BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Cloning treats children as objects. Children will be manufactured by an expensive technological proc...

Cloning treats children as objects. Children will be manufactured by an expensive technological process that is subject to quality control. The gulf between an artisan and an artefact is immense. Individuals will be able to have a child for the sake of having children, or as a symbol of status, rather than because they desire to conceive, love and raise another human being. Cloning will not only allow, but actually encourage, the commodification of people.
Cloning is playing God. It is not merely intervention in the body’s natural processes, but the crea...

This argument assumes that we know God’s intentions. Evidently, there is no biblical statement on the ethics of human cloning. Who is to say that it is not God’s will that we clone ourselves ? At least one Hindu writer has indicated that Hindu thought embraces IVF and other assisted reproduction technology (ART). Moreover, every time that a doctor performs life-saving surgery or administers drugs he is changing the destiny of the patient and could be thus seen as usurping the role of God. Furthermore, we should be very wary of banning something without being able to say why it is wrong. That way lie all sorts irrational superstition, repression, fundamentalism and extremism.
Reproductive cloning is contrary to human dignity. ‘Donum Vitae’, the declaration of the Catholic ch...

When people resort to talking in wholly empty abstract terms about ‘human dignity’ you can be sure that they have no evidence or arguments to back up their position. It is difficult to understand why the act of sexual intercourse that leads to sexual procreation is any more ‘dignified’ or respectable than a reasoned decision by an adult to have a child, that is assisted by modern science. The thousands of children given life through IVF therapy do not suffer a lack of dignity as a consequence of their method of procreation. The Catholic church regards every embryo from the moment of existence as a living person. This position is not shared by most Western governments, and it would deny not only cloning, but IVF and all the medical knowledge and benefits that have accrued from embryo research.
Cloning will lead to a diminished sense of identity and individuality for the resultant child. Inste...

It should be emphasised that children produced by reproductive cloning will be ‘clones’ but not ‘copies’ of their parents. Different environmental factors, nurture, and the process of gestation mean that children will not be emotionally or mentally identical to the people from whom they are cloned. Furthermore, this objection would apply to all identical twins. A small proportion of identical twins do indeed suffer from psychological problems related to feelings of a lack of individuality. However, cloned children would in fact be in a better position than these monozygotic twins, as the clones will be many years younger than their genetic twins, which are of course their parents. They will not be daily compared to a physically identical individual, as there will be a gap between their ages, and hence psychological and physical characteristics, of tens of years.
Human reproductive cloning is unnecessary. The development of in vitro fertilisation and the practic...

The desire to have one’s own child and to nurture it is wholly natural. The longing for a child genetically related to oneself existed long before biotechnology, but it is only recently that medicine has been able to satisfy it. In vitro fertilisation remains an imperfect technology. Couples typically submit to four cycles of costly treatment before producing a child. Evidently, the technique does not assist homosexual couples, couples where both partners lack gametes, or where the female partner suffers from a mitochondrial disease. Cloning would allow a child to be born to all these couples.
Cloning is playing God. It is not merely intervention in the body’s natural processes, but the crea...

Cloning is playing God. It is not merely intervention in the body’s natural processes, but the creation of a new and wholly unnatural process of asexual reproduction. Clerics within the Catholic, Moslem and Jewish faiths have all expressed their opposition to human cloning.However, this objection to cloning is not specifically theological. David Hume, the eighteenth-century Scottish moral philosopher, warned us to heed our feelings as much as our logical reasoning. Leon R. Kass of the University of Chicago has stated in relation to human cloning, that mere failure to produce scientific reasons against the technology, does not mean we should deny our strong and instinctive reactions to it. As he states, there is a 'wisdom in repugnance'.
Reproductive cloning is contrary to human dignity. ‘Donum Vitae’, the declaration of the Catholic ch...

Reproductive cloning is contrary to human dignity. ‘Donum Vitae’, the declaration of the Catholic church in relation to the new reproductive technologies, holds that procreation outside the conjugal union is morally wrong. Many secular organisations, such as the WHO and UNESCO have issued statements that similarly find cloning violates human dignity. Assisted reproductive technologies might all be seen as challenges to human dignity, including IVF and sperm donation. However, human cloning is a completely artificial form of reproduction, which leaves no trace of the dignity of human procreation.
Cloning will lead to a diminished sense of identity and individuality for the resultant child. Inste...

