The Instigator
Levans
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
whiteflame
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points

Therapeutic

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 3 votes the winner is...
whiteflame
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/5/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 619 times Debate No: 48415
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

Levans

Con

Did you know that therapeutic cloning will actually kill a embryo that could one day become a person. This is important because people need to know more about biotechnology and its hidden information that doesn't always get heard. Some of the jobs available in this department are therapeutic recreation specialist,rehab therapist, nuclear medicine technologist, athletic coaches and doctors. In my opinion therapeutics cloning should not be allowed because it kills a embryo and it could start a new black market.
whiteflame

Pro

What's therapeutic cloning?

It's essentially the process of extracting an egg from an adult female, getting a somatic cell (not a sperm) from someone else, extracting the nucleus of each, placing the nucleus of that somatic cell into the egg, and inducing it to divide.

So Con is not being very accurate. It does eventually become an embryo, but that embryo would never exist without first going through this procedure. Life was created with no other possible purpose in mind, and that life would never have existed without the therapeutic impetus.

I'm not sure what "new black market" is going to form, since this requires huge investment, but since many countries have black markets for organs, it's all beneficial, since it will lead to fewer people selling necessary pieces of themselves to survive. The medical benefits are many for stem cell transplants, including organ regrowth. Countless lives can be saved by this technology.

http://www.explorestemcells.co.uk...
Debate Round No. 1
Levans

Con

Levans forfeited this round.
whiteflame

Pro

...Why am I not surprised? These are 1000 character-limited posts. How hard is it to take the time to write something up? Apparently my opponent felt strongly enough about this to post it in the first place, obviously making an argument against it in line with abortion, but feels no need whatsoever to defend his argument or engage with the real world benefits of therapeutic cloning. My arguments speak for themselves, I won't make any more here.
Debate Round No. 2
Levans

Con

Therapeutic cloning should not be used women would one day start to sell there embryo for money similar to the way in which women can get paid to carry another woman's eggs in under developed countries such as India.

Also many people are against it saying that it is against gods will. Many country have made it illegal or put regulations on therapeutic cloning

Cells can mutant which can cause tumors in some people.

Here are the websites in which I got my information from.
http://humancloningproject.weebly.com......
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov......
whiteflame

Pro

I apologize for my terse post last round, and applaud Con's willingness to reengage.

Con ignores my points. Extend saving lives.

Let's look at those links. NCBI is a great resource, but it includes a wide variety of papers, many of which disagree with you. Having provided no specific paper, it doesn't support your point. As for the weebly link, I have no idea who posted it, but there's no sources at all. It also supports all my points.

I don't know where Con's getting this sale of embryos when adult stem cells work, but even so, where's the harm in their sale? Con never explains how this is damaging. He even provides a corollary that works for me - surrogacy is a way that women in developing countries can earn money, and it provides children for couples that can't have their own. Selling embryos to save lives through organ regrowth is a win-win as well.

I'm not sure why "gods will" matters, nor do regulations make it inherently bad. The harm of tumors is minor and unsubstantiated.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
LevanswhiteflameTied
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 really didn't make much of an argument, it seemed he was just after conversation.
Vote Placed by Jifpop09 2 years ago
Jifpop09
LevanswhiteflameTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by Kreakin 2 years ago
Kreakin
LevanswhiteflameTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: For a topic Con appears to care about he put up no explanation or real arguments. Pro had to provide a link so we knew what the debate was even about, thank you Pro. Conduct goes to Pro for the Ff and for answering Con's points which was not reciprocated.. S&G go to Pro as Cons was careless. Arguments go to Pro for addressing Cons points with sound countering, Con rudely ignored Pros points. Sources go to Pro for being directly relevant information and not site front pages.