The Instigator
oreostar
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
royalpaladin
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

why human cloning should be allowed or banned

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
royalpaladin
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/24/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 9,178 times Debate No: 20624
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (4)

 

oreostar

Pro

Recently, the controversy around human cloning has received a lot of news coverage; yet unsurprisingly, a clear and thorough examination of both sides has been lacking from the news media.
Basically, human cloning is the artificial process of making a genetic twin of a person. This means a person could literally become the parent of their own twin sibling or the parent of anyone's twin.
Scientists are either very close at being able to clone human beings, or scientists have already done so. Human cloning has already become illegal or restricted in a variety of degrees in several countries, thus scientific research has been greatly reduced throughout the world. do you support the ban or oppose it?

we will be debate the reasons for and against human cloning
I will be debating for human cloning
rules:
1) God can not be used to defend case
2) use minimal amount of sentences to defend case, basically summarize your points in limited number of words...
royalpaladin

Con

I am assuming that the first round is for acceptance. I will negate the resolution. Good luck to my opponent.
Debate Round No. 1
oreostar

Pro

In order to debate the potential of human cloning, we must first consider how it ties in to certain aspects of human society. One of these aspects is determining how human cloning will affect scientific research. The continuation of human cloning and its related actions could drastically increase our scientific knowledge of genetics and lead us to new discoveries concerning the human body and related issues.

human cloning= technological advances, the study of health would also drastically improve. Cloning would provide better research capabilities for finding cures to many present-day diseases.
ublic opinion on cloning is still vastly divided.
Many religious groups are against cloning because they feel that it is wrong to mimic natural creation. They believe we should not take the work of god into our own hands. Others feel very strongly that human cloning is immoral and unethical because human cloning could destroy our age-old concept of "father"and "mother". If an offspring is cloned from a parent, the offspring would no longer actually share genetic traits, or alleles from both parents. Rather the offspring would be identical to that one parent from which it was cloned. I, on the other hand, believe that cloning should proceed into the future. I simply think that the advantages of human cloning far outweigh the disadvantages. Some advantages to human cloning include :

-Infertility: In my opinion, if a couple is unable to conceive a child, then there are plenty of children in orphanages and foster care that could use a home and family. Adopting an orphan is much easier, cheaper, virtuous, and safer solution than trying to clone a human being, not including helping a child in need.

Genetic Illness: If a person chooses not to have a child that is genetically their own because of a risk with passing on a genetic illness, then again adoption is a better solution for the reasons mentioned previously.

-Vanity: Bringing a child into the world should not about our narcissism, vanity, or an attempt at indirect immortality, because we are all unfairly biased for ourselves and our genes.

-Super Humans: Selecting the most perfect genetic donor in someone’s opinion, whether it is Albert Einstein, Michael Jordan, or some other above average person, changes the norms of society. Imagine a world with fewer variations of people who are either super-geniuses or super-athletes. On the other hand, advances in science and technology would grow at an even faster rate and more people would be healthier. I judge this purpose as a sufficiently good enough reason for allowing human cloning; however, I am very suspicious of intentionally making a better race of people. Maybe I’ve seen too many science fiction movies.

-Curing Diseases: The growing scientific field known as regenerative medicine, also known as therapeutic cloning, is allowing thousands of lives to be saved from cloning human cells, tissues, and even organs. Cloning human body parts guarantees a genetic match to prevent organ rejections and also does not require immunosuppressive drugs. However, this research is still in its infancy and requires a lot more time, effort, and money before it matures into saving a lot more people. If human cloning is completely banned, then this type of research would be stopped and a lot of lives would be lost. Therefore, this type of human cloning should also be allowed.


_Body Replacements: One of the stranger reasons for cloning humans is for a complete body replacement. This is only science fiction now, yet it may some day be a possibility in the distant future. While it will always unethical to kill another human being to save another person, what if the cloned human body replacement did not have a brain and was intentionally designed that way from the beginning? What about replacing an aged body with a new body by transplanting the human brain? I'll leave these ethical and fuzzy questions to be answered by the reader.
royalpaladin

Con

Definitions

My opponent never provided a definition of human cloning, so I will do so. Human cloning is defined as "The creation of a genetically identical copy of a human." [1] This definition implies that an entire copy of the individual is being created, and not that individual organs are being created. At the point that this is true, any arguments about the creation of new organs without creating new human beings should be excluded from this round because an entire human being is being created in this debate. Also note that human cloning excludes therapeutic cloning, which is done for the purpose of solving medical treatments. My burden is thus to prove that the creation of a new human being is unethical.


