CreateDebate


Debate Info

131
132
For Cloning Against Cloning
Debate Score:263
Arguments:107
Total Votes:298
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 For Cloning (51)
 
 Against Cloning (54)

Debate Creator

cconnery(18) pic



Cloning

WHAT IS CLONING?

 

Have you ever wished you could have a clone of yourself to do homework while you hit the skate park or went out with your friends?

Imagine if you could really do that. Where would you start?

What exactly is cloning?

Cloning is the creation of an organism that is an exact genetic copy of another. This means that every single bit of DNA is the same between the two!

You might not believe it, but there are human clones among us right now. They weren't made in a lab, though: they're identical twins, created naturally. Below, we'll see how natural identical twins relate to modern cloning technologies.

How is cloning done?

You may have first heard of cloning when Dolly the Sheep showed up on the scene in 1997. Cloning technologies have been around for much longer than Dolly, though.

How does one go about making an exact genetic copy of an organism? There are a couple of ways to do this: artificial embryo twinning and somatic cell nuclear transfer. How do these processes differ?

1. Artificial Embryo Twinning

Artificial embryo twinning is the relatively low-tech version of cloning. As the name suggests, this technology mimics the natural process of creating identical twins.

In nature, twins occur just after fertilization of an egg cell by a sperm cell. In rare cases, when the resulting fertilized egg, called a zygote, tries to divide into a two-celled embryo, the two cells separate. Each cell continues dividing on its own, ultimately developing into a separate individual within the mother. Since the two cells came from the same zygote, the resulting individuals are genetically identical.

Artificial embryo twinning uses the same approach, but it occurs in a Petri dish instead of in the mother's body. This is accomplished by manually separating a very early embryo into individual cells, and then allowing each cell to divide and develop on its own. The resulting embryos are placed into a surrogate mother, where they are carried to term and delivered. Again, since all the embryos came from the same zygote, they are genetically identical.

2. Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer

Somatic cell nuclear transfer, (SCNT) uses a different approach than artificial embryo twinning, but it produces the same result: an exact clone, or genetic copy, of an individual. This was the method used to create Dolly the Sheep.

What does SCNT mean? Let's take it apart:

Somatic cell: A somatic cell is any cell in the body other than the two types of reproductive cells, sperm and egg. Sperm and egg are also called germ cells. In mammals, every somatic cell has two complete sets of chromosomes, whereas the germ cells only have one complete set.

Nuclear: The nucleus is like the cell's brain. It's an enclosed compartment that contains all the information that cells need to form an organism. This information comes in the form of DNA. It's the differences in our DNA that make each of us unique.

Transfer: Moving an object from one place to another.

To make Dolly, researchers isolated a somatic cell from an adult female sheep. Next, they transferred the nucleus from that cell to an egg cell from which the nucleus had been removed. After a couple of chemical tweaks, the egg cell, with its new nucleus, was behaving just like a freshly fertilized zygote. It developed into an embryo, which was implanted into a surrogate mother and carried to term.

The lamb, Dolly, was an exact genetic replica of the adult female sheep that donated the somatic cell nucleus to the egg. She was the first-ever mammal to be cloned from an adult somatic cell.

 

For Cloning

Side Score: 131
VS.

Against Cloning

Side Score: 132
7 points

Cloning endangered species can allow a population boom in that species and prevent their extinction.

Side: For Cloning
royee12(10) Disputed
1 point

Changing the very structure of an ecosystem can have harmful effects on an environment. In the same that killing a population can hurt an ecosystem, creating an excess amount of organisms can have irreversible effects. Nature should be allowed to conduct itself how it wants naturally.

Side: Against Cloning
SeekSeven(30) Disputed
1 point

Cloning endangered species creates genetically identical individuals that are all susceptible to the exact same conditions, diseases, have the same immune system capacity...

A disease originating in one of the individuals will easily spread between individuals, and that is more likely to lead to extinction.

