CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
There are ethical issues surrounding the idea of cloning, and in general, they are all hypothetical. Meaning, if we were to clone a human being right now, we don't know what the ethical ramifications would be. And they have the potential to be tremendous. (Though if the ethical issues were absent, then it would be an extraordinarily good idea)
This is because the reasons for cloning, while noble in intention, may forget one aspect of the cloning process: the clone. Do clones have feelings? In science-fiction books surrounding the ideas for cloning, it's generally regarded as a sign of societal panic. One example many people would know would be Star Wars. Did you ever wonder about the ethical issues of cloning from the prequel trilogy? It's not even a sub-theme, but in books about that era of Star Wars, it's a main issue.
Because, clones in that scenario are people. But because they were clones, they were essentially all slaves. They did not have the rights of people, and they were not treated as normal people were.
This is where the ethical dilemma of cloning becomes prevalent.
What if clones have genuine consciousnesses, emotions, opinions, and therefore, souls?
If they do, the original scientific purposes of cloning become completely unethical. If we clone so we can have a test subject for developing medicines, that's unacceptable, because the clone is a human being. If we clone to have an organ farm, that's unacceptable, because the clone is a human being. If we clone to have 'immortality', that is just plain stupid, because the clone may as well end up a completely different person then the original, as there is no evidence to support the idea they would have all the memories and personality of the original.
Inevitably, therefore, cloning has the potential to be extremely unethical, because if we create a genuine human being, the only purpose it would serve and still be ethical would be to increase the population, since experimentation upon human beings is unethical.
And the problem with that, is that we have MUCH easier ways to increase the population.
I think your argument is less that cloning is unethical, and more that the intentions behind the cloning and the treatment of the clones could be unethical. Yes?
Operating under the presumption that the question is referring to the cloning of full, functional human beings I would have to say that I cannot think of any reason why such cloning would be actually beneficial. Certainly, growing human organs independent of a full human entity could have its benefits but I am hard pressed to think of any unique benefits to cloning an entire human. There seems to be nothing that could be accomplished by cloning a human being which could not be otherwise accomplished through means which are less problematic and less expensive (time, money, and resources). As I adhere to a system of ethics premised largely upon utility I find the inefficiency objectionable.
In my point of view human cloning will help for a lot of people who will need donating organs. I mean if there is a problems and causes to change the organ which is vital, cloning will save your life.
But you must not forget about people who can not exist with out this organs. May be it is someones mother. It will be more unethical to let the people die .
Either way you are killing someone, if we were able to just clone organs then yes I would say go for it, but to create life than kill it is unethical. Just because its cloned does not mean it is not life.
First of all you do not know is it alive or not . I mean does it have soul or not. Thats why your arguments can be quite frivolous. Becouse science of cloning is not enough developed to predict it.
Secondly about "giving the life" , In my point of view only God can do it . Not humans.
First of all you do not know is it alive or not . I mean does it have soul or not. Thats why your arguments can be quite frivolous. Becouse science of cloning is not enough developed to predict it.
Secondly about "giving the life" , In my point of view only God can do it . Not humans.
I know its alive, I am alive right? And you cloned me, an exact replica of me, and then said I'm not alive, thats illogical. Every human, animal and plant is alive, just because they are cloned does not mean they are not alive.
Give me some facts they don't have a soul, actually, give me some facts that souls even exist. You don't have scientific evidence that it isn't alive either.
Out of curiosity, if cloning an entire body was required to get properly grown organs(it isn't) would removing the part of the genome that enables the brain to function(eliminating sentience completely) before the body begins development, would it still be unethical?
Stopping the brain from functioning is rather unethical, but again, if your just going to clone the organs there really is no problem, but cloning a full human than cutting them open, taking what you need than throwing them away is unethical.
But why would it be unethical? If you manipulate the genome to render the brain(before it has even begun to grow) nothing but an empty sack of tissue, where does any violation of rights occur?
If while you were a fetus someone altered your genome so that when you were born you were nothing more than a bunch of organs, then they cut you open, take what they want out and then throw it away. Does that sound ethical to you?
