The Instigator
Con (against)
The Contender
Pro (for)

That human cloning should always be opposed on moral grounds.

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
NoCoolNameNate has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/6/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 1 month ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 214 times Debate No: 95228
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)




I thank my opponent NoCoolNameNate for accept this debate in advance. The topic will be, "That human cloning should always be opposed on moral grounds." I will give the definitions below.

Full Resolution: Resolved: That human cloning should always be opposed on moral grounds.


Human Cloning:
Human cloning is the creation of a genetically identical copy of a human. The term is generally used to refer to artificial human cloning, which is the reproduction of human cells and tissue. It does not refer to the natural conception and delivery of identical twins. The possibility of human cloning has raised controversies. These ethical concerns have prompted several nations to pass laws regarding human cloning and its legality [1].

Opposed: not agreeing with or approving of something or someone [2].

Moral Ground: The moral high ground, in ethical or political parlance, refers to the status of being respected for remaining moral, and adhering to and upholding a universally recognized standard of justice or goodness [3].


1. No forfeits
2. No trolling
3. No kirtiks
4. All arguments and sources must be posted in the debate
5. Don't follow rules= loss


1. Con states Rules/ Pro opens
2. Con opens/ Pro rebuts
3. Con rebuts/ Pro defends, conclusion
4. Con defends, conclusion/ Pro waives

...Now let's get this started for the DDOlympics!!!






Thanks for the debate! May the best arguments prevail. Let's get started:

Despite potential benefits my opponent will undoubtedly present (which I fully recognize and researched previous to accepting this debate) the fact of the matter is that horrible side effects come from human cloning, whether it's stem cell research or flat out creating a copy of a human being. But enough claims, let's get into the evidence:

Contention 1: The money poured into cloning is better used in other programs

Over the course of the debate I'll explain the huge risks associated with cloning, and those contentions will continue to strengthen this one because of the fact that alternative methods to stem cell research that are less costly, socially conflicting, and morally egregious exist. According to Forbes and other organizations that analyze the cost of human cloning, estimates of the cost of cloning can reach up to 2million per an individual, or higher depending on health issues and potential death involved. [5] I'm keeping this one rather short and sweet as it mainly just capitalizes on how we're paying for a negative effect, as I'll demonstrate now:

Contention 2: Moral outrage AND moral carelessness of human cloning by BOTH the population at large and organizations causes significant social issues

2A: The general population's reaction to cloning is bound to one of extreme negativity and disgust

This sub-point ties into contention 3 as well but I want to relay part of the information here in order to demonstrate the cause of the concern people have. The National Human Genome Research Institute published an article (Prepared by Kathi E. Hanna, M.S., Ph.D., Science and Health Policy Consultant)

Which partially describes some of the laws against human cloning and the logic government officials have given for banning it outright in recent years upon extensively reviewing the evidence:

"Several groups have concluded that reproductive cloning of human beings creates ethical and scientific risks that society should not tolerate. In 1997, the National Bioethics Advisory Commission recommended that it was morally unacceptable to attempt to create a child using somatic cell nuclear transfer cloning and suggested that a moratorium be imposed until safety of this technique could be assessed. The commission also cautioned against preempting the use of cloning technology for purposes unrelated to producing a live born child.

Similarly, in 2001 the National Academy of Sciences issued a report stating that the United States should ban human reproductive cloning aimed at creating a child because experience with reproductive cloning in animals suggests that the process would be dangerous for the woman, the fetus, and the newborn, and would likely fail. The report recommended that the proposed ban on human cloning should be reviewed within five years, but that it should be reconsidered "only if a new scientific review indicates that the procedures are likely to be safe and effective, and if a broad national dialogue on societal, religious and ethical issues suggests that reconsideration is warranted." The panel concluded that the scientific and medical considerations that justify a ban on human reproductive cloning at this time do not apply to nuclear transplantation to produce stem cells. Several other scientific and medical groups also have stated their opposition to the use of cloning for the purpose of producing a child" [3]

The cause for concern is obvious, and polls regarding human opinion of cloning are damning as well:

