrStrangeLuv
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/27/2010 Category: Science
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,887 times Debate No: 13495
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (21)
Votes (2)

 

DrStrangeLuv

Pro

I contend that the US should legalize human cloning (let us also assume it is non-government funded).

I am starting this debate because I want to see where it will lead me. I am asking Con to build his case first. Thanks.
dinokiller

Con

Well, I can't make much of it now with this.
Are you bringing the idea to clone for the society or for science?

And you as pro, you should actually build up the case why we should allow human cloning.

The answer lies in yours.
Debate Round No. 1
DrStrangeLuv

Pro

Sorry to Con for the confusing start. I will make my case now. I am referring to reproductive cloning and not therapeutic cloning. My contention is that making clones of human beings, in an attempt to produce fully grown adults, should be permitted and accepted by society and the government. Stem cells are not part of the argument, but if my opponent can make some viable reference to them I will take it into consideration.

A) Ethics

1) Many are opposed to the idea that cloning defies some unwritten law of ethics. As it stands now, there is no explicit law in the US Constitution that prohibits it. There are laws however, which ban the use of public funds for it. That is not to say that private scientists can do it though.

2) Many people become frightened at the thought of clones. It is however, happening all the time, and practiced exclusively by the progenitor of life, mother nature. Identical twins are clones. Sometimes during pregnancy, an zygote splits, resulting in two genetically identical fetus' [1]. Both humans produced by this are by and large accepted by soceity, despite the fact that one of them is a clone.

3) Scientists practice In-vitro fertilization, in which an egg is fertilized outside the human body, and then replaced back into the uterus. Arguments which state that a government would use cloning to produce armies should in theory already be capable with regular In-vitro fertilization. Sure, the babies would not be identical, but they would provide the manpower necessary for an army.

4) Assuming that a clone would be physically identical to another clone is acceptable. Assuming they are mentally similar would be false. It is clear that natural identical twins do not share the exact same thoughts and feelings. While genetics do play a part in personality, most of it is attributable to environmental conditions, upbringing, and other factors as well [2].

5) Clones would be protected by law and be given the same rights as other US citizens, and would be treated as human beings. I say this because artificially created humans (In-Vitro) and identical twins both share the same rights as we do, so there should be no outcry or alarm if we combine the two.

6) Clones used for the harvesting of organs would be illegal as clones would be protected by constitutional law, just as we are.

=====

So far I have established that scientists are permitted to create human life through In-vitro fertilization, and that natural clones do live around. Why not combine the two and allow scientists to create clones? In closing, I'd like to say that this debate really is more of a thought experiment for me.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
dinokiller

Con

What you mean now is that you want to allow cloning so that those clones can live along us, no?
Anyway thank you for your case, time for some rebuttal.

1) Many are opposed to the idea that cloning defies some unwritten law of ethics. As it stands now, there is no explicit law in the US Constitution that prohibits it. There are laws however, which ban the use of public funds for it. That is not to say that private scientists can do it though.

This subject is to decide whether reproductive cloning should be allowed or not.
This source clearly states that the WHOLE USA has banned reproductive cloning and for some others allowed therapeutic cloning.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org...

2) Many people become frightened at the thought of clones. It is however, happening all the time, and practiced exclusively by the progenitor of life, mother nature. Identical twins are clones. Sometimes during pregnancy, an zygote splits, resulting in two genetically identical fetus' [1]. Both humans produced by this are by and large accepted by soceity, despite the fact that one of them is a clone.

You are almost right, but you forgot something. The zygote splits 2 different eggcells, NOT FETUS. Also, 2 different sperms are there to fertilize the 2 eggcells. This is not really a clone, but its nearly a clone.
Your source here proves it.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

3) Scientists practice In-vitro fertilization, in which an egg is fertilized outside the human body, and then replaced back into the uterus. Arguments which state that a government would use cloning to produce armies should in theory already be capable with regular In-vitro fertilization. Sure, the babies would not be identical, but they would provide the manpower necessary for an army.

The Army already has enough manpower, why you need the extra manpower?
Or are you planning to create an army of clones to declare war?
Even more reasons to ban cloning.

4) Assuming that a clone would be physically identical to another clone is acceptable. Assuming they are mentally similar would be false. It is clear that natural identical twins do not share the exact same thoughts and feelings. While genetics do play a part in personality, most of it is attributable to environmental conditions, upbringing, and other factors as well [2].

