Should human cloning be legal? Is it ethical?
Debate Rounds (5)
I don't see it, and I'm ready to give somebody a chance to prove me wrong.
The real ethics come into play when/if the original person that was cloned (hereafter referred to as Original) and the clone start to disagree. If Original signs a legal document, is the clone subject to whatever Original agreed to and, if yes, would that be both ways, e.g. the clone signs a legal document should Original be held to it as well? If the clone commits a crime, are both Original and the clone guilty? These problems are very well explored in many movies.
My challenge for Pro is as follows: Find or develop a law that clearly shows how Original and the clone would be told apart that can't be/is extremely difficult to be circumvented.
'these clones will become slave workers because they will not be considered human but just more live-stock.'
What? Why would clones not be considered human? They are human.
'If Original signs a legal document, is the clone subject to whatever Original agreed to'
Erm, no, because it isn't the same person, and the signatures wouldn't be the same either, because those are determined by environment.
'would that be both ways, e.g. the clone signs a legal document should Original be held to it as well?'
No. That doesn't even make any sense. They're completely different people.
'If the clone commits a crime, are both Original and the clone guilty?'
No, because they are, again, completely different people. They just have the same genetic information.
Any other problems?
As clones who share the EXACT SAME GENETIC INFORMATION, they would possess the same fingerprints, rendering your idea useless.
They would not be considered human in the same sense that you don't consider a photocopy of the Declaration of Independence THE Declaration of Independence.
Once again, being the same person is the idea of cloning.
And in answer to your question, another problem is presented when a clone begins to believe that he is Original or vice versa.
Actually, no. Identical twins contain the 'EXACT SAME GENETIC INFORMATION' and are not the same person by their very essence.
'As clones who share the EXACT SAME GENETIC INFORMATION, they would possess the same fingerprints, rendering your idea useless.'
I was hoping you'd say that. You evidently don't know from where fingerprints come. Fingerprints are the result of fluids passing the hands of fetuses in a uterus. That means that even if they have the 'EXACT SAME GENETIC INFORMATION', they have different fingerprints.
'They would not be considered human in the same sense that you don't consider a photocopy of the Declaration of Independence THE Declaration of Independence.'
Hah! You just invalidated your earlier point, and strengthened my point here. What a piteous sight. To illustrate, let us start with John, a normal guy. We clone him, and make Jon. John, the original, is like the Declaration in your example. Jon is the photocopy. Jon is still a human, just as the photocopy is still a piece of paper, because your fallacious quote doesn't ask the right question. We would not consider the photocopy as the actual Declaration, but this really just means that we don't consider Jon as John. This proves that clones are different people, showing that I was right above. Next, I can use this same analogy to prove my point correct.
Consider the class 'human', represented in this analogy as 'paper'. We don't consider the photocopy as the real Declaration, but we do consider it paper. We don't consider Jon as John, but we do consider him human.
'Once again, being the same person is the idea of cloning.'
Not sure why you said '[o]nce again' because you hadn't already said this, but I'll run with it. That is not at all the idea of cloning. The idea of cloning is containing the same genetic information.
'And in answer to your question, another problem is presented when a clone begins to believe that he is Original or vice versa.'
The clone would never think that he was the original because he would be raised knowing that he was a clone and wouldn't have any memories from the original.
Saying 'vice versa' makes literally no sense here at all. Why would the original think he was a clone? He has an entire life of memories.
Plus, if you're looking for another form of identification, the clone would be younger, because, despite what you apparently believe, they are born like other children and don't grow up in one day like in Star Wars. (And they certainly don't have all of the original's memories.)
You have to look at this from an industrial and economical point of view as well. What would happen to the job market when a corporation could simply clone a workforce that they could train from birth? This would create a workforce that is extremely efficient and cheap because they have a never-ending stream of workers that are literally bred to do that specific job. This would entirely defeat the purpose of jobs and education, rendering natural-born humans useless. This would cause a rapid global economic shift as the corporations switched from a "natural" workforce to a "bred" workforce.
... And debates are to put forth opposing points on a subject, and to shoot down those that can be down.
It may have sounded very hostile, but all I have said so far was quite in line.
Time for my rebuttal of the clone workforce thing.
Cloning isn't cheap.
Cloning won't be cheap.
When you clone something or somebody, you remove the nucleus of one of their cells and remove an egg nucleus from some egg cell you extracted from some well paid egg donor, then you put the nucleus of the somatic cell into the newly liberated egg cell. This takes some technology.
In 2001, Forbes estimated that it would cost $1.7 million to clone a single human being.
Of course, as we begin to experiment, and perhaps create a demand, it would be made cheaper.
Unfortunately for these evil companies that clone slaves and stuff, world governments would obviously ban them cloning slaves.
In the U.S., we apparently love regulation, so if/when cloning is legalised, it would be under strict government watch for a really long time, if not indefinitely.
Plus, we probably wouldn't be cloning full people.
There's a technique called therapeutic cloning where the nucleus of a somatic cell, from, in practice, somebody in need of a stem cell transplant, is inserted into the egg cell and not inserted into a surrogate, but allowed to grow into a blastocyst, (if I remember correctly the name-- too lazy to Google) which is basically a cluster of cells. There are inner and outer regions of the blastocyst (?) and the inner are rich in stem cells. These are manipulated into stem cell lines and transplanted into somebody who needs them.
I had almost been hoping you'd go and say something along the lines of 'That would be playing God!' or 'Clones can have complications and die young!'
And to cater to anybody who might rage at me in comments, I suppose I'll tackle those.
They say that it's playing God because you create a new being.
When you reproduce you create a new being.
To the complications... if, say, a clone died at 15, 15>0 and I would rather die young than not live at all.
mylittlemonster forfeited this round.
Alpacthulhu forfeited this round.
mylittlemonster forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Gabe1e 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||4||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.