Also, to make such a solution viable, the clones would need to reproduce, possibly passing on recessive alleles, making a genetic condition in the offspring become apparent - which could cause a condition that leads to them being out-competed and, eventual extinction.

All roads lead to extinction - it's best, in my opinion, to create safe breeding environments for endangered species, that are protected, enabling numbers to increase, without the 'inbreeding'.

Side: Against Cloning
6 points

But for reals: Cloning allows us to weed out imperfections in crops or other organisms

Side: For Cloning
magicmusi8(1) Disputed
1 point

Actually, getting rid of imperfections isn't a god thing. We only getrid of thing we dont think are important, and could be a deciding factor to the whole race. We, as humans, are only gonna breed treits in organisms useful to us.

Side: Against Cloning
Elliott(30) Disputed
1 point

Yeah why shouldn't we? We can breed any traits we want into any specimen we want. This would be very beneficial.

Side: For Cloning
6 points

by studying cloning, scientists can research genetics more thoroughly. It could help to understand gene compostions better and the effects that genes have on human nature and personality.

Side: For Cloning
6 points

Extinct species can be brought back into existence. If DNA is preserved, that DNA can be cloned and produce new species through surrogate mothers.

Side: For Cloning
1 point

but surrogate mothers have a very negative affect http://www.ehow.com/list_7630988_bad-things-surrogacy.html

Side: Against Cloning
6 points

Infertile women are able to have babies through cloning and surrogate mothers.

Side: For Cloning
5 points

"Pharming" can advance through cloning. Farm animals produce pharmaceuticals. More farm animals, more pharmaceuticals.

Side: For Cloning
5 points

Although it has a low rate of success, cloning is a new procedure. Who knows what the future will bring? Like any other science, cloning could become incredibly efficient and safer. I feel that the pros to cloning outweigh the drawbacks and issues we face today.

Side: For Cloning
3 points

Exactly, Jarebear says it all right there and that's why he'll be president someday

Side: For Cloning
royee12(10) Disputed
1 point

In scene, we cannot afford the lives of originals and clones for what you "feel". There needs to be a point where we have to stop cloning and cease this immoral behavior.

Side: Against Cloning
Jarebear24(5) Disputed
0 points

It is not how I "feel". Look at our world today. So much has changed, in very little time. Scientific procedures develop so quickly today that there are very few procedures that do not make critical progress. You also make it very unclear as to what is "immoral" about this "behavior" (mind you it is not a behavior, it is a procedure).

Side: For Cloning
4 points

Clones are not meant to be made into people. Most of the time, clones are seen as tools or devices to be used to aid in human advancement. Clones would not be walking around in the world like we do

Side: For Cloning
LMDonahue(8) Clarified
3 points

If they are not walking around in the world, then what are we doing with them?

If we clone humans, will we just store them until we need them?

Side: For Cloning
JessM(6) Disputed
2 points

by supporting cloning, it does not mean that the only clones will be human. Cloning can be used to help weed out diseases in plants and animals. Cloning can also be used to create tissue or organs, without creating an entire person

Side: Against Cloning
Mushuukyou(30) Disputed
1 point

Not "meant" to ..what? There is no "meant to" or "not meant to". By suggesting there is, you're assuming there is some intelligence out there that decides things.

Wrong.

Side: Against Cloning
4 points

cloning technology can be used in the future to allow a couple with a sterile partner to still have children with DNA from both parents.

Side: For Cloning
Batman1(2) Disputed
1 point

But cloning is different from artificial insemiantion in that cloning makes a exact copy of a person with the same genes and artifical insemination is taking genes from two parents and putting it into an egg. Also, since cloning has such a high failure rate, then it may not be good to get a baby that has deformities from cloning.

Side: Against Cloning
4 points

Cloning can help cure diseases and illness. Cloning cells can help cure diseases like alzheimers, heart disease and cancer.

Side: For Cloning
chododo(63) Disputed
1 point

Cloning also creates diseases and cloned organisms often turn out to have LOS, "Large Offspring Syndrome", where organisms are born with abnormally large organs that lead to breathing and blood flow problems. You might say that LOS is a rare case but it isn't only LOS clones that get illnesses, cloned organisms without it can have kidney or brain malformations and impaired immune systems that cause them serious problems.

Side: Against Cloning
3 points

Your argument is invalid! Cloning is the way of the future!

Side: For Cloning
1 point

Cloning doesn't really harm anyone while having huge benefits such as repopulating endangered animals and creating animals that have desirable traits by cloning animals with traits that are needed or wanted.

Side: For Cloning
David12(15) Disputed
0 points

Focused breeding is dangerous. When you breed to maximize positive traits, you unintentionally maximize negative ones, too. Look at the chickens that can't walk, or the roosters that go on killing sprees. Cloning is just another extremity added to that process.

Side: Against Cloning
3 points

Cloning human organs can be helpful to patients who need transplants, e.g. hearts, kidneys, etc.

Side: For Cloning
2 points

Julia is always correct therefore cloning is good and we win

Side: For Cloning
LMDonahue(8) Disputed
0 points

While this is true, and a definite benefit of cloning, all you're doing is creating sets of "spare parts." If an alcoholic needs a new liver, because he has ruined his own liver, when will he learn that he is not invincible?

Side: Against Cloning
jdunlavey(5) Disputed
1 point

The gravity of cloning technology will be shaped by society. Lawmakers will set restrictions on cloned organs, as in how many cloned organs one can receive before health care does not pay for it.

Side: For Cloning
3 points

Diseased animals can benefit from cloning. In order to fix the problem within diseased animals, animals must go through generations and generations. Cloning can speed up this process and allow scientists to find the problems of diseased animals sooner.

Side: For Cloning
Micmacmoc(2260) Disputed
1 point

"Diseased animals can benefit from cloning"

At the moment cloning is very imprecise.

The current success rate for cloning is about 0.1 to 3%.

This means that for very thousand clones, only about thirty are made, maximum, and of these there is a 1% survival rate.

Diseased animals may benefit from cloning but the time that it would take for a single clone to be made would be huge, and then, after that, some time must be reserved for experimenting on the animal and searching for ways to help the diseased animals.

-

Cloning isn't cost-efficient.

To clone a human it may take about 1.7 to 2 million pounds to successfully clone someone.

Wouldn't it be easier to just let the diseased animal die?

If cloning costs so much then how can you expect people to be able to sustain it so that it actually benefits a race without crashing their stock markets?

Side: Against Cloning
3 points

Species that have a difficult time reproducing can be repopulated. Cloning can be used to repopulate endangered species!

Side: For Cloning
1 point

TEAM JAREBEAR FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Side: For Cloning
1 point

Species that have a difficult time reproducing can be repopulated. Cloning can be used to repopulate endangered species!

Side: For Cloning
2 points

1) Organ Replacement - Organs can be cloned to be used as backups in case someone's organs fail

2) Substitute for Natural Reproduction - Can help in cases of infertility and also some qualities of the children could be controlled

3) Help in Genetic Research - Scientists could understand genes better and also learn how to better fight genetic diseases

4) Obtaining specific traits in organisms - Customized organisms could be created that benefit research

Side: For Cloning
2 points

Yes, I am for cloning. I think it would be very cool to have an unlimited supply of body parts available as needed...yet, since I am da Christiand and catholic (I guess) I often wonder about the soul issue. Would the clone have one? Are they and individual? Do they have part of my soul? If I die do they retain my soul? Uh Oh, maye messing with cloning is a bad idea?

Side: For Cloning
Dremorius(861) Clarified
1 point

The concept of a soul was invented to explain why we live and have emotions, compared to non-living things.