If he could render the brain unable to even begin forming, it wouldn't be a human anymore. I think it would be particularly gory though. As for whether this is ethical? I guess it is, I mean it's just a sack of flesh at this point.
But scientists are working on cloning individual organs for patients. So there's no need to alter the humans DNA to prevent a brain from forming, and then subsequently harvesting the flesh sack's organs.
So you think that if the brain doesn't from (due to someone fucking around with the genes) its not a human? So if you change the DNA in a way the makes a certain part of the problem not form, how does that make the human not a human? And if scientists will be able to clone individual organs, than they should, better than harvesting people.
Well, I'll cede to you the fact that it is genetically a human. But it is certainly NOT a person. It is just a sack of human flesh. An empty vessel.
Biologically speaking it is a human, but ethically speaking it is not. It has no awareness, no consciousness, it is about as aware of its surroundings as a rock. We are the product of our brains. Without a brain, we are nothing.
You seem to be too caught up with the fact that it resembles a human, that it therefore MUST be a human that is alive and potentially conscious of its surroundings and such. It's not a human without the brain though, I'm not sure why this is difficult for you to grasp.
It's not a human because it lacks a brain. It lacks every single quality of person hood. It has no emotions, no ability to think, no ability to feel pain or happiness or anything. It has no awareness, it is just a sack of flesh. Besides, without the brain the sack of flesh would die within a matter of days since it is unable to eat and do other basic tasks that are required to survive.
If one of your families members is in the hospital, and they've just been confirmed to be brain dead. Like without a doubt, just flat out brain dead. What purpose do you have to keep the flesh sack living?
Its a human, biologically it is. Just because it doesn't have a brain doesn't mean its not human, although it lacks awareness and emotion, its still a person.
If one of my family members was brain dead they are still human and are still a person, but I would have them taken off life support. But having a family member become brain dead and creating humans that are born brain dead so you can use it as a loop hole to say that they aren't human and cut them open are two completely different things.
If someone is brain dead its ethical to take them off of lifesupport, its not ethical to kill their brain just so you can cut them open and take their organs.
And hold on a sec, you want people to be kept alive as long as medically possible? Do you have any clue to how terrible being on life support can be, especially when you could be kept on it years and years and even though your family wants to put you out of your misery they can't take you off because the doctor wants to make a pretty penny?
And no, brain dead does not = dead. If you kill someones brain they are still alive, if because of their brain being dead they die then you are the killer.
Every human is a person, our society needs to stop this shit of thinking that they can make they get to decided when a human is no longer a human/person.
If someone is brain dead its ethical to take them off of lifesupport, its not ethical to kill their brain just so you can cut them open and take their organs
I never said killing someones brain and then cutting them open and harvesting their organs was ethical. I said if a human was genetically engineered to lack a brain, then it wouldn't be a person. It lacks all qualities of person hood. So I don't know why you're trying to defend the "rights" of this thing that has no personality, no consciousness, no feelings, no emotions, no brain. It's an empty shell of living tissue. That's all it is. It is not a person.
And hold on a sec, you want people to be kept alive as long as medically possible? Do you have any clue to how terrible being on life support can be, especially when you could be kept on it years and years and even though your family wants to put you out of your misery they can't take you off because the doctor wants to make a pretty penny?
Um, if you actually read the following sentence in the next paragraph, I said this was the absurdity YOU were proposing.
Human was alive, human gets in accident and ends up in hospital, later becomes brain dead due to complication. It is ethical to "pull the plug" in this situation.
Human is born without a brain, it never lived in any human meaning of the word. It can feel no pain, no emotions, it has no knowledge of its existence. It is as aware of its surroundings and existence as a pebble of sand on a beach. But it is not ethical to "pull the plug" in this situation, according to you. Simply because method of pseudo death is a bit gory to you.
And no, brain dead does not = dead. If you kill someones brain they are still alive, if because of their brain being dead they die then you are the killer.
