The Instigator
Nyx999
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points
The Contender
drhead
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points

Is human cloning wrong? (Pro is for human cloning, con is against it)

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 4 votes the winner is...
Nyx999
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/11/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,946 times Debate No: 31043
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (4)

 

Nyx999

Con

Well, I don't see why we need it. It's inefficient, expensive, and it is painful for the clone later on. Clones aren't really anything special, they are about the same as identical twins, same bodies, different minds, it's just with cloning, you can have an "identical twin" that is much younger than you are. There is of course cloning embryos to create stem cells, but it is again a very inefficient and expensive thing to do, the success rate is 0.1%-3%, and it is just simpler, if not as safe, to use a regular organ for organ transplants. There are also same sex couples that want to create children through cloning, but along with it being really inefficient and expensive, clones tend to deteriorate. The child may suffer from Large Offspring Syndrome, where the clones have abnormally large organs, and clones tend to spontaneously combust later in life, so your child may make it to the age of 20 and then suddenly die of unknown causes. I say it's simpler just for same sex couples to just adopt, there are plenty children out there who want a home.
drhead

Pro

Your main argument is that it is inefficient, expensive, and painful for the clone. I refute this statement by saying that technologies get better and more efficient as time goes on. However, if we do not pursue a technology at all, this will never happen. I feel that it is better, then, to pursue this technology casually, and to find applications for it (mind transplant, etc.) when we have those technologies ready. This way, we can immediately apply those new technologies, as we will have a viable medium with all the kinks worked out.

I have never heard of spontaneous combustion in clones. Could you cite this claim?
Debate Round No. 1
Nyx999

Con

I know technologies will get more efficient, but how many more millions of dollars will that take to make them more efficient? Cloning is mainly only used for transplants and couples that want a child, but you don't NEED cloning for either of those. We already have transplants and adoption agencies. I think the money that would go to cloning should go to help cure cancer or Alzheimer's disease because those don't have alternatives, and thus shouldn't get any money, especially taxpayer dollars to keep it running. That money should go to somewhere that desperately needs it, not cloning. Oh and, spontaneous combustion in clones isn't actually called that, it's just that the clones mysteriously die, for unknown reasons, and very young, and most doctors don't know why. Oh and I have a bunch of sites,

"In addition to low success rates, cloned animals tend to have more compromised immune function and higher rates of infection, tumor growth, and other disorders. Japanese studies have shown that cloned mice live in poor health and die early. About a third of the cloned calves born alive have died young, and many of them were abnormally large. Many cloned animals have not lived long enough to generate good data about how clones age. Appearing healthy at a young age unfortunately is not a good indicator of long-term survival. Clones have been known to die mysteriously. For example, Australia's first cloned sheep appeared healthy and energetic on the day she died, and the results from her autopsy failed to determine a cause of death." -http://www.ornl.gov...

Do you want more sources? Just tell me if you need something. :)
drhead

Pro

You say that we already have transplants. This is true. However, there is an upper-limit to how well transplants will work between anything but identical twins. The human immune system has a tendency to attack foreign objects, and transplanted organs work this way too. If someone gets a kidney transplant, they will be on steroids for the rest of their life since that is necessary to suppress their immune system enough that it does not attack the 'invading kidney'.

Your source does not prove much except that we are in an early stage for this technology.
Debate Round No. 2
Nyx999

Con

Yes, I know that we don't have the most efficient way of transplanting kidneys, this is why a lot of people favour cloning, but at least we have another way of transplanting kidneys. We don't have another way for curing Alzheimer's, which is why we should focus on those problems that don't have solutions first, and then go back and tinker with the solutions we already have. And my source answered your question "where is your source for spontaneous combustion." We ARE an early stage for this technology, and that doesn't mean that I don't want to eradicate it completely, it just means that I don't want humans to be used for research yet (since human research costs WAY more, as in hundreds of thousands more than animal research) and I think that the money we save from using only animals should be put towards something that we need more. We need to prioritize everything we want to use money for, we can't just throw money at everything and hope for the best. No, we need to section off all our money, giving more to places that need it most and giving less to places that don't need it as much.
drhead

Pro

This still doesn't mean that understanding cloning won't help us in some other way. The thing that causes all of these early deaths of clones is the fact that their telomeres are too short. Telomeres, by the way, are excess bits of DNA on the ends of a chromatid that allow for some to be lost without anything essential being lost. This also imposes a hard limit on how long non-clones can live - if we figure out how to extend telomeres, we could extend our OWN lives. Technology isn't in the form of just researching one thing - it's finding bits of knowledge that can be used for many things, and piecing them together towards one application. Cloning's bits of knowledge allow us to make our own form more durable, putting us one step closer to the dream of immortality.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by jh1234l 3 years ago
jh1234l
Nyx999drheadTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter tyler.schillim, please vote on what arguments are in the debate, not what goes on outside of it. When he does give an actually valid RFD, please counter this vote.
Vote Placed by tyler.schillim 3 years ago
tyler.schillim
Nyx999drheadTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: Leave creation to God. What God saw and made was good, end of story. Cloning just means we are unthankful for the body's God has given us, we are created in his image so yeah, it's immoral.
Vote Placed by wolfman4711 3 years ago
wolfman4711
Nyx999drheadTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro never had a case he just refuted cons arguments badly.
Vote Placed by imabench 3 years ago
imabench
Nyx999drheadTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: con pointed out several shortcomings of cloning and argued why it shouldnt be done on humans at least in the present and near future, and provided a source to reinforce some of his claims. Pro only argued that with time everything will work out better, and waited until the final round to give some of his own arguments. Debate could have been a lot better, but arguments and sources to the con