Since we now know how we live (various functions in the body, cells, bacteria) and have emotions (via brain chemicals,) we should be able to let go of this mythical concept...

Side: For Cloning
2 points

Cloning will also be good for humans. We can clone ourselves, and then put ourselves into our new cloned bodies after we rid ourselves of whatever abnormalities we were suffering from so they don't happen again.

Cloning is going to be awesome.

Side: For Cloning

I think it would raise the ecOnomy, but it also sound really COol and it would make a cool movie

Side: For Cloning
2 points

Someone will do it eventually, we may as well get the mistakes out of the way as soon as soon as possible. If used responsibly, cloning could have huge benefits.

Side: For Cloning
2 points

Cloning is good................................................................................

Side: For Cloning
2 points

I think it could be useful, and it's interesting. I don't see any concerns with creating a new being as long as you look after it properly and not purposely make it suffer.

Side: For Cloning
1 point

Jurassic Park is probably the coolest thing I've ever seen... other than a wild Jarebear, those are even better

Side: For Cloning
1 point

clone more white people.. clone more straight people, clone more and more.........

Side: For Cloning
1 point

clone more racists,, clone more racists ,, clone more straight people,, clone more believers in god,,, clone more racists, cause dint you know, anything goes this world......

Side: For Cloning
1 point

It's the future and it's going to happen one way or another, so we might as well reap the benefits.

Side: For Cloning

I think cloning will bring about the discovery to grow limbs for amputees.

Side: For Cloning
9 points

Cloning minimizes the gene pool. It lowers genetic variation between humans, decreasing the odds of proper genetic selection. It could lead to increased genetic disease (similar to the products of inbreeding), and interferes with the process of evolution.

Side: Against Cloning
7 points

5000 points for Gryffindor! David is correct in that people will soon have no need to reproduce, since cloning is just as easy.

Side: Against Cloning
5 points

This might further isolate humans. We have become somewhat lonelier and isolated from each other with such rapid advancements in technology, so if we no longer need to reproduce sexually, what will happen to the meaning of marriage/love/etc?

Side: Against Cloning
Debatinator(10) Disputed
3 points

That is true, however, human clones would not be roaming the streets and reproducing. The human clones would be used for medical support. Plants and other animals that have been cloned will have a minimized gene pools, but they would most likely be used for farming and harvesting for food. Inbreeding would not occur if it is the same set of genetic code being repeated

Side: For Cloning
Jarebear24(5) Disputed
3 points

Cloning should not be used to replace the way organisms reproduce, it should be used more as a cure. While I agree that massive cloning would result in less variation, cloning does not have to be used in this way. Instead, we can use cloning to cure individuals, and does not necessarily mean that we will genetically modify people all the time.

Side: For Cloning
jdunlavey(5) Disputed
3 points

While cloning is a new technology with many possibilities, it is incredibly unlikely that reproductive cloning will completely replace sexual reproduction.

Side: For Cloning
5 points

Cloning is immoral, expensive, and can fall into the wrong hands. The main reason why cloning is unaccepted by many is that it is not right that scientists can "play God" and control the traits of a person. Stem-cell research is expensive, requiring many trials and errors. (Dolly the Sheep was the 276th attempt). Lastly, cloning may fall into the wrong hands. Political leaders, whether good or bad, may be cloned. Murderers and other criminals can be cloned to continuously commit crimes. All in all, cloning is unjust and should stop

Side: Against Cloning
4 points

yep! this is completely right in every way. okay this thing requires 50 characters so now I'm just filling this up wooo

Side: Against Cloning
JessM(6) Disputed
2 points

Even if political leaders or other unsavory individuals were cloned, that does not necessarily mean that the clone would become the same exact person. This clone would grow up in a different environment. Not all traits are carried in genes, some are nurture, not nature.

Side: For Cloning
4 points

Cloning is dangerous! Especially in its current state of testing. It took hundreds of failed embryos to produce Dolly, and Dolly, the longest-lived clone, only lasted a short while before she was overcome by genetic problems.

