Human cloning should be legalized.
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Number of rounds
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
To whoever joins this debate, best of luck. If the Con wants to try and either message me questions or comment questions for me, I will do my best to answer them, but I'm not making a guarantee due to my schedule. Lastly, before we start the debate, to structure the debate, I use a system like this
1. Main point.
A. Impacts to show what happens if we don't solve the main point.
B. Another impact if present.
I. Roman numerals to show sub impacts if applicable.
This little bit is a copy and paste, so all these points might not be in every debate I'm in.
On the topic itself, I as Pro am going to add framing, but that's all debatable so I'm not going to put it in the description. I want as little as possible holding Con back from doing what they feel is a good strategy to win the debate, so do your best. Only rule I would say is no new args in the last round.
Cloned sheep, cows, and mice have been known to die before or shortly after birth. But the latest case highlights for the first time the long term damage that the cloning process may cause." As you can see, cloning would be unethical as it would cause pain and suffering merely for the case of research. Pro must over come this in order to win the debate.
We would also implement the ability to clone parts, The most important being organs and cadavers for research. These would truly just be bodies, No soul or consciousness attached
This leads to the cures of multiple genetic conditions
If we can evolve the human race to be smarter, Then this creates an ever exponential ability to find solutions to problems
brainless clones acting as living cadavers
We're either going to need a way to quickly grow the population or we're going to grow very slowly
The genes still exert their influence -- some of the brain's circuitry is hardwired from the start and immutable. People don't have to learn to want food or sex. But as the new connections form, the mind floating higher and higher above the genetic machinery like a helium balloon, people learn to circumvent the baser instincts in individual ways." You might be able to clone Hawking's brain, but to clone his experiences is another matter entirely. Negated.
Extend all of the framework since it was ceded.
1. The issue of clones not being healthy themselves is solving itself. Science is already developing solutions to these issues. One that is gaining a lot of traction is gametogenesis. (1) Gametogenesis is where the embryo is developed through normal cloning means, stem cells are extracted from the developing embryo, those stem cells are turned into a sperm and egg cell, and a clone is developed from that. Since science is always evolving and moving forward, it will solve itself. Being able to do human cloning would actually allow us to eventually figure out all the issues within the process that much faster.
A. Gametogenesis solves. Once again, since we figure out how to create eggs, we won't need to utilize hormone treatments or unneeded surgeries. If we can create eggs through the process, then none of the issues brought up by Con will come to fruition.
B. Consent allows for it. I know my opponent led a preemptive argument against informed consent, so I'll answer it separately. What I will say is that the issues about hormone treatment and surgeries to extract eggs are fully understood and we can get fully informed consent, meaning the arguments that my opponent did make about consent do not apply to acquiring eggs.
A. We can give all the available information and very clearly articulate that there is more we don't know. To say we can't give informed consent means that you say the average person can't understand the idea that we simply don't have all the answers. Most people who volunteer for research understand that we don't know all the facts, that's why we're doing research. Informed consent means we tell them everything we know and make it clear that there's a lot we don't.
B. The argument that a child can't consent to being born in a certain situation toes a very thin line. Can the disabled have kids if there's a high chance there child will have the same disability? Whatever the opponent answers is a double-bind for against the argument. If they say yes they can, then obviously the child's consent isn't a weighing factor, and if they say no, then their logic is justified from the ableist idea that physical conditions detract from the value of a life, in which case we shouldn't evaluate ableist arguments.
A. Firstly, my framework outlines that tangible advantages have to come before ethical ones. All of this is an ethical question about the social placement of clones. Even if you believe that I completely lose this social point, if you think I have more tangible advantages on my side, then I win the debate on that point, especially since my opponent never challenged the framework, so he agrees that the tangible comes before the ethical.
B. Let's say that clones that have brains, so not the organs or cadavers, have full rights. They are a separate entity that has full autonomy. I would argue that any nation that would enslave clones en masse to create a military or research buff would probably violate international law to do it. The only nations that are really held back by law is the nations who would most likely respect the rights and autonomy of the clones.
C. My opponent is creating a slippery slope saying that the fact we would study the first human clones for medical conditions means we would enslave them for science. My argument isn't that he uses the fallacy, but the fallacy is empirically flawed. We don't enslave the children born through artificial insemination, but we researched the first babies born this way to ensure they were going to be safe and alright. (2)
1. I'll answer all of the statements of my opponent.
A. Organ cloning is 100% possible and would work through the same process described earlier, but instead of turning the stem cells into eggs and sperm, we would use them to cultivate organs. (3) This is highly possible scientifically. The organs would be created in a lab and constructed when needed for transplants. The next question is does it fall under human cloning, to which I would say it does. Human cloning shall be defined as creating a perfect copy of human DNA. If my opponent wants to challenge that definition, then let him, but without defining it you really can't claim it doesn't fall under it.
B. Because, while we can learn the basic of genetic manipulation by cloning animals and then genetically changing this code, we don't get species specific genetic information. Cloning of animals isn't going to give us the in depth genetic information we need on the human genome to better understand what is necessary to solve genetic conditions.
C. This argument is a purely ethical claim, meaning it comes second. If I prove that we can make humans better, any ethical issues with that get evaluated second. Also, as long as people exist in a diverse state like now, this diversity will exist forever. Different people will have different values, meaning they will inherently create different genetically engineered kids, meaning we will have diversity.
It would inherently be profitable to cure genetic conditions
2) There's no reason we can't do both to get the benefits of both.
Due to everyone having access to genetic cures, economic boosts, and all the other benefits of cloning, you must vote pro, especially since all of my opponents arguments are simply outweighed in the uncontested framework.