I kinda feel weird, you contradicted yourself. A clone is if every trait is 100% from the same of the person you wanted to clone. We all know that twins all are different.

5) Clones would be protected by law and be given the same rights as other US citizens, and would be treated as human beings. I say this because artificially created humans (In-Vitro) and identical twins both share the same rights as we do, so there should be no outcry or alarm if we combine the two.

This has nothing to do with wether we allow cloning or not, you are now trying to solve the problems IF cloning was allowed.

6) Clones used for the harvesting of organs would be illegal as clones would be protected by constitutional law, just as we are.

Yes, you are absolutely right, cloning something just to rip his heart out for the hospital is just inhuman.
But this alone also has nothing to do with this, you are now again trying to picture a problem that might show up if clones were allowed.

I have refuted all your points and even proven that twins aren't perse clones.
If you can't give any reasons anymore why we should allow reproductive cloning, i win the debate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My arguments why reproductive cloning shouldn't be allowed:

1. Raising the population comes with serious problems.
One of them is the food demand. More people means more food.
If we clone so much, we end up eating more then we can produce.

2. The problem also lies in society.
If the population is high, then it means more people working.
But, what if the work isnt avaible for them? People can land on the streets without home because of being jobless.
Even now, there are people unemployed, adding the population raises the amount of people without jobs.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

3. Identical traits.
A clone has same traits and everything, even fingerprints! Having a clone means that your clone can commit murder and pin it on you without showing himself because your fingerprints are left behind.
This also adds the amount of crimes.

That was my arguments :P
Debate Round No. 2
DrStrangeLuv

Pro

==Original Pro Contentions and Con Counters==

1) In certain states, yes, there is a ban on cloning. But there is no federal law prohibiting it, and some states do allow it. To quote my source: "Current regulations prohibit federal funding for research into human cloning, which effectively prevents such research from occurring in public institutions and private institutions such as universities which receive federal funding. However, there are currently no federal laws in the United States which ban cloning completely, and any such laws would raise difficult Constitutional questions similar to the issues raised by abortion." Source: http://en.wikipedia.org....
---It is safe to say that cloning is legal in some parts of the US.

2) At first I felt shock that I had been lied to through my years of college biology, but then realised you misread the source. To quote my source: "Twins can either be identical (in scientific usage, "monozygotic"), meaning that they develop from one zygote that splits and forms two embryos, or fraternal ("dizygotic") because they develop from two separate eggs that are fertilized by two separate sperm." Source: http://en.wikipedia.org...
---What Con was describing was "fraternal" twins, which do not share any DNA. I am referring to "identical" twins, which are exact physical clones of each other.

3) I brought up the whole "cloning an army" issue to demonstrate that it is possible to raise an army without making clones of people. You can just fertilize eggs In-vitro (since both clones and "real" fetuses require a surrogate mother) with sperm from militarily efficient men. Cloning doesn't necessarily lead to this kind of reproductive abuse, since it is already possible and has not happened. So it is not a reason to ban cloning.

4) My opponent claims that "A clone is if every trait is 100% from the same of the person you wanted to clone. We all know that twins all are different."
a) Identical twins are genetically the same. But without a doubt they are mentally different. This is because personality is more than just genetics; it is affected by the environment you live in, the upbringing you had, and what outside ideas you are exposed to.
b) I am not contradicting myself; I am bringing to light the fact that some people may think human clones are going to all act exactly the same, making them predictable and not unique, an important human quality. In fact, they will all be, at least personality wise, unique.

5) I was trying to highlight that since the process needed to clone, and the fact that natural clones do exist, that it should be legal to clone.

6) I'm glad we can agree clones will not be abused this way.

In summary, Con did not refute any points, and ceded two of them. So far, the favor is on my side.

==Pro Counter to Con Contentions==

1) I agree that raising the population will cause food problems, but given the expensiveness of the cloning procedure, will it actually produce enough clones to significantly increase the food demand? As for the food supply itself, perhaps cloning could solve it. Imagine cloning the best of the best livestock, increasing the quality of the meat in stores and the health of everyone who eats it. There are also other wasteful ways humans contribute to population growth, such as a lack of contraception education.

2) I would like to combine my opponent's 1 & 2 contentions and say that my individual freedom to clone myself should not be restricted by the government for a socialist agenda. Not enough food or jobs? The government doesn't stop In-vitro for these reasons. The government also doesn't go around giving abortions to pregnant women for these reasons. Why should my rights be restricted for the faults of others? It is clairvoyant to say that the economy will not improve, America has been through worse times, and who knows, maybe there will be a high demand for workers in the future.

