Human cloning should be permitted

Right, sadly my biology isn't sharp either. 1) In certain states, yes, there is a ban on cloning. But there is no federal law prohibiting it, and some states do allow it. To quote my source: "Current regulations prohibit federal funding for research into human cloning, which effectively prevents such research from occurring in public institutions and private institutions such as universities which receive federal funding. However, there are currently no federal laws in the United States which ban cloning completely, and any such laws would raise difficult Constitutional questions similar to the issues raised by abortion." Source: http://en.wikipedia.org....... ---It is safe to say that cloning is legal in some parts of the US. That is right, but WHOLE USA prevents funding the researches of cloning. With no research and tools to make a clone because they aren't willing to fund is logically because they don't allow cloning, its that simple, even your source there says it. 2) At first I felt shock that I had been lied to through my years of college biology, but then realised you misread the source. To quote my source: "Twins can either be identical (in scientific usage, "monozygotic"), meaning that they develop from one zygote that splits and forms two embryos, or fraternal ("dizygotic") because they develop from two separate eggs that are fertilized by two separate sperm." Source: http://en.wikipedia.org...... ---What Con was describing was "fraternal" twins, which do not share any DNA. I am referring to "identical" twins, which are exact physical clones of each other Twins are born at same time but both living a different way. Its made of 2 different sperms so basically, ITS NOT THE SAME. Yes, the traiths are the same but fingerprints, still isnt the same. http://multiples.about.com... 3) I brought up the whole "cloning an army" issue to demonstrate that it is possible to raise an army without making clones of people. You can just fertilize eggs In-vitro (since both clones and "real" fetuses require a surrogate mother) with sperm from militarily efficient men. Cloning doesn't necessarily lead to this kind of reproductive abuse, since it is already possible and has not happened. So it is not a reason to ban cloning. It affects the army actually, you think normal people now these days doesn't want to join the army? Yes, it may not be a reason to ban cloning, but its not a reason to make it legal either. 4) My opponent claims that "A clone is if every trait is 100% from the same of the person you wanted to clone. We all know that twins all are different." a) Identical twins are genetically the same. But without a doubt they are mentally different. This is because personality is more than just genetics; it is affected by the environment you live in, the upbringing you had, and what outside ideas you are exposed to. b) I am not contradicting myself; I am bringing to light the fact that some people may think human clones are going to all act exactly the same, making them predictable and not unique, an important human quality. In fact, they will all be, at least personality wise, unique. Yes, twins are the same, BUT because they both have lived in a different environment, of course they are mentally different. Clones however, are perfectly identical, psychical and mentally. 5) I was trying to highlight that since the process needed to clone, and the fact that natural clones do exist, that it should be legal to clone You have then proven this has nothing to do with this debate. Go debate for a clone rights or something. 6) I'm glad we can agree clones will not be abused this way Hehe, we all are humans too you know, but anyway this has nothing to do with this debate. Refuting his old claims, i go back to mine. His arguments: 1) I agree that raising the population will cause food problems, but given the expensiveness of the cloning procedure, will it actually produce enough clones to significantly increase the food demand? As for the food supply itself, perhaps cloning could solve it. Imagine cloning the best of the best livestock, increasing the quality of the meat in stores and the health of everyone who eats it. There are also other wasteful ways humans contribute to population growth, such as a lack of contraception education. Hmm, it can be helpful IF it was used the way to clone animals for more food. But even so, where is your source saying that they were planning to do so? 2) I would like to combine my opponent's 1 & 2 contentions and say that my individual freedom to clone myself should not be restricted by the government for a socialist agenda. Not enough food or jobs? The government doesn't stop In-vitro for these reasons. The government also doesn't go around giving abortions to pregnant women for these reasons. Why should my rights be restricted for the faults of others? It is clairvoyant to say that the economy will not improve, America has been through worse times, and who knows, maybe there will be a high demand for workers in the future. You do now understand this point, people die and babies gets born, its a natural cycle. Making clones disturbs the cycle, having more people coming then dying, it affects the society. 3) This is already possible with identical clones, since they too share fingerprints. I do not how often this occurs, but I'm sure the presence of a clone would be taken into consideration in a murder case. There are other ways to prove ones innocence. Actually there are some very weird circumstances in which paternity can not be matched because the father actually has 2 separate strands of DNA in his cells. I forgot the name of the condition, but it was fascinating. Not relevant, but fun nonetheless. To say clones will add to the amount of crimes is to say clones will be inherently evil. Some clones might be evil, yes, but perhaps some will make great contributions to society by continuing where the person they were cloned from left off. Interesting ideas. I mean could you imagine a clone of Albert Einstein picking up where his "father" left off, assuming he was working side by side with the original and was taught all he knew. But I suppose the same could be said for Hitler, so I'd like to offer this contention as a moot point because it could go either way. We need to adept and learn from our ancestors. Albert Einstein gave us clues about his science and we took it along us knowledge and continued with the study. If you suddenly created a clone of Einstein, its the same as asking the same person over and over again to study for us. Refuted, happy? + 5 and 6 has nothing to do with this