Human cloning should be legalized

I will go on and refute the posted arguments and then pose. However, prior to that, I'd like to define cloning:clone Noun1. A cell, group of cells, or organism that is produced asexually from and is genetically identical to a single ancestor. Verb1. To produce or grow a cell, group of cells, or organism from a single original cell. . http://www.thefreedictionary.com...Thus, human cloning is producing a human organism or its cells whose cells are identical to its ancestor. Cloning that produces cells for the sake of medicine is therapeutic cloning. Cloning a human is called reproductive cloning. [1] Thus, my objective in this debate is to prove why both are wrong. Rebuttals: "Human cloning technology is expected to result in several miraculous medical breakthroughs. We may be able to cure cancer if cloning leads to a better understanding of cell differentiation. Theories exist about how cloning may lead to a cure for heart attacks, a revolution in cosmetic surgery, organs for organ transplantation, and predictions abound about how cloning technology will save thousands of lives. "Everything in this paragraph is merely prediction and expectations. There is currently no way we can know that therapeutic cloning could backfire. Then there's the chance that mutations will arise, and create. "Stem cells have sometimes mutated, and thus been rejected by the recipient's body. In other cases, at least with experiments on animals, they have produced tumors. It is obvious that therapeutic cloning will not be feasible until these deficiencies have been overcome. " [2] Therapeutic cloning can potentially create tumors, or, possibly, even worse cases. We cannot know when we will overcome these problems, or if even such cases can be overcome. In the end, we can never know whether or not complications will happen, no matter how much we develop the technology of cloning. Using therapeutic cloning is essentially either survive or worsen your state, possibly die. "People whose lives have been destroyed or have not been able to reproduce in this lifetime due to tragedy could arrange to have their DNA continued and fund research at the same time. For example: A boy graduates from high school at age 18. He goes to a pool party to celebrate. He confuses the deep end and shallow end and dives head first into the pool, breaking his neck and becoming a quadriplegic. At age 19 he has his first urinary tract infection because of an indwelling urinary catheter and continues to suffer from them the rest of his life. At age 20 he comes down with herpes zoster of the trigeminal nerve. He suffers chronic unbearable pain. At age 21 he inherits a 10 million dollar trust fund. He never marries or has children. At age 40 after hearing about Dolly being a clone, he changes his will and has his DNA stored for future human cloning. His future mother will be awarded one million dollars to have him and raise him. His DNA clone will inherit a trust fund. He leaves five million to spinal cord research. He dies feeling that although he was robbed of normal life, his twin/clone will lead a better life. "Now, this talks about reproductive cloning. To this, I just pose a question: Why would this guy want a copy of him to live a better life? The money factor means nothing here. His future mother might get money, but that doesn't matter in this case. So, this guy, who had a pretty sucky life, creates a clone just so he could live while he could not? I don't see how this is good for him. First, let's note that a theist wouldn't like to create a human being, since it goes against his religion. So let's say he's an atheist. Still, this copy of himself is just a fake, it isn't himself. He just stole his identity and poses as him. He won't live a life through him, he won't feel anything he does. And, really, what's the point of creating a being just so it could enjoy life? Not to mention that this being might just be an empty shell, soulless. I, personally would see this clone as an impostor, he's not a real human, just artificially produced to be exact like me. I pretty much think everyone wants to have his identity. Cloning would destroy the sense of identity, because you can be recreated a billion times. "With human cloning you could give a couple in the future both a child from your DNA and the financial assets from your lifetime to start out financially secure instead of struggling as most couples do now. "Giving children to a couple can be done through other means, and cloning is totally redundant in this way. People donate sperm, have surrogate mothers. There's no reason to create children by cloning, when we have ways to do it today, way more simpler. And I'm not going to talk about finances. The couple would be given money for mostly scientific research, to see how the child will develop, however, this makes no difference in the case. Just because people get money by raising clones doesn't mean it should get legalized. "Through the research leading up to human cloning we will perfect the technology to clone animals, and thus we could forever preserve endangered species, including human beings. "The animal part has nothing to do with the topic, so I won't talk about it. About the endangered species, it might seem beneficial in the first place. However, preserving humans through cloning will still seem highly unethical to many, and, again, identities will be stolen. We, the extinct humans won't feel their lives, and will have no benefit by cloning them. My Arguments: Reproductive Cloning1. If reproductive cloning was allowed, many, many theists would go against this and rebel. In fact, not only theists, but all pro-lifers. That's because, in order to create a clone, you have to kill an existing embryo [3]. This is, technically, killing a living being. Thus, many religious people will be against reproductive cloning.2. Another religious objection would be that creation is for God, we would be immoral to try and create a human life. 3. The cloned human might have a defect we cannot know about. Such defect could potentially not be found out by an ultrasound. This would lead in a human born with a defect. Now, we don't want to create those, can we? [3] 4. If cloning was done in large scales, there would be less genetic diversity in the world. We want genetic diversity, as it leads to evolution [3]. 5. Again, we cannot know what kind of a defect might the produced human have. We could create a potentially terminal disease. We will never be able to totally manipulate our DNA to make this impossible.6. I'll bring up the identity case again. People don't want exact copies of them laying around. They want to be unique, one and only. If cloning was possible, this kind of identity would vanish. Therapeutic Cloning1. This kind of cloning as well includes destroying an embryo, and thus, many people will go against it. [2] 2. It is estimated that we need a 100 eggs to produce a usable stem cell line. "This means that if a cure for diabetes involving therapeutic cloning is found, it would take 1.5 billion eggs to cure the 15 million Americans who have diabetes. " [2] And, then, removing eggs from a woman is both painful and costly [2]. It could also cause injuries. Thus, it would take a large amount of women to donate their eggs, paying a lot and with the risk of having an injury just to wipe out diabetes.3. Once again, I mention the defect point. There's no way we can guarantee that therapeutic cloning won't produce a defect, potentially very dangerous. To sum up, for these reasons, cloning shouldn't be legalized. Religions and pro-lifers are strongly against it. It would potentially cause defects and diseases, leading to possible death. Cloning requires taking a cell for a woman, which is painful and might cause injuries. I believe I had managed to explain why cloning shouldn't be legalized. Sources in comments.