Brain dead does not equal dead...? No, being brain dead makes a person dead. A person can be dead even with most of their body intact. Consciousness lies in the brain. If the brain is dead, it has no consciousness. Therefore, you don't exist anymore.
Every human is a person, our society needs to stop this shit of thinking that they can make they get to decided when a human is no longer a human/person.
Every person is a person. People need to stop making decisions off of their emotions, and start thinking objectively.
If while you were a fetus someone altered your genome
The question I have posed to you has the premise that the manipulation happens before any formulation of biological structures. They change the genome before fertilization.
Does that sound ethical to you?
As long as the faculties of the mind are absent, absolutely.
The question I have posed to you has the premise that the manipulation happens before any formulation of biological structures. They change the genome before fertilization.
No matter what you do to the DNA, its still a human, regardless of what some scientist might say.
As long as the faculties of the mind are absent, absolutely.
Alright, correct me if I'm wrong, but this seems to be almost the same argument for abortion, if its not conscious its not human. Why? How is this at all proof or validation that the human your about to cut open and salvage organs from is somehow lesser than other humans?
Biologically it is a human, but it lacks every quality of personhood required to ethically call it a human. Qualities such as intelligence, self awareness, creativity, happiness, sadness. Everything that makes a human a human, this "human" lacks, therefore it is not a person.
It is lesser than other humans because it lacks a brain, by far the most important of all organs in the human body. It is the organ that makes you who you are, without it you wouldn't exist.
Biologically its a human... its a human, end of story. You can go on and on about how it lacks all these aspects, but its still alive and its still a human, making people sole for the purpose of salvaging their organs is unethical.
Then why do you get to make the call? You've "made the call" based solely on emotions. This is a poor and foolish way to go about making decisions. Objective reasoning and evidence is required.
Neurologists and biologists, who are experts in this field, with lots of evidence for their theories, are not allowed to make conclusions on what constitutes whether or not one qualifies as a person?
Why do you qualify as an expert on what makes someone a human, but scientists who are experts in their field, are not allowed?
I'm really not making the call, I'm just saying that humans are human, your the one who is making the call that it is not human. But lets say I am making the call right? You really have no proof that its not a person, were both looking at the same thing and interpreting it different ways, and since your really aren't sure if its human or not, then you should have the decency to not take the chance of slaughtering a person just for their organs.
I don't care if their neurologists and biologists opinions on this, there "qualified" but then again its really just their theory thats not backed up by hard evidence, just assumption, also you can a scientist to make a case for anything.
You are making the call. I've stated that a brainless human is not a person. Biologically, it is a human. But at this point it's only a sack of flesh, composed of living cells which won't be alive for more than a few days with the lack of a brain.
This theory is backed by hard evidence. The evidence that everything that you and I are, is our brain. If our brains were to be removed from our bodies, our bodies would not be "us". They would be empty vessels of cells that had little time left to live.
Since this being never had a brain to begin with, why is it entitled to rights that only real people receive?
Biologically it is a human, thus, it is a person. Every human is a person, the end. Now I know I won't be able to get you to understand that, so let take a step back.
Making humans that are genetically modified to not grow brains so you can harvest their organs is as inhumane as genetically modify humans to be more gullible, submissive and stronger so you can use them for some special interest. Although you could make the argument that only slavery would be a special interest you have to consider that to extract organs in the way your are arguing for would be extremely expensive and would likely have to be for special interests.
Biologically it is a human without a brain, thus it is not a person. Go look up the qualities of person hood. This brainless human lacks ALL of them. This brainless human is similar to grains of sand on a beach, the only difference being that the "grains of sand" for the human are blood cells, skin cells, etc.
I don't think it would be unethical to grow brainless human sacks of flesh for the purpose of harvesting organs. I do think it would be extremely idiotic and inefficient and a waste of time though.
Every human has rights, doesn't matter if its a "person" or not, its still a human that deserves rights, how do we avoid this situation? Don't create people for the sake of harvesting organs in the first place.
Yes, it very much does matter if it's a person or not. We cannot go about giving things that are not people, human rights. You only deserve human rights if you are in fact a human with a brain.