Cloning will lead to a diminished sense of identity and individuality for the resultant child. Instead of being considered as a unique individual, the child will be a copy of his parent, and be expected to share the same traits and interests, such that his life will no longer be his own. This is an unacceptable infringement of the liberty and autonomy that we grant to every human person. The confusion of the offspring is likely to be compounded by the fact that his ‘parent’, from whom he is cloned, will be genetically his twin brother or sister. There is no way of knowing how children will react to having such a confused genetic heritage.
Human reproductive cloning is unnecessary. The development of in vitro fertilisation and the practic...

Human reproductive cloning is unnecessary. The development of in vitro fertilisation and the practice of sperm donation allows heterosexual couples to reproduce where one partner is sterile. Moreover, merely 300 babies are adopted each year in the United Kingdom. It might be better for potential parents to give their love to existing babies rather than attempt to bring their own offspring into an already crowded world.
The technology is unsafe. The nuclear transfer technique that produced Dolly required 277 embryos, f...

Cloning is in this respect no different from any other new medical technology. Research is required on embryos in order to quantify and reduce the risk of the procedures. Embryo research is permitted in Britain until the fourteenth day of embryo development. Many other Western countries are also actively engaged in embryo research. The thousands of ‘spare’ embryos generated each year by IVF procedures and destroyed could be used to the good purpose of human cloning research.
Reproductive cloning harms the integrity of the family. Single people will be able to produce offspr...

This argument is wholly unsuited to the modern age. Society freely allows single people to reproduce sexually, whether by accident or design. Existing lawful practices such as sperm donation allow deliberate procreation without knowledge of the identity of the father. Surely it is preferable for a mother to know the genetic heritage of her offspring, rather than accept sperm from an unknown and random donor? Moreover, reproductive cloning will allow lesbian couples to have children genetically related to them both. It might be better for the welfare of the child for it to be born into a happy relationship, but the high rates of single parenthood and divorce suggest that this is not always possible.
Cloning will lead to eugenics, or the artificial manipulation and control of the characteristics of ...

There is much more danger of eugenics associated with developments in gene therapy and genetic testing and screening, rather than human cloning. The notion of clones of Hitler is frankly preposterous. Psychologists have shown that nurture is at least as important as genes in determining personality. It would be impossible to produce another Hitler, or Elvis, or whomever, by cloning or any other ART. Clones (people with identical genes) would by no means be identical in every respect. You only need to look at identical twins (who are genetic clones of each other) to see how wrong that assumption is, and how different the personalities, preferences, and skills of people with identical genes can be.The idea of breeding huge fighting forces is also confined to the realm of science fiction. The necessity of thousands of willing mothers, the nine month gestation process, and the many years rearing this child towards adulthood, means that cloning would hardly be an efficient technique for any mad dictator to raise an army. And there is no reason, in any case, to suppose that a clone would be any more willing or effective a soldier than any other human being - clones (like twins) are just as conscious and free as everyone else.
Cloning will lead to a lack of diversity amongst the human population. The natural process of evolut...

Any reduction in the diversity of the human gene pool will be so limited as to be virtually non-existent. The expense and time necessary for successful human cloning should mean that it will only be used to the benefit of the small minority of people who require the technology. The pleasure of procreation through sexual intercourse does not suggest that whole populations will prefer to reproduce asexually through cloning. The only significant lack of diversity which can be expected will be in women who suffer from a severe mitochondrial disease. They will be able to use cloning by nuclear transfer in order to avoid passing on the disease which is carried in their egg cells to any offspring. This elimination of harmful genetic traits from the gene pool is no different from the eradication of infectious disease, such as small pox, and should be welcomed.
The pain is about the same as a shot

Not vaccinating a child can have serious consequences, such as illness, severe complications from the illness and death. The pain of the vaccination serves to protect the child. Pierced ears do not protect the child from anything and are in no way necessary. The issue is not necessarily how painful the ear piercing ritual is- it is the fact that pain is being caused to the baby in the name of vanity. Pierced ears also require maintenance that vaccine injection sites do not. It is not a "one time thing" because the earrings remain in place and need to be cleaned and turned on a regular basis.
It inflicts unnecessary pain on the child.

The pain suffered by a properly done ear piercing to the ear lobe is often less than that caused by a vaccination (or cutting their nails!). The pain it inflicts is minimal and doesn't cause any unnecessary or cruel suffering. Any discomfort will be quickly forgotten by a baby once the piercings heal. Older children will be much more likely to remember any pain associated with piercing and may be more traumatized later in life.
Ear piercing is not permanent

Not all piercings close. Many people find their piercings simply never completely close over. ------ As an example. My ears never close up, I have 3 piercings, one in each lobe and a piercing at the top. I don't wear earrings for months, and only wear them for special occasions and they never have to be "re-pierced." Which means the piercing is as permanent as a tattoo.
Children are beautiful as they are.