Side: Against Cloning
jdunlavey(5) Disputed
3 points

Any new medical technology is dangerous! Cloning is clearly a very new process, and doctors and scientists will eventually make it less dangerous and more efficient.

Side: For Cloning
David12(15) Disputed
6 points

Are we going to allow thousands to die as we develop technology to play God? It's too immoral.

Side: Against Cloning
4 points

Cloning is a fairly new process. It is far from perfected and poses many problems and risks to human life.

Side: Against Cloning
4 points

Removing the nucleus from a cell (used in SCNT) is a dangerous process.

Side: Against Cloning
3 points

The risk of cloning for organ farming is immense. Cloning can't legitimately eliminate donations, only the need for human donations. Imagine the emotional turmoil, not to mention the ethical questions raised, of a person created for the purpose of organ donation.

As for growing organs separately, that's a stem cell technology that eliminates human life. What right have we to destroy an entire life just to harvest a couple organs?

Side: Against Cloning
Debatinator(10) Disputed
1 point

My Sister's Keeper was a book about a family whose daughter was diagnosed with cancer. Once the parents found out, they had another child to be used for "parts." If there were clones, a new, original human life would not be used to try to cure those who were granted life. Instead, the clone would be used as a vestibule for parts.

Side: For Cloning
David12(15) Disputed
3 points

How can we justify this? Clones are human beings. They're not created sexually, but they are humans. The idea of using a human as an organ "vestibule" is terrible.

Side: Against Cloning
2 points

So the clone's life has less meaning because it is simply used to supply the original? Debasing the clone's life is immoral, violating human rights.

Side: For Cloning
3 points

Cloning is currently a very imprecise science at this point with only 1 or 2 successful occurrences out of 100. We often argue on the merits of a human life in regards to abortion and that it is cruel, but with cloning we make a life that is often deformed and doomed to die, which many clones do die from infections and unknown causes. Too much cloning would also eliminate natural variation in nature because it would be the same genes being spread around and defying nature. Is it right to farm organs and such for our own profit if it means having to test, and fail greatly, in order to advance the cloning science? Probably not.

Side: Against Cloning
CloneBen33(3) Disputed
2 points

Nothing is perfect right away, everything has to go through its ups and downs before it becomes acceptable. Obviously there might not be the best results at first but the organ replacement and cloning will be beneficial in the future.

Side: For Cloning
jofrancis Disputed
2 points

well your stupid clones are cool! Remember star wars the republic would have lost way faster without clones!

Side: For Cloning
CloneBen33(3) Disputed
2 points

Oh, I didn't know that this happened to be the star wars debate...

Side: Against Cloning
3 points

Cloning is a new discovery in science and is most certainly not perfected. When cloning Dolly the sheep, it took over 250 attempts to get the sheep.

Side: Against Cloning
3 points

what happened to reproduction!!!!!!

Jeez what has happened to us nowadays?

Cloning = no good

Side: Against Cloning
3 points

If we clone we will be copieing our selfs. Do you realy want someone out there who know all the information you do?

Do you want a selected group of people to get the power to be god?

The ONLY reason i think cloaning would be good would be in war when we are short on men.

Side: Against Cloning
1 point

The ONLY reason i think cloning would be good would be in war when we are short on men.

So, the start of the Clone Wars?

Side: Against Cloning
2 points

Cloning takes away the meaning of individuality! Who are YOU as an individual if there are 3 other clones of you that are exactly the same?

Side: Against Cloning
3 points

Lauren is right! Cloning not only makes the clone inferior to the original, but also debases the individuality of the original.

Side: Against Cloning
jofrancis Disputed
1 point

But you arn't exactly the same your personality and choices are changed by the individual basses on situations and differences in their life clones are just as individual as identical twins

Side: For Cloning
jdunlavey(5) Disputed
1 point

A clone has the same set of DNA as the original. This is the exact situation as identical twins. Twins can become very different based on their nurturing situations and experiences.

