The Instigator
Con (against)
6 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

Human cloning should be allowed.

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/14/2014 Category: Health
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,094 times Debate No: 49086
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)




Welcome to the debate.
First round is for defining and last round is for concluding. I define cloning as making an identical copy of something. I define allow as allowed ethically, morally and by law.


I accept, assume there is a shared BoP and wish my opponent the best of luck. I am fine with the definitions given and I await my opponent's argument.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for accepting my debate.

Human cloning creates identical genes. These genes will have the same defects, and thus reproducing and reproducing more and more defects instead of evolutionizing. This is not good for mankind, one defect sparks another and another until we're like wild animals, fighting for meat. We also weaken our diversity, causing less adaptation skills. Again, this also causes humans to clone and clone defects in adaptation skills. Have you heard of the saying "everyone is different"? Well, with cloning that's not true at all, and no one is unique anymore with cloning. No one can collaborate with one another, as that would be, well, nearly useless. Everyone knows exactly the SAME skills. Without human cloning, everyone will stay unique, with their own strengths and weaknesses, each being able to help another.

Thank you.


I can imagine what would've happened if my opponent was debating whether guns should be banned. Guns kill people. Killing people is bad. This is not good for mankind, one killing sparks another until we're like wild animals, killing each other. We also weaken our population, and in the end there will only be one person left because we would've killed each other. Without guns, people won't kill each other, helping each other instead.

That is basically my opponent's argument, just substitute 'human cloning' where it says 'gun'.

Just because human cloning exists doesn't mean we just endlessly create 'test tube babies' for the sake of creating test tube babies. If we want to create babies, you would just have sex, as sex adds pleasure to the act as well. Con's diversity argument is also invalid, humans are a combination of nature and nurture. Clones start as babies too and they will grow differently due to their environment and thus have different ideas. That argument is totally illogical. So we now reach my argument.

Cloning should not be banned, it should simply be limited to certain things:

1) Allowing families with only one child and suffering from infertility to create another child through the process of cloning, creating a twin to their first child and allowing more children.

2) I propose a human clone farm, where the clones are put in a semi-vegetative state so they are nothing more than biological matter. These clones can then be safely harvested for organs and save millions of lives - people who are waiting for their organs do not have to wait any more, they can simply take it from their clones. These organs will also be completely compatible as the body they are taken from are complete clones of their hosts.

I have provided two very good ways to use human cloning while my opponent's arguments have effectively been nulled. Due to the 2000 character limit I will conclude my round 2 here, but there are many more positives to be listed in future rounds.
Debate Round No. 2


Since my definition of "allowed" is "ethically, morally and by law" my opponent has ONLY argued that cloning should be allowed by law. He has explained the scientific benefit (law) which I will rebut later. I need only prove that it shouldn't be right in one of the three "laws".

Human cloning should not be allowed as ethically and morally as it would destroy the concept of "mother" and "father" and it is not at all natural. If offspring were to be cloned from mothers or fathers, the clone would not have genetic traits from both parents, which is not natural at all.

1) has already been rebutted.

"I propose a human clone farm, where the clones are put in a semi-vegetative state so they are nothing more than biological matter. These clones can then be safely harvested for organs and save millions of lives - people who are waiting for their organs do not have to wait any more, they can simply take it from their clones. These organs will also be completely compatible as the body they are taken from are complete clones of their hosts. "

Unfortunately, as described in the previous round, one defect leads to another and another. And, the failure rate is very high, which combined with the multiplying defect problem leads to a very risky business, where a transplant may do the opposite of helping.

Thank you.


Due to the character limit, I will mainly focus on my animal clone farm in this round.

Infertile family argument

My opponent seems to have misunderstood what I meant when I said children can be provided to families with only one child. The clone would not be of the mother or the father - it would be a clone of the child itself, thus producing twins. This will have both mother and father genes, and clones still have to be put into a woman's womb for nine months, so there is nothing too artificial about this process. Con's artificial argument is null; artificial by definition is man made, and humans come from other humans, therefore humans are artificial. Natural or not does not make something more or less ethical, moral, or illegal.

Human clone farm

Although clones would replicate the defects in a person, not every aspect of the clone will be defected. There will be plenty of parts that can be used - heart, kidney, liver, etc. The failure rate cannot be taken into account; technology can only improve and the resolution itself obviously implies that human cloning will have reached a high enough level in the future to be possible, or this whole debate would be pointless. There is no such thing as 'multiplying defect', you simply continue cloning one person, not make clones of the clones, so how can the defects multiply? They can only be replicated from the person at best. Furthermore, you could only choose to clone very healthy people and make a whole factory line production of them, so that you simply take out the organ you need when someone requires a transplant. This is incredibly efficient and saving lives is a good thing therefore moral and ethical. Neither does it break any laws as these clones would be in a vegetative state to the equivalent of a plant. Eating vegetables does not break any laws, ethics or morals.

Thank you for your indulgence in my argument and I await my opponent's response.
Debate Round No. 3


Infertile family rebut
Infertile families with one child might be able to create another child, but again the failure rate is 0.1% to 3%. You have claimed that technology is improving, but it does not have to. Just because it improved since now doesn't mean it will continue to improve. Even if cloning technology does increase, it will increase very slowly, until it reaches a safe 99% success rate.

"The following issues dealing with cloning and its ethical and moral implications will be addressed: cloning of human beings would result in severe psychological effects in the cloned child, and that the cloning of non-human species such as animals subjects them to unethical or moral treatment for human needs. The amount of physical damage that could be done if human cloning became a reality is obvious when one looks at the sheer loss of life that occurred before the birth of Dolly. Less than ten percent of the initial transfers survive to be healthy creatures. There were 277 trial implants of nuclei. Nineteen of those 277 were deemed healthy while the others were discarded. Five of those nineteen survived, but four of them died within ten days of birth of severe abnormalities. Dolly was the only one to survive (Fact: Adler 1996). If those nuclei were human, "the cellular body count would look like sheer carnage" ."(2)

Human clone farm rebut
The concept of multiplying defect is very obvious. No clone is exactly identical to another physically and psychologically. The natural and moral argument has already been addressed above.



simpleguy forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4


My opponent forfeited the previous round.


simpleguy forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Finalfan 7 years ago
I think as a test of mans capabilities cloning is fare game.. but as far as creating more humans in an already overpopulated world... Not a good idea!
Posted by MASTERY 7 years ago
Oh well.
Posted by simpleguy 7 years ago
Holy ****, I just realised the instigator was Con. Well... looks like I just dug my own grave.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Finalfan 7 years ago
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: conduct point to con for pro's forfeiture. Arguments to con due to pro's failure of convincing me to allow clone farming. Sources to con because he posted his sources!

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.