Parents buy clothes for their children, they wash their hair and are free to add other accoutrements if they so wish. Attractiveness is always on the agenda, often subconsciously, and we don't force parents to make their children all look equally ugly. Ear piercings alone won't make a child vain, and are a symptom, not a cause, of problems in society today. Piercing ones ears is not an attempt to make a baby more attractive i am sorry but any body baby or adult who is already ugly (in whomever's eyes) is not going to be found magically more attractive with pierced ears, because if it was then the whole world would have pierced ears. Tattoos are ear piercings are not the same at all, that is like comparing apples to oranges. Tattoos also are permanent while pierced ears are not, and if the child chooses later to not wear earrings they will close up.
We cannot give businesses responsibility over childrens' health

It should be left to the company who are resposible and who hold the licence on if their business should pierce babies ears. They pierce ears every day and are experienced enough to know what they are doing whether the client is a baby or an adult. Any adverse results will reflect on their reputation so they will be motivated to take the best care of the baby from a medical point of view. The yes point is not true. When i called around to find out how old my daughter had to be to obtain an ear piercing they asked her age, as well as informed me she needed to have her first vaccination before she was allowed to be pierced. They also informed me that piericng them young is difficult because you can not ask them to hold their head still as you can with a two year old, and if she were to squirm too much it could cause the holes to be slightly crooked, or the piercer may choose not to do it at the time because the child is unable to be still long enough. Company's do not want to have bad customer service
It's her ears, not theirs. She's not a doll or the family pet.

Some people like to treat their babies as though they were the family pet: Get the dog’s tail cut. Get the cat de sexed and get kid’s ears pierced. It doesn’t matter to them that she is another human being, and will be living with it for about the next 90 yrs. I think it is a very selfish attitude and should forbidden by law up to an age where she can decide for herself.
Parents have the right to make that choice for their child.

Babies are not old enough to make decisions for themselves. If they don't like the earrings when they are older, then you can just take them out. It's not just rooted in fashion either. Some cultures pierce for religious reasons. To take issue with this then you must also take issue with, for example, circumcision. Fashion is imposed on a child the minute it comes into the world with the choices of clothing the parents put on their body, and not everyone chooses to pierce ears for fashion. A piercing is not always permanet, both the tongue and belly button (for example) heal up perfectly when the piercing is removed.
It inflicts unnecessary pain on the child.

No responsible parent should ever want their child to be in pain. It is hard enough watching your baby cry squirm when it has vaccinations! I think that making your child suffer in the name of fashion is cruel and vulgar. Moreover the opposing point contradicts itself. On the one hand it states that pain is minimal and it does not cause any unnecessary or cruel suffering. On the other hand it admits that older children will experience pain with piercing and may be traumatized by such pain.
Ear piercing is not permanent

Aside from the fact that it is a safe and minor procedure, the effects of the piercing are reversible. If the child grows up and decides that they do not like having pierced ears they can simply wait for the pierce hole to close naturally, which happens when it is left alone for several weeks. Furthermore, tangibly and on the ground, there has been not much reported complaints from children who have suffered from their parents decision to pierce there ears. Thus there is not enough substantial reason for the government to intervene in the parent’s decision to pierce their children’s ears.
Children are beautiful as they are.

It is wrong to pierce a child's ears to make him or her look more "attractive". Our children should be free of vanity, it is hard enough worrying about how you look once you are a grown up. Children are innocent, and shouldn't be 'tampered' with. It looks trashy, and the child should have a choice, make it a right of passage at a certain age.. or something. If you're going to pierce her ears, you may as well get a tattoo, too. It won't hurt as much.
Ear piercing can help to identify the baby as a girl.

It seems ridiculous to impose arbitrary gender roles on an infant. Why is it so important to know the sex of a baby? If it is necessary for some reason, I’m sure asking the parent would suffice. Besides, you can always have the baby wear a dress, a hairband or a skirt. Very many parents pierce their sons’ ears. I don’t know what proportion but by what I’ve seen it is roughly equal among the genders.
i don't think it'd that bad,it's a personal choice sand there sre other things that should be banned like CIGERETTES!and RED FOOD COLORING,& MSG,ETC.ETC...