3) This is already possible with identical clones, since they too share fingerprints. I do not how often this occurs, but I'm sure the presence of a clone would be taken into consideration in a murder case. There are other ways to prove ones innocence.
Actually there are some very weird circumstances in which paternity can not be matched because the father actually has 2 separate strands of DNA in his cells. I forgot the name of the condition, but it was fascinating. Not relevant, but fun nonetheless.
To say clones will add to the amount of crimes is to say clones will be inherently evil. Some clones might be evil, yes, but perhaps some will make great contributions to society by continuing where the person they were cloned from left off. Interesting ideas. I mean could you imagine a clone of Albert Einstein picking up where his "father" left off, assuming he was working side by side with the original and was taught all he knew. But I suppose the same could be said for Hitler, so I'd like to offer this contention as a moot point because it could go either way.

==Conclusion==

My rights as an individual should not be restricted for social reasons. The same way guns are legal because it is a right, but still are detrimental to society. If I do not wish to marry, or conceive with another person, and cloning is an option, then I should be able to. Simple as that. I await rebuttal.
dinokiller

Con

Right, sadly my biology isn't sharp either.

1) In certain states, yes, there is a ban on cloning. But there is no federal law prohibiting it, and some states do allow it. To quote my source: "Current regulations prohibit federal funding for research into human cloning, which effectively prevents such research from occurring in public institutions and private institutions such as universities which receive federal funding. However, there are currently no federal laws in the United States which ban cloning completely, and any such laws would raise difficult Constitutional questions similar to the issues raised by abortion." Source: http://en.wikipedia.org.......
---It is safe to say that cloning is legal in some parts of the US.

That is right, but WHOLE USA prevents funding the researches of cloning.
With no research and tools to make a clone because they aren't willing to fund is logically because they don't allow cloning, its that simple, even your source there says it.

2) At first I felt shock that I had been lied to through my years of college biology, but then realised you misread the source. To quote my source: "Twins can either be identical (in scientific usage, "monozygotic"), meaning that they develop from one zygote that splits and forms two embryos, or fraternal ("dizygotic") because they develop from two separate eggs that are fertilized by two separate sperm." Source: http://en.wikipedia.org......
---What Con was describing was "fraternal" twins, which do not share any DNA. I am referring to "identical" twins, which are exact physical clones of each other

Twins are born at same time but both living a different way. Its made of 2 different sperms so basically, ITS NOT THE SAME. Yes, the traiths are the same but fingerprints, still isnt the same.
http://multiples.about.com...

3) I brought up the whole "cloning an army" issue to demonstrate that it is possible to raise an army without making clones of people. You can just fertilize eggs In-vitro (since both clones and "real" fetuses require a surrogate mother) with sperm from militarily efficient men. Cloning doesn't necessarily lead to this kind of reproductive abuse, since it is already possible and has not happened. So it is not a reason to ban cloning.

It affects the army actually, you think normal people now these days doesn't want to join the army?
Yes, it may not be a reason to ban cloning, but its not a reason to make it legal either.

4) My opponent claims that "A clone is if every trait is 100% from the same of the person you wanted to clone. We all know that twins all are different."
a) Identical twins are genetically the same. But without a doubt they are mentally different. This is because personality is more than just genetics; it is affected by the environment you live in, the upbringing you had, and what outside ideas you are exposed to.
b) I am not contradicting myself; I am bringing to light the fact that some people may think human clones are going to all act exactly the same, making them predictable and not unique, an important human quality. In fact, they will all be, at least personality wise, unique.

Yes, twins are the same, BUT because they both have lived in a different environment, of course they are mentally different. Clones however, are perfectly identical, psychical and mentally.

5) I was trying to highlight that since the process needed to clone, and the fact that natural clones do exist, that it should be legal to clone

You have then proven this has nothing to do with this debate.
Go debate for a clone rights or something.

6) I'm glad we can agree clones will not be abused this way

Hehe, we all are humans too you know, but anyway this has nothing to do with this debate.

Refuting his old claims, i go back to mine.
His arguments:

1) I agree that raising the population will cause food problems, but given the expensiveness of the cloning procedure, will it actually produce enough clones to significantly increase the food demand? As for the food supply itself, perhaps cloning could solve it. Imagine cloning the best of the best livestock, increasing the quality of the meat in stores and the health of everyone who eats it. There are also other wasteful ways humans contribute to population growth, such as a lack of contraception education.

