Cloning human is unethical and unjust.

My opponent has conceded that he wanted to use the "stem cell" tirade in order to rebut my points. I have shown why the mention of stem cells is unnecessary for a debate of this nature, and my opponent has stated his agreement by changing gears and offering arguments about the ethics of cloning. Here are the points he stated: 1. Clones would be unjustly "enslaved", and it may lead to a Civil War. 2. The ability to clone would strand orphaned children. 3. Clones are essentially human, so anything I propose would be a violation of rights. All three of these points can be negated simultaneously by answering this one question: Why would we clone an entire human being? I redirect both my opponent and the audience to the definition of human cloning I provided in the first round: "Human cloning is the creation of a genetically identical copy of a human being (not usually referring monozygotic multiple births), human cell, or human tissue. " If I decide to clone a hand, it matches the definition of human cloning. If I decide to clone a foot, it matches the definition of human cloning. If I decide to clone a torso, a heart, two lungs, and a liver, it matches the definition of human cloning. Human cloning does not have to be the whole human, and I propose that the only type of cloning to be banned, is the cloning of the human brain. If we decide only to clone the body and not the mind, there should be absolutely no problem. In essence, the clones we make would be no more than piles of meat. 1. Clones would be unjustly "enslaved", and it may lead to a Civil War. 2. The ability to clone would strand orphaned children. 3. Clones are essentially human, so anything I propose would be a violation of rights. Now, ask yourselves this: How would unthinking piles of meat be unjustly enslaved, or fight a Civil War? Who would want to liberate unthinking piles of meat? What type of person would adopt an unthinking pile of meat to raise? And is a clone of a hand a human that derserves rights? Is a single cloned liver a human that deserves rights? Even if we grow all the body parts of a human in a laboratory, with the sole exception of the central nervous system, it would cease to fulfill any ethical definition of "human". Thus, there is no immorality, no ethical problem. I now call back my points, which I have been arguing since the very first round: There are many ways in which cloning technology can help humanity. 1. Human body parts can be cloned in order to replace parts that have been damaged or mutilated. 2. Organ systems cloned in large numbers can be used for drug testing. 3. Replicating human body parts allows for great leaps in the sciences of biotechnology; augmenting the human body with technology. Please notice that I was very careful in my language. #1- I stated specifically that human BODY PARTS can be cloned, I never said that an entire human ever be cloned. #2- I stated that organ SYSTEMS can be cloned, never all the organ systems at once. #3- I stated that we can replicate human body parts, never that we need to replicate entire humans. All of these points are valid and they still stand. My opponent has argued that these three points be negligible because the cloning of COMPLETE human beings would yield a number of ethical dilemmas. All ethical dilemmas he proposed have now vanished, since we are not talking about cloning entire human beings, but about cloning individual parts that have no consciousness or personality. My opponent should provide arguments why human cloning is unethical even if we do not clone the human brain or central nervous system. I await my opponent's response. Thank you.