"Two Gallup polls show that roughly nine in 10 Americans oppose the idea of human cloning. A Gallup poll conducted in May found 88% of Americans saying human cloning should not be allowed if it ever becomes possible. Similarly, the most recent CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll of Nov. 26-27 finds 88% opposed to "cloning that is designed specifically to result in the birth of a human being."" [4]

The moral outrage tidal wave that comes with cloning is clear. These statistics are representative of society's justified consensus of disgust in regards to the matter of cloning. As a result, with such huge numbers against it, cloning on a large scale would likely trigger even more protests (on top of those that already exist), especially among Christian organizations. The riots and disorder diminishes the legitimacy of the federal government as it both violates the people's will AND clearly hurts us at large, as I'll explain in sub point 2B:

2B: Organizations with greedy and immoral goals could very well get their hands on such an invaluable resource for their schemes

"A second danger posed by human cloning involves risks that are social or political in nature... Risks having to do with the misuse should human cloning ever fall into the wrong hands... Criminals could create doppelg"ngers, or they could use cloning to produce duplications of themselves so exact that they would be able to throw detectives off their trails by using cloned identities to establish a basis for plausible deniability, dictators could try to Immortalize themselves... Create an army... Seek authoritarian control by using reductive oppression..." [2]

My opponent may argue that programs such as stem cell research don't necessarily give a viable path for cloning human beings as this impact represents, however I'd like to clarify that such research *still* accelerates the process of these impacts and helps these "evil" organizations in their devious endeavors.

Contention 3: On balance, human cloning genuinely causes significant suffering and is completely unsafe.

Although my opponent may choose to focus on cloning that doesn't entail making copies of humans, I'd like to explain the impact of such a program. Ultimately, playing God with cloning would blow up in our face with unintentional side effects and risks the entire human race to large, overwhelming threats:

"One category of obvious danger is the hazard that human cloning creates for human health and welfare... That such dangers exist is surely beyond doubt. By reducing diversity in the human gene pool, cloning will weaken a natural barrier that helps human bodies from attack by infectious diseases (like malaria) which constantly mutate to find vulnerabilities in the host. As David Stipp puts it, "without seem we'd be toast for germs" [1], [2].

As Stipp explains, when cloning is used the risk of mutating diseases develops into a large threat and immediately begins it's slow and painful killing of humanity. Essentially, a smaller, nearly identical group of clones is notably more likely to die out from a disease than a more diverse group of humans that have a random distribution of genes. However, potential threats that are perhaps even more disturbing exist when cloning is used:

"If genes of cloned cells do not perform in a fully regenerated manner, a colonially generated baby may not have long to live and could suffer degenerative conditions prematurely. Human cloning could also increase the risk of birth defects if cloned individuals begin marrying nearly identical genetic relatives, a danger that will be hard to about in second and third generations." [1]

If my opponent intends to defend the traditional definition of human cloning, they'll need to refute these genuine risks associated with fully cloning a human being. That said, I assume based off of his definition he won't actually defend that interpretation (which is why my arguments mainly focus on endeavors such as stem cell research). However the impact of traditional cloning is extremely clear and the negativity of it is self evident (Assuming my opponent agrees that mass death and suffering is a bad thing).

I apologize if this seems rushed, I was a little hasty. However, I believe that the distasteful impacts of cloning are well represented above and for these reasons I affirm. Thank you, please vote Pro.

[1] Daniel R. Heimbach, Cloning Humans: Dangers, Unjustifiable, and Genuinely Immoral, 32 Val. U.L. Rev. 633 (1998).

[2] David Stipp, The Real Biotech Revolution; Biotech's Real Power Lies in Reading the Book of Life, Not Blindly Copying It, Mar.31, 1997, at 54.



Debate Round No. 1



Thanks NoCoolNameNate. First of all, my arguments will not be so good because I am playing devil's advocate, and that I never did this topic before. But not caring about that, let's start the debate. I will be making my arguments and my framework in this round, and I won't make my rebuttals even though my opponent already made his arguments.