Side: For Cloning
2 points

Cloned organisms are much more prone to infections, and the procedure of cloning is expensive and extensive. The process of cloning began with 277 eggs; only 30 divided; only 9 actually induced pregnancy, and only 1 survived to term.

Side: Against Cloning
2 points

Keyword test: clones, gene pool, dangerous, playing god, organ farming, stem cells

Side: Against Cloning
2 points

The quick brown dog jumps over the lazy fox. "What is beauty?" General MacArthur responds to this with: "I shall return."

Side: Against Cloning
2 points

It's useless. The gap is too great. We'll never catch up. My spirit--nay, my soul--is broken. I am a shattered shell of the man I used to be.

Side: Against Cloning
1 point

Packing on the points. We can win! Win win win! Moooore points, please.

Side: Against Cloning
0 points

What if I support this with 50 characters or more? I think I'll get another point on this.

Side: Against Cloning
2 points

Also, cloning lessens the diversity of genes. It weakens our ability to adapt and is detrimental to the beauty found in individuality.

Side: Against Cloning

If I were a clone, i would be sad because I have no actual mother and also cloning makes one inferior and 'less valued"

Side: Against Cloning

As for organs, I think it is possible not to clone an entire being.

Side: Against Cloning
2 points

whats make every person special is because they are limited edition but if they have cloning i think they are'nt special anymore. because they have a copy, makes them are not special and different.

Side: Against Cloning
2 points

if you were to clone a human for instense they would not neccaserly look like the original person and they would start off as a baby and you would have to raise them; and it does limit the gene pool as well as in breeding and there would be more genetic diseases in the world.

Side: Against Cloning
2 points

I strongly believe that there is an issue on religion here in this controversial motion. Have you ever heard of the saying " Is Science Playing God?" ? The whole question suggest that science, as the world become more technologically advanced, is taking over the forces of nature. By then, what revolves around us human is science and nature will no longer play a part in the human society.

As for cloning, Is Science taking over God's "job" of creating humans? Most religions, Islam, Christianity etc believe tha God create humans and this iissue of cloning has unquestionably, undeniably raised a controversy that Sience IS playing God.

Side: Against Cloning
2 points

When you say your clone could do your'e homework for you, then your clone would get smarter and you would get dummer as you are both individuals

Side: Against Cloning
2 points

ii would think that cloning would hep with the over population of the earth and further deplete our resources.

Side: Against Cloning
2 points

Я проти клонування тому що дійсно не має сенсу для клонування. Ми не повинні грати бога. Також було овець, які отримали клонований і він жив ​​протягом 7 років, а потім помер. Таким чином, клонування не зможуть в людині.

Side: Against Cloning
1 point

cloning is basicly pretending to be god by creating humans. Cloning is defing nature because you are making someone who has identical dna as someone else, what happened to everyone being unique?

Side: Against Cloning
1 point

Subject pretty meticulous, my main argument - it is unethical, and therefore opposed. Mankind has lost the basic instinct - the instinct of self-preservation of the form (why continue to race if it can be artificially grown ...

Side: Against Cloning
law97(18) Disputed
1 point

It's not unethical, it is a new way to preserve species, such as lonely George the last Pinto turtle who recently died. We could have kept the Pinto turtle alive had we had the technology to clone. It could also help the people that cannot have children for various reasons such as infertility. It wouldn't mean that humans would have to be artificially grown, it would only mean that there would be another option.

Side: For Cloning
1 point

it's not necesssarily going to happen, because we have the right to allow it to happen or not, we are the ones developing the cloning technology, whether or not it's going to be the future, it all depends on us. We should not just say, 'ohh, no matter how it's going to happen, so just accept it.' This really shouldn't be the way of thinking, we should choose what we want or not.

Side: Against Cloning