Hmm, it can be helpful IF it was used the way to clone animals for more food.
But even so, where is your source saying that they were planning to do so?

2) I would like to combine my opponent's 1 & 2 contentions and say that my individual freedom to clone myself should not be restricted by the government for a socialist agenda. Not enough food or jobs? The government doesn't stop In-vitro for these reasons. The government also doesn't go around giving abortions to pregnant women for these reasons. Why should my rights be restricted for the faults of others? It is clairvoyant to say that the economy will not improve, America has been through worse times, and who knows, maybe there will be a high demand for workers in the future.

You do now understand this point, people die and babies gets born, its a natural cycle.
Making clones disturbs the cycle, having more people coming then dying, it affects the society.

3) This is already possible with identical clones, since they too share fingerprints. I do not how often this occurs, but I'm sure the presence of a clone would be taken into consideration in a murder case. There are other ways to prove ones innocence.
Actually there are some very weird circumstances in which paternity can not be matched because the father actually has 2 separate strands of DNA in his cells. I forgot the name of the condition, but it was fascinating. Not relevant, but fun nonetheless.
To say clones will add to the amount of crimes is to say clones will be inherently evil. Some clones might be evil, yes, but perhaps some will make great contributions to society by continuing where the person they were cloned from left off. Interesting ideas. I mean could you imagine a clone of Albert Einstein picking up where his "father" left off, assuming he was working side by side with the original and was taught all he knew. But I suppose the same could be said for Hitler, so I'd like to offer this contention as a moot point because it could go either way.

We need to adept and learn from our ancestors. Albert Einstein gave us clues about his science and we took it along us knowledge and continued with the study. If you suddenly created a clone of Einstein, its the same as asking the same person over and over again to study for us.

Refuted, happy? + 5 and 6 has nothing to do with this
Debate Round No. 3
DrStrangeLuv

Pro

My biology is as a sharp as they come :) I've been a pre-med at SBU for 4 years now.

==Pro Counters==

1) When I started the debate, I laid the groundwork that government funding would be illegal, thus this is irrelevant. But, scientists can find funding from other sources, it does not strictly have to be from the government.

2) Identical twins have identical DNA. They are formed when a zygote splits in two, forming two identical embryos. The source you quoted even says: "Identical -- or monozygotic -- twins form when a single fertilized egg splits in two after conception." The single fertilized egg has only been fertilized by ONE sperm, not two, since it is only biologically possible for an egg to be fertilized by one sperm [1].

3) I'm making the point that the government will not make clones to take over the army since In-vitro has not done so already. Your contention only adds to my assertion. Thank you.

4) Con seems to miss the point on this issue. Identical twins are genetically the same, and clones are genetically the same, but since personality is determined by environment, upbringing and ideas exposed to, both clones and identical twins will be mentally unique. For the remainder of this debate, clones and identical twins are one in the same in regards to genetic similarity. Since it is almost impossible to reproduce exact living conditions for clones, as it is for identical twins, they end up as mentally different, unique individuals.

5) I'm making the point that since the procedures to make a clone are legal, and since clones already exist naturally, that there should be no problem to artificially create a clone. It is quite relevant to this debate.

6) Once again, a commonly held contention for the abuse of clones is negated by me, and my opponent agrees. It very much has to do with the debate because it outlines one of the fears of cloning.

==Con Contentions & Pro Rebuttal==

1) Of course I am speaking hypothetically, this debate is hypothetical in nature. If we assume that humans are being cloned, is it so far-fetched to assume that maybe animals are being cloned as well for food. I mean, animals have been cloned already (fact), and since it does solve the food problem, would it not be possible?

2) Yes, people die and babies are born, but its the way the babies are CONCEIVED is what I am referring to. The US government already allows In-vitro babies to be conceived and born, so why is it so wrong if cloned babies are allowed to be conceived and born? You seem like you are making the contention that no help should be given to couples trying to artificially conceive (In-vitro) since it will "throw off the cycle" of births and deaths. This is a bad argument, and one that goes against current US policy.

3) If we created a clone of Einstein, that clone would hopefully contain all of the curiosity and brilliance of the original (if it was genetically passed down that is). He would be able to expand upon the ideas of the original and continue where the original Einstein had left off. It would probably NOT be like asking "the same person over and over again to study for us."

