The Instigator
fabvanshita
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Gwendelphine
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Human cloning should not be banned

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
Gwendelphine
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/19/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 3 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 299 times Debate No: 94846
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

fabvanshita

Pro

The creation of genetically identical copies of human, given the term Human Cloning, is generally used to refer to the reproduction of human cells and tissues artificially. It is a possibility that seems more viable now than it had been a few years ago. It has the potential to save lives and make a better quality of living for our future generations.

Practiced on livestock for a while now, the process of human cloning has seen incredible results. The techniques have been proven to work and with the growth of technology, one day, human cloning can be very beneficial to our society.

Many people, like few of my fellow friends, who oppose the topic of human cloning are mostly misinformed and therefore have given it a bad stereotype. It is, usually, that they think the clones won't have a different or a unique personality and would grow up to become like their donors. However, this is not the case.

The process, similar to what nature has been providing to us as identical twins, involves identical DNA with separate people, separate experiences and not altogether overlapping personalities. The relationship between an 'original' and a clone is like that between identical twins raised apart; with the same DNA but little of the same environment.

Human cloning could not only provide our society the answer to shortage of organ donations but also medical advances that could be made by researching through the the clone, the diagnosis of certain diseases.

It is evident that human cloning has immense potential to better humanity. Only research will lead to its improvement and perfection. To ban this research will result in the loss of a technology that will someday cure diseases, prevent deaths, and give infertile couples a chance to have a child of their own. Which action, banning or not banning, is really the less ethical choice? To let this technology slip through our fingers would prevent us from improving the quality of life for all of humanity. This is why human cloning should not be banned.

(Bibliography: humancloning.org , sciencedaily.com , human cloning- Wikipedia)
Gwendelphine

Con

As stated in your opening, the clones would not grow up to be psychological copies of their forerunners; they would be genetically identical individuals with their own personal experiences and capacities for emotional development. As such, the problem with human cloning lies not in the act of creating a genetically identical organism, but in the manner this person would be treated and if their own rights as individual humans would be respected.

You say that cloning offers a means for "improving the quality of life for all of humanity"; are clones included under the umbrella of humanity which is going to be benefited? You speak of clones as a potential solution not only to the "shortage of organ donations but also medical advances that could be made by researching through the clone", suggesting that the clones would be treated simply as organisms from which research can be conducted and organs harvested. For human beings (and I would say that clones, seeing as they are like "identical twins raised apart", should be considered as human beings) to be raised as organisms comparable to lab rats used for medical research and grown for the purpose of organ donation would be unethical. Cloning used among livestock to produce higher quality genetic lines deals with the ethics of how livestock are treated; the issue of cloning among humans in the efforts to yield medical advances and provide organ donations should be set in the field of what is considered ethical in the treatment of people. Using people as the subject of medical research regardless of their own personal preferences and treating people not as human individuals but as organisms carrying vital organs to be donated defies the standards with which people should be treated and is, in this light, unethical.

The means through which cloning has the potential to benefit a selected part of humanity are inhumane if it is assumed they would not be given choice. Going along with this choice, if clones were ethically raised as individual humans with rights, there is no guarantee that they would want and be willing to donate organs or be the subjects of medical research. Cloning does not offer a guaranteed way to help save lives or make medical advances; if clones are given choice, cloning instead presents the possibility of creating an individual genetically identical to an older individual; it presents the costly opportunity to attempt cloning an individual with a high chance of failure and the possibility of rendering a human being with genetic defects who must be taken care of and treated in an ethical way and is not to be seen as a research subject or a source for organs to be removed from.

Is it ethical to create individuals from which we will strip the rights that go along with being human? To continue research which leads us to begin raising people like cattle would be wrong. This is why cloning, when the clones are seen not as people but as test subjects, as livestock, should be banned.
Debate Round No. 1
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Huron0 3 months ago
Huron0
It most definitely should. Haven't you heard of Donald Marshall before lol. And why the hell would you bring more souls to be trapped in a flesh prison suit on this hell called Earth? That's evil as fck. A physical body is a LIMITATION or are you not capable enough to have figured that out yet?
Posted by SchinkBR 3 months ago
SchinkBR
Just watch the movie "The Island"
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by SchinkBR 3 months ago
SchinkBR
fabvanshitaGwendelphineTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments: Livestock - Con refutes this point with the contention that the ethical treatment of livestock and humans is very different Different Personalities: Point agreed upon by both, however Con points out that this uniqueness is one reason they should be treated like separate humans. Ultimately this point is a tie, but con's argument is important to note for the final argument. Healthcare: Pro asserts that human cloning can lead to advances in medical studies and organ donations. While this is true, Con effectively argues the ethics of Pro's implication. Pro can't argue both that clones are important and unique, and then argue that they should be used for medical research and organ farms. Perhaps Pro did not his point to read that way, but it was the interpretation I was left with and Con effectively argued that clones must be treated humanely, and thus could not be used in such a manner. The argument goes to Con.
Vote Placed by warren42 3 months ago
warren42
fabvanshitaGwendelphineTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con proved that Pro's ideas of helping humanity are unethical by means of stripping people of humanity due to circumstances of their birth. I would have liked to see how this argument would've been further developed in a multi-round debate, but unfortunately it was only one. If you were to recreate this debate and make it 3-5 rounds I'd be interested and would definitely vote again. Unfortunately, since both Pro and Con seemed to value ethics, I used this as the basis of my vote. Therefore, Con wins as they proved that even with the benefits Pro provided (organ donors, disease research, etc.) it is unethical to raise clones as if they were animals.