You don't seem to realize that it is only a sack of flesh, an accumulation of living cells. The sack of flesh's name is not John, Joe, Billy, or Anna. It is nobody. It is not a person. It is only that which it possesses. It lacks a brain, therefore it is not a person.
I very much realize that it is a sack of flesh, but regardless its a human, no matter which way you put it every human is a person and gets human rights... after all, one would assume that all humans get human rights, not just the ones you select.
Not every human is a person. Situations like the hypothetical one we brought have either rarely or never occurred before. In this hypothetical situation, it is a human, but it is not a person. Therefore, it does not receive any rights. It is as aware of its surroundings as an inanimate object.
It is fair to assume that all humans gets human rights, because virtually all humans are born with brains. So no, I am not picking and choosing which people are worthy to have human rights, I am suggesting that because this brainless human lacks the qualities of person hood, that it is not a person. Because it is not a person, but merely a sack of flesh, it shall receive no rights.
Honestly, as I suspect with you as well, this debate is getting really boring and I'd prefer to get back to my usual stuff such as economics and drugs.
Human almost always equals a person, therefore no exceptions. In this case though, a brainless human is not a person. It lacks all qualities of person hood. How many times must I state this? I'll state them since you haven't bothered to look up qualities of person hood.
Consciousness (of objects and events external and/or internal to the being), and in particular the capacity to feel pain;
Reasoning (the developed capacity to solve new and relatively complex problems);
Self-motivated activity (activity which is relatively independent of genetic or direct external control);
The capacity to communicate, by whatever means, messages of an indefinite variety of types, that is, not just with an indefinite number of possible contents, but on indefinitely many possible topics;
The presence of self-concepts, and self-awareness, either individual or racial, or both.
Does the brainless human exhibit any of these qualities? No. Therefore, it is not a person.
What qualifies some as a person for me is that they are a human. Honestly, I could really care less about the "qualities of person hood" although they are not nearly as flawed as they were in the past they are still flawed today. Please try and use logic other than "I googled qualities of person hood."
What qualifies some as a person for me is that they are a human. Honestly, I could really care less about the "qualities of person hood" although they are not nearly as flawed as they were in the past they are still flawed today. Please try and use logic other than "I googled qualities of person hood."
Okay? That's about as illiterate as saying what qualifies something as a refrigerator is that it is a refrigerator. That doesn't define what a refrigerator is. Shall I google qualities of a refrigerator for you? You could claim that anything is a refrigerator, so long as you personally call it a refrigerator without ever defining what a refrigerator is. Stop being lazy. Define your terms.
What is your definition for person hood?
I am using logic, you are not. How can we have a logical discussion if you don't want to define your terms? You define your terms. Define what a person is.
If what you say is true, then a brain dead patient in a hospital MUST be kept alive indefinitely because they are a person. This is obviously false, the person is brain dead, therefore no longer alive. The ethical thing to do would be to pull the plug at this point. But by your definition of human, the brain dead human which is now just a bunch of living skin cells, blood cells, organ cells, etc, deserves to live. This is nonsense and you know it.
Okay? That's about as illiterate as saying what qualifies something as a refrigerator is that it is a refrigerator. That doesn't define what a refrigerator is. Shall I google qualities of a refrigerator for you? You could claim that anything is a refrigerator, so long as you personally call it a refrigerator without ever defining what a refrigerator is. Stop being lazy. Define your terms.
No, its not being illiterate its called common sense, its a human and it gets human rights, that is not some far fetched idea.
What is your definition for person hood?
Plain and simple, all human beings.
I am using logic, you are not. How can we have a logical discussion if you don't want to define your terms? You define your terms. Define what a person is.
Actually no, I am using logic, but since its different than yours you assume that its not.
If what you say is true, then a brain dead patient in a hospital MUST be kept alive indefinitely because they are a person. This is obviously false, the person is brain dead, therefore no longer alive. The ethical thing to do would be to pull the plug at this point.