==Pro Contentions==

Once again, I ask why my personal freedom to clone myself should be hindered. Con has not presented a suitable argument to this contention yet.

==Conclusion==

I have refuted my opponents arguments, and I have sustained my own. As far as I am concerned my opponent has done nothing, or at least very little, to damage my argument. With my understanding of biology, I have made the most truthful contentions I can conjure. Each round my opponent has claimed to have disproved me, but I have proved him wrong in regards to each point, in addition to him inadvertently ceding a few of them to me. I ask that the voters put aside their personal opinions on the matter and vote based off of the arguments presented here in this forum. I thank my opponent for accepting this debate, and I hope he had as much fun as I did during it.

Vote Pro

[1] http://www.ornl.gov...
dinokiller

Con

Lol i didn't had much time either at previous round since i only got a 20 minute break...anyway...
Dont forget you are facing a 15 year old student here :P

1) When I started the debate, I laid the groundwork that government funding would be illegal, thus this is irrelevant. But, scientists can find funding from other sources, it does not strictly have to be from the government.

You've proven my point, illegal funding = illegal. Using the illegal fund to create clone = illegal.
Conclusion? Its illegal, stop bothering it.

2) Identical twins have identical DNA. They are formed when a zygote splits in two, forming two identical embryos. The source you quoted even says: "Identical -- or monozygotic -- twins form when a single fertilized egg splits in two after conception." The single fertilized egg has only been fertilized by ONE sperm, not two, since it is only biologically possible for an egg to be fertilized by one sperm [1].

Yes, you are right since i failed in biology... BUT, it doesn't explain why an identical twin has 2 different fingerprint and a clone has the same fingerprint. They may look like same, but even a close up examination proves its 2 different prints.
Source: http://www.straightdope.com...

3) I'm making the point that the government will not make clones to take over the army since In-vitro has not done so already. Your contention only adds to my assertion. Thank you.

No, it doesn't. Your suggestion was this:
"Scientists practice In-vitro fertilization, in which an egg is fertilized outside the human body, and then replaced back into the uterus. Arguments which state that a government would use cloning to produce armies should in theory already be capable with regular In-vitro fertilization. Sure, the babies would not be identical, but they would provide the manpower necessary for an army."

I should've looked this into a different way.
I tell you this, woman gets pregnant, they get baby.
But, what if the woman can't get pregnant and wants a child? There is the In-vitro fetilization for the problem.
But, you think that because In-vitro is allowed, cloning should be allowed as well.
No it isnt the same sadly, because the the procedures of those 2 are entirely different.
In-vitro requires you to inject an egg into a woman for it to grow.
Cloning is to make an identical someone by using another living organism sample to create the same thing as the sample.

Of course, you said that we all can use In-vitro just to create an army, but no one wants to help the army by getting injected with an egg and then borning a baby that later gets forced to join the army. Of course you CANT force them, so thats out of question.
Cloning is also the same, if a person DOESNT want to be cloned, THEN YOU CANT DO IT.
Forcing people is illegal and if you plan on legalizing cloning, why do you need those huge amount of people then?
This is something for the society to decide, if they don't want to, they won't agree with you.
Sadly, you can't give back an answe because i already refuted you.

4) Con seems to miss the point on this issue. Identical twins are genetically the same, and clones are genetically the same, but since personality is determined by environment, upbringing and ideas exposed to, both clones and identical twins will be mentally unique. For the remainder of this debate, clones and identical twins are one in the same in regards to genetic similarity. Since it is almost impossible to reproduce exact living conditions for clones, as it is for identical twins, they end up as mentally different, unique individuals.

Great, now you bring up a story that a clone doesn't have the same mental as the original?
Now I ask you, HOW did you know that, since there has been NO clones created in this world, only attempts...and failed. If you cant bring me the source, i regard this as false.
Identical twins, started as baby as you know and how their minds evolves is up to them.
Conclusion? You cant compare identical twins with clones as they are nearly the same but not the same.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org...

5) I'm making the point that since the procedures to make a clone are legal, and since clones already exist naturally, that there should be no problem to artificially create a clone. It is quite relevant to this debate.

Let the society decide whether we allow human cloning or not.

6) Once again, a commonly held contention for the abuse of clones is negated by me, and my opponent agrees. It very much has to do with the debate because it outlines one of the fears of cloning.