Negative Case

Contention : Cloning methods are harmful to the clones and thus cause unnecessary suffering. The first indication that cloning methods are unjust is that they cause unnecessary pain to the clones, which would also be considered humans. Cloning techniques are highly inaccurate, and cause a variety of genetic, psychological, and physical disorders in animals. A study published by Rudolf Jaenisch of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in October 2011 notes that 1 out of every 25 genes of the 10,000 genes in mice are expressed abnormally. [2] Moreover, cloning in mice has often caused a variety of physical problems, including premature death, pneumonia, liver failure, and obesity. [2] An example of these negative impacts stems from the first cloned mammal, Dolly the sheep. Dolly was euthanized in 2003 due to severe arthritis and a progressive lung disorder that she obtained due to a weakened immune sysetm. [3] Cloning problems magnify as complexity of the animal increases. A report published by Helen Pearson in Nature magazine notes that although cloning in flies has been very successful, mammalian cloning is much more difficult. [4] In fact, studies have indicated that complex animal clones are more likely to have birth defects and other issues. [5] For example, an ibex cloned in 2009 survived for seven minutes before dying of lung defects, and a water buffalo cloned in India in 2009 also died of lung defects [5]. Thus, the problems would be magnified in humans and would cause unnecessary suffering. This is unjust to the clones and is sufficient reason to continue to ban cloning.


Affirmative Case
My opponent seems to have forgotten that he was supposed to arguing for human cloning, and not against it, but that was his mistake, not mine, so I should not be faulted for it..


That said, you can extend the adoption argument. According to my opponent, it would be easier to adopt than to clone. Given that cloning is expensive and that success rates are low, I wholeheartedly agree. This is an argument against cloning, so you can extend it. You can also extend the vanity and genetic illness arguments because they also support my position. My opponent concedes to all of these, so you can turn them against him and negate.


He next discusses creating a class of superhumans. There are third problems. First, it assumes that cloning is accurate and causes no problems. The entirety of my case demonstrates that there are a myriad of problems with clones, including premature death, defects in 1/25 genes, etc. This indicates that the dream of creating superhumans is an impossibility. Second, it assumes that only individuals with "good genes" would want to be cloned/would be cloned. This is obviously not true; cloning it jeopardizes
the existence of the human species. If the species were too similar genetically, then it would be easier to destroy large proportions of the population with diseases that individuals were susceptible to. Nobody has a perfect genome, and everyone is more vulnerable to some diseases than others are. Variation is necessary in order to strengthen the viability of a species, which he is reducing by allowing for cloning.


He next discusses curing diseases. This has three problems. First, it is excluded from this debate because it involves therapeutic cloning, and not human cloning. Second, there are other ways in which we can do this without actually cloning anyone. For example, we can use induced pluripotent stem cells to create/harvest organs without actually cloning an individual and creating a new embryo/genetic copy of the individual. Finally, creating an individual to harvest his organs is murder and violates his rights. It is therfore unethical and unjust.


His final argument is about body replacements. You can simply cross apply the arguments I made about curing diseases here; these two ideas are similar so the same rebuttals apply.


Thank you.
Sources

1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
2. http://web.mit.edu...

3. http://en.wikipedia.org...

4. http://www.nature.com...;

5. http://en.wikipedia.org...;

4.
Debate Round No. 2
oreostar

Pro

oreostar forfeited this round.
royalpaladin

Con

Extend all of my arguments; they were completely dropped.
Debate Round No. 3
oreostar

Pro

oreostar forfeited this round.
royalpaladin

Con

Ok, so you negate based on the dangers to the clones as well as the rebuttals of his case. :)
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by kyro90 5 years ago
kyro90
Wow, my class was just talking about this today! xD
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Marauder 5 years ago
Marauder
oreostarroyalpaladinTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by Hardcore.Pwnography 5 years ago
Hardcore.Pwnography
oreostarroyalpaladinTied
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: FF
Vote Placed by Maikuru 5 years ago
Maikuru
oreostarroyalpaladinTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeits and refuted arguments.
Vote Placed by kyro90 5 years ago
kyro90
oreostarroyalpaladinTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: I dont think I have to explain this do I?