Actually no, first off most people singed off to make sure that they are not prolonged on life support if they go into a critical state or become brain dead, also if they did not make the decision a family member would have likely known what they wanted, that would be ethical, growing brain dead humans for organs is not ethical.
But by your definition of human, the brain dead human which is now just a bunch of living skin cells, blood cells, organ cells, etc, deserves to live. This is nonsense and you know it.
No, they are to different situation, and don't give me that "blah blah blah they are the same" anyone would be able yo understand that they are two different situations. There is a difference between putting someone out of their misery when they said they didn't want to be on life support than creating brain dead people and just announcing that they have no rights and their organs belong to you.
No, its not being illiterate its called common sense, its a human and it gets human rights, that is not some far fetched idea.
This is not common sense. This is intellectually lazy. The brain is by far the most important and most complex organ in the human body. Without the brain, the human is not a person. If a brainless human were born today, would you keep it alive indefinitely because it has "inalienable" human rights?
Plain and simple, all human beings.
Very well, this is a very practical definition and it works in real life. But this does not work in our hypothetical situation.
Actually no, I am using logic, but since its different than yours you assume that its not.
There is logic that makes sense, and logic that does not. The main differences we have are the definition for what makes someone a person.
You: Person = human
Me: Person = Consciousness, Reasoning, Self Motivated Activity, Ability to communicate, and presence of self concepts. ONLY ONE OF THESE MUST BE PRESENT TO QUALIFY AS A PERSON.
I disagree that growing brain dead humans for organs is unethical. I think it is idiotic and pointless and a waste of time.
If a person is brain dead, they are dead. There is no putting them out of their misery, they are already gone. They've already been put out of their misery by the death of their brain.
A brainless human has no rights, because it is not a person.
Depends on what the goal is. I think we should be able to clone humans so long as the goal is to allow the human to live a normal free life like any other human.
One potential benefit for cloning humans, we could clone several geniuses we have today, assuming these geniuses consented to it. The world can always use more smart people.
One problem with cloning though is it's not 100% successful. Complications have arisen from cloning animals in the past. If we are going to clone humans, these complications must be overcome to ensure there is a practically zero chance of any complications during the clones lifetime or development.
I see that some people seem to think we might clone humans merely to harvest their organs. This is ridiculous. There is already work being done that would allow us to clone specifically individual organs for transplants in sick patients.
Human genetics are far more complicated than you make them out to be. You cannot simply take the genetic composition of a "genius" to clone that individual and expect that the result will be another genius. A genetic predisposition does have to exist, but a complex system of genetic triggers within human DNA must be activated through lived experience and opportunity to produce the same person. Without the capacity to reproduce the lived experience of the genius you would not necessarily end up with a genius clone. You could perhaps increase the likelihood, but there would be no guarantee. It seems a more efficient and dependable practice to increase the educational opportunities and social stability of more people to enable an overall growth in human intelligence and human capital, rather than relying upon the addition of a few maybe-geniuses.
I don't think I'm simplifying it. I'm talking about child prodigy geniuses. People who graduate high school at the age of 8 and graduate college at the age of 14. People who are hard wired to advance their minds at lightning speeds.
I still do not think it is that simple. There is an incredible amount of lived experience even just in eight years of life, and to replicate that would be difficult. There is no guarantee that you would still get a prodigy/genius. Perhaps you could increase the odds of creating a smarter than average individual, but an exact replication is unlikely (twins who share DNA become remarkably different in interests and talents for instance).
I would also like to reiterate my point that allocating the resources and research effort demanded by human cloning into increasing the overall educational and social opportunities for the greater population would yield higher benefits for the cost. To expect a few individuals to pull up the entirety of society is unrealistic and creates an unnecessary intellectual divide. Not to mention that the cloned humans may resent being created as a tool for social advancement (particularly if they are estranged by society for being clones); you are assuming these individuals would even want to put their gifts towards the progress of society. The mere introduction of the experience of being a human clone would significantly alter the life trajectory of those cloned beings in ways that we cannot accurately predict due to our limited knowledge of human psychology.