O1: My first observation will be on the burdens. The burden of proof is shared, as the resolution is normative. Pro has to show that human cloning should always be opposed, when Con says that it should not always be opposed. So, onto my burden, there are two ways to show my burden.

1) Human cloning should always be allowed on moral grounds

2) Human cloning should always, but should not always be opposed on moral grounds

Even though I choose one of these, I fill my burden.


My framework will be about utilitarianism. This is showing society, and seeing what causes more pleasure, or more harms. For example, if we having cloning has more pleasure than harms, and no pleasure, then we have human cloning, if we follow utilitarianism. The definition from Merriam-Webster is: the belief that a morally good action is one that helps the greatest number of people [4]. Now, because I have explained my framework, I will now go onto my arguments of the debate.

==Argument 1: Infertiles==

Okay, my first argument will be about infertile and suicides. First of all, we need to know what is infertile before we start our argument.

Infertile: not able to reproduce : not able to produce children, young animals, etc. [1]

Around 1/8 couples in the US cannot produce children, or to say, infertile [2]. That is a lot of people. And more shockingly then this, around 95% of the infertiles suffer depression [3], and that can lead to suicide, and many other key effects that may harm someone's life. So basically the infertiles are suffering and having depression because they have no children. There are few ways to help these infertiles.

The reason here is basically; human cloning. Human cloning makes a human, a children for the infertiles. Then the infertiles don't have depression, as they will then have children. If they have children, they won't have depression, and won't suicide, and some key effects that I said above. This will be a yes cloning utilitarianism, from my framework as I said.

The survivial of children is less than 10% if no cloning for infertiles [5]. However with cloning, you get a perfectly healthy child, so from Utilitarianism, it shows that from a net benefit, we should allow cloning. This can also help future homesexuals and infertiles get more children.

==Argument 2: Diseases==

My second argument will be about diseasesThese days in the world there are lots of cancers. Literally one of the four deaths in the United States are from cancer [6]. Since 1990, there had been approximately 5 million cancer related deaths [6]. That is a huge number of deaths. Tons of new-born babies get cancers, and die right away because they are not strong enough. People are begging an answer to stop all of this cancer, and their babies dying like this. The answer is cloning.

With cloning, they clone to make healthy human beings, and then these babies wil be born with no cancer and those things in their lives, which would normally they might be killed because of cancer. This makes less dying babies, and a family can live happily with no mind and anything about cancer, etc. This will make families happy, and from the Utilitarianism framework, with more people happy, this shows that cloning should be allowed.

==Argument 3: Medical Reasons==

This is my last argument, and it will be about medical reasons. Human cloning can also give good things for your health. For example, let's say that your kidney is very bad. Then you can take your clones kidney, and replace it from your kidney. This will give happiness to the ones who are hurt, because they will no longer be hurt, because they can take some parts from the healthy clones body. This also is shown from the Utiliarianism framework, so we should allow human cloning, from this reason above also.


So from the resolution, human cloning is moral, as I showed the reasons above, that it helps people from suicides, makes people have happy lives, and human cloning should definetly be allowed on the Utiliarianism framework, and the framework itself is showing if it is moral or immoral. And from my arguments, human cloning is moral, and it has lots of benefits, therefore I show my side clearly that human cloning should be allowed, as there are way more benefits then harms from human cloning

And for the burden, I have shown that cloning is good for lots of reasons, and that literally shows that it shouldn't always be opposed. My burden is full in the debate, and I will rebut my opponent's arguments in the next round. Back to Pro for the debate. Peace and Love <3. (from Hayd)


[1] (

[2] (

[3] (

[4] (

[5] (

[6] (

Now let's get started with the actual "debate" with rebuttals, and let Pro begin!!!

This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by NoCoolNameNate 1 month ago
I wrote this in >an hour... I had like 2 mins left when I was done so I didn't worry about bolding, it's not that big of a deal/worthy of discussion IMO. I'm devils advocate as well lol.
Posted by fire_wings 1 month ago
I want some credit for devil's advocate
Posted by fire_wings 1 month ago
why don't you even bold?
This debate has 4 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.