The fact that we are talking about a vulnerable group such as babies who cannot speak up for themselves makes this an appropriate area for legislation. If adults object to the state of the law in the UK they can take action to try to change it e.g. protest, contacting their MP, forming a pressure group. Babies have no choice in this matter and so need the law to protect them. Furthermore, not being able to convince everyone by reason and argument is not a reason not to legislate. We would not consider dropping the law banning underage drinking to instead rely on convincing young people not to drink.
Risk of infection or injury.

In this case it would be the responsibility of the parent to ensure that the piercing is kept clean and not tampered with. If the child is hospitalised because of an infection, then maybe it highlights a problem with the parent, rather than a minus point for banning baby ear piercing. There are also many other risks in life that parents take that can cause a child to become hospitalized, such as a reacction to a vaccination, introducing new foods and having an allergic reaction. If a parent does their research and makes sure that place chosen to pierce ears at is clean and sterile, The earrings come from a sealed sterilized package, and you research which meatals are not an allergen then there will be no issues with the piercing becoming infected, or needing to go to the hospital. Certain metals such as gold cause allergies, because gold is never pure and that is why if you talk to a professional body piercer they do not use it.
Culture and tradition are not an excuse

Spain and Latin American countries have been piercing baby girls' ears for decades: it is a very ingrained part of their culture. And as far as I am aware there isn't a groundswell of opinion that it is barbaric or dangerous. Why on earth should it be banned? There is too much cotton wool already in the world. Australia is also famous and infamous for alot of things e.g too many childhood vaccinations, poor nutrition for children, obestity, Autism (which is low in Latin American countries) , childhood cancer etc, and the list goes on. Other countries around the world have good reason to fault our culture too, we are very far behind in a number of issues eg fair trade, environment, arts, natural medicine, culture etc etc More children are sick here than in Latin American counties.
Yes

I guess we shouldn't dress our babies anymore because God forbid a parent's taste is involved. I don't remember any of my friends growing up and wishing their parents never pierced their ears as a baby...but I do recall girls that wanted earrings but their parents said no. Isn't that impossing "the parent's sensibilities and tastes on the child"? If my daughter doesn't like earrings, there is a simple fix. She can take them out. I've seen parents do worse things to their babies than piercing their ears. I think a parent should make the decision. Banning is ridiculous. Unnessary pain???? what about all the heel pricks they take when they are a newborn to test their blood for jaundice perhaps we shouldn't put them through that either??? Vaccinations also cause pain.
Ear piercing can help to identify the baby as a girl.

It is often difficult to tell whether a baby is a boy or a girl. If its ears are pierced then people can immediately identify the baby as female Arbitrary gender roles?? What about the colors of clothing we choose to dress our children in once they are born, pink, blue etc. So stating that putting a girl in a dress or skirt to tell the gender apart is placing them into an arbitraty gender role stating that girls should wear dresses and skirts and not boys.
i don't think it'd that bad,it's a personal choice sand there sre other things that should be banned like CIGERETTES!and RED FOOD COLORING,& MSG,ETC.ETC...

Whilst I personally disagree with the idea that babies should have their ears pierced I am also fed up with a nanny state that sees fit to legislate all areas of our life. If we want parents to not do this we should convince them through reason and argument. If we can't convince them, and clearly we will never be able to convince everyone, so be it. Part of living in a society is accepting people will choose to do things we may think wrong. Provided the things they do don't harm others then they state has no place controlling their actions.
Culture and tradition are not an excuse

Latin America is famous and infamous for a lot of things, as is Spain. If they wish to channel their culture along the lines of baby ear-piercing then so be it, but this does not mean it is necessarily suitable for any other culture. The lack of a ‘groundswell’ of opinion suggests widespread indifference – not correctness. People have been throwing litter and smoking cannabis for hundreds of years too – this, similarly, does not make them worthwhile or sensible activities.
Higher taxes encourage tax avoidance

High taxes means that people try and source ways of avoiding paying the taxes. This means that people try and evade the system. This can be seen in Sweden. Here they have a wealth tax. Thy discovered that if they ;lowered the taxes slightly, they would actually gain more revenue from the tax as less people would try to evade it. [[http://www.thelocal.se/19648/20090525/]]. In addition, as people evade taxes and the state tries to enforce payment, funds are being wasted by the state. This is not the way of an effective state.
Higher welfare means more people rely on benefits

The problem with being so generous is that people are encouraged not to work. People know that if they do not work, if they sit on their backside, their living costs will be catered for well by the state. This means that there are people in the state who can work but do not. They do not contribute to their skills to that society. This is not an effective state. In an effective state everyone needs to contribute what they can to the society and their economy.