Oh and why do you think they fear of the clones?
And if they fear of the clones, do you think they still want to allow cloning?
And if they don't fear clones, do you still think this argument was needed?
Conclusion: IRRELEVANT

----------------------------------------------------
1) Of course I am speaking hypothetically, this debate is hypothetical in nature. If we assume that humans are being cloned, is it so far-fetched to assume that maybe animals are being cloned as well for food. I mean, animals have been cloned already (fact), and since it does solve the food problem, would it not be possible?

Maybe I shouldn't brought up the fact of this since i didn't understand what a reproductive cloning was.
But, even a slight mistake has its risks like carrying a deadly virus in it or deforming it.
We know that animals has been cloned, but they all end up dying very shortly and after 1 of the 277 attempts, a lamb has survived to adulthood before dying. Its even affected by Arthritite, an infection that something we ALL dont want.

2) Yes, people die and babies are born, but its the way the babies are CONCEIVED is what I am referring to. The US government already allows In-vitro babies to be conceived and born, so why is it so wrong if cloned babies are allowed to be conceived and born? You seem like you are making the contention that no help should be given to couples trying to artificially conceive (In-vitro) since it will "throw off the cycle" of births and deaths. This is a bad argument, and one that goes against current US policy.

No, im not against In-vitro since its a process where real eggcells are fertilized and then injected into a woman.
Cloning is by creating a same person, which we all are against. (Reason why its illegal in first place)
Don't mix those 2 things together and have me think that its the same.

3) If we created a clone of Einstein, that clone would hopefully contain all of the curiosity and brilliance of the original (if it was genetically passed down that is). He would be able to expand upon the ideas of the original and continue where the original Einstein had left off. It would probably NOT be like asking "the same person over and over again to study for us."

No, it is asking the same person over and over again.
And think about the technology of then and now. Do you still think Einstein can help us after he fell so far backwards from technology after dying? There will be more people there who can take over from Einstein.
Einstein already has done his thing for us and we can continue the progress of his research on our own.

My conclusion
-------------------------------------
I have refuted every last argument pro has dished on me and I can continue doing this if he keeps asking the same thing. You keep thinking that i haven't refuted it yet or poorly, but you just see it wrong.
Your arguments can't prove whether we should allow cloning or not and i have refuted it for you.

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 4
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Lboomboom 6 years ago
Lboomboom
referring to how identical twins are clones, i resent that as they are not intentional, but rather accidental clones. What i see is being promoted here is intentional cloning. I dont think that fact proves that human cloning should be permitted.
Posted by Rodriguez47 6 years ago
Rodriguez47
Identical Twins don't have the same desires, their phenotype can vary and change at will. They don't always like or dislike the same people they are unique from each other in ways. But to clone oneself or a specific human such as yourself is an atrocity. You may not be familiar on how the human mind develops but when one encounters another taking ones position it will become hostile. An example i saw was this movie in which a man was cloned, he went home to his family and saw himself threw the window, he saw he could not have such life knowing that he was just a copy. You must consider the repercussions on how the mind will develop afterwards. It's simply unpredictable.
Posted by dinokiller 6 years ago
dinokiller
Someone should vote :P
Posted by johnps_2222 6 years ago
johnps_2222
Based on your arguments, Human cloning must be banned for it will destroy "the true nature of where the lives of human come from"...........Simply it is a waste of time to clone, we must improve human lives as a solution. Life can't be manipulated by others....
Posted by dinokiller 6 years ago
dinokiller
Well, lower life span, and worse immune system = destined to die early.

Twins are just naturally born though... Still, i say identical twins aren't clones.
Posted by DrStrangeLuv 6 years ago
DrStrangeLuv
how is it an atrocity? Identical twins are clones... are you saying an identical twin is an atrocity?
Posted by dinokiller 6 years ago
dinokiller
Yes, it could be seen as cruel, though that didnt came up on me.
Posted by Rodriguez47 6 years ago
Rodriguez47
Cloning of Intelligent life is an atrocity especially humans.
Posted by darkkermit 6 years ago
darkkermit
Yes, but you didnt really make a good distinction, which is why i voted against you dinokiller
Posted by dinokiller 6 years ago
dinokiller
Yeah i couldnt put the fact that life spans of clones were shortened, out of words.

Identical twins can be seen as clones, yet they are not clones.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Rodriguez47 6 years ago
Rodriguez47
DrStrangeLuvdinokillerTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by darkkermit 6 years ago
darkkermit
DrStrangeLuvdinokillerTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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