Cloning human is unethical and unjust.

My opponent's last series of arguments are severely flawed. First, my opponent decides to use my analogy. Yes, it is not very nice to give someone something that is dangerous, but the point is to show that the immoral outcome of a generally moral act does not need to come from the act. My opponent's arguments have all shown that immorality can come from human cloning, but not that human cloning in and of itself is immoral. By my opponent's logic, nothing would be moral, because there is always the case that something good can turn into something bad. Simply put, all of my opponent's arguments are full of "Can, could, would, might", and devoid of "will, is, always". It's all guesswork and possibility. Now, onto my opponent's individual arguments: 1. The choice of being able to enslave clones makes it inherently immoral. Obviously false. I have the choice to enslave my opponent right now. A clone, as an identical human person, would be treated as an identical human person. How would we justify their enslavement? My opponent would have us believe that human cloning MUST lead to a sci-fi post apocalyptic bit of nonsense when he has absolutely no reason to believe this could happen. This point must be thrown out. 2. My opponent has conceded the point about orphans. 3. A repeat of #1. My opponent argues that because the choice will be there, then it is immoral. I hate to break it to you, but the choice is NOT there. Clones are still people and they will be protected by law. And that's only IF we decide to clone people. My opponent's arguments are too full of uncertainty and guesswork to be taken as actual arguments. My opponent concludes with a grandiose address, asking what would happen if we were to abuse cloning. I now ask the audience, what would happen if we were to abuse anything? If my opponent wants to ban human cloning on the basis that it CAN be abused, we might as well ban everything, because EVERYTHING can be abused. Then, he goes on to saying that if we use human cloning for all the good purposes I mentioned, it would lead to overpopulation and *that* would be immoral. Isn't it painfully obvious that my opponent is grasping at straws? If he's going to argue that, then I could just respond by saying that we should make clones and oppress them, just so they would have a nice civil war with us and curb our population, correct? All joking aside, I have shown how the rational use of cloning can yield nothing but good results. The ability to clone human body parts and to cure diseases, to test drugs, to experiment with biotechnology, the ability to do all of the things that I stated which my opponent has (even at the end of this debate) NOT responded to, STILL STAND. We don't have to make full human clones. We don't need to go crazy with cloning. We don't need to open up a can of worms. Despite what my opponent says, we can simply avoid doing that. We would still be using human cloning for all of the good, and not even the slightest chance of the bad. The possibility that things can go wrong is much smaller than the probability that things can go well. If we abandon my opponent's chicken-little fears of the sky falling and examine this issue with rationality instead of inflated paranoia, we can see that human cloning is both ethical and just. As I said before, my opponent's argument is full of CAN, but devoid of WILL. Anything *can* happen, but my opponent has no argument stating that whatever WILL happen, is immoral, unjust, or unethical. I have debunked each and every part of my opponent's arguments. He has nothing supporting his claim, whereas I have more than made my case both against my opponent's concerns and for all the good that human cloning can do for mankind, if it is used reasonably. As such, I negate the resolution. Thank you to my opponent and to the audience. I hope we can do this again.