There are two factors that play into who a person will be: genetic factors, and environmental factors. Having two identical people can cause problems, however cloning only involves half of what is needed to create a personality, genetics, but identical twins involve both. Not only are identical twins genetically similar, unlike clones they are most likely brought up in similar environments. All of the criticisms of cloning can apply to identical twins even more so then to clones, which brings up an important question; if you know that you are going to have identical twins is it your ethical duty to abort? Almost everyone would answer no to this question, so why would it be any more unethical to make a clone?
While I agree with you that identical twins are not too far from clones I feel that you don't have a choice too have twins, I think you would have the choice of making a clone, which isn't okay. Say you have a family who lost their son at the age of, let's say twelve. They want to have her back, in a way, they do. But a clone can never go through the exact same experiences their son, so those parents would always be wishing that their real son had never died. The clone would know that they want their real son instead of him. He would always be depressed which would only cause less likeness to the son, which would cause more depression for the clone. And let's not forget the fact that clones have about half the lifespan as a natural human being. That would cause more turmoil for a family because not only would parents had lived through one childs death, but they would have had to live through it again. And don't forget people are asses and probably would treat clones like dirt. That isn't fair to a clone.
The question itself is if "cloning (should) be banned permanently", which means that although I am against banning cloning permanently that does not mean I am necessarily against restrictions on human cloning. So perhaps one might need a permit to have a clone synthesized (stopping the parents from doing anything unethical). If cloning was legal it could be perfected so that clones could live longer, and longer until eventually the average clone's lifespan would be more than that of a natural human's. Currently, if you decide to have a child you won't really know if that child will have any severe genetic conditions until they are born. However, with a clone you have the benefit of knowing what conditions a clone would have before they are born allowing people to have only children that are known to be healthy from the start preventing difficult situations in which parents must take care of say a mentally challenged child for the rest of their lives.
While I agree that cloning should have extremely heavy restrictions. What could stop two parents from getting enough permits to start a baby farm. It all still has to start somewhere. Let's say a company starts producing clones for people who have permits. What is to stop that company from pulling a sith lord and controlling all the clones for nefarious purposes. And even if they wouldn't do that, it leads into the purposes of personalizing babies. That's not right. Parent's shouldn't be able to make their babies 8ft tall and all that. It's wrong. Now if that tech were used on stopping birth defects, or even cancer, HIV. Then and only then would it be acceptable to clone your babies and mess around with all those genetics.
The argument that if you allow one thing, eventually, due to allowing that one thing to happen opening up possibilities for more extreme things to happen, something horrible will happen is known as a slippery slope argument. A common example of this is saying something like "If we allow gay people to marry, then what's next? People marrying horses?" although that is a different debate. The point is that the argument of allowing cloning in general to help make the children we have healthier, will eventually get more and more malicious and coalesce into something expressly evil in almost a Sci-fi kind of way is invalid. Plenty of things we have today could have slippery sloped into something really bad, like allowing guns slippery sloping to personal nukes, but they haven't because there are restrictions on them. Cloning would be no different.
Because my opponent forfeited this round I will basically reiterate my points here. Cloning is better in a lot of ways than having identical twins, as they don't have the nurture aspect of development making them identical, and although cloning definitely should not be banned permanently as my opponent suggests, heavy restrictions could be applied to it solving many problems.
sorry for forfeit I was having surgery and it just slipped my mind. But anyway. Okay so all cloning isn't bad. But what if we ended up treating them badly. or what if we made them so smart that we treated them likes gods. What if they thinking themselves so superior wander around the streets killing people who displease them. Or what happens if we treat them like whites in the U.S. treated African-Americans. Would they revolt, or try to gain basic human rights. What would stop peep,e using clones for experiments or even using clones as military fodder. Out on the front lines basically to waste enemy ammunition. What would keep people from doing this???
Clones would be humans in the same way test tube babies are. Just because there was an unusual way in which their life began doesn't mean they would be considered any less human. If there was a problem with discrimination then laws could be used to protect clones by banning requiring clone status to be put on forms or applications. Finally, let me point out again that all I'm saying here is that we should not ban cloning permanently as the title of this debate suggests, and that although restrictions would be needed it would be well worth it for both the clones and the people around them