why human cloning should be allowed or banned

DefinitionsMy opponent never provided a definition of human cloning, so I will do so. Human cloning is defined as "The creation of a genetically identical copy of a human." [1] This definition implies that an entire copy of the individual is being created, and not that individual organs are being created. At the point that this is true, any arguments about the creation of new organs without creating new human beings should be excluded from this round because an entire human being is being created in this debate. Also note that human cloning excludes therapeutic cloning, which is done for the purpose of solving medical treatments. My burden is thus to prove that the creation of a new human being is unethical.Negative CaseContention : Cloning methods are harmful to the clones and thus cause unnecessary suffering. The first indication that cloning methods are unjust is that they cause unnecessary pain to the clones, which would also be considered humans. Cloning techniques are highly inaccurate, and cause a variety of genetic, psychological, and physical disorders in animals. A study published by Rudolf Jaenisch of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in October 2011 notes that 1 out of every 25 genes of the 10,000 genes in mice are expressed abnormally. [2] Moreover, cloning in mice has often caused a variety of physical problems, including premature death, pneumonia, liver failure, and obesity. [2] An example of these negative impacts stems from the first cloned mammal, Dolly the sheep. Dolly was euthanized in 2003 due to severe arthritis and a progressive lung disorder that she obtained due to a weakened immune sysetm. [3] Cloning problems magnify as complexity of the animal increases. A report published by Helen Pearson in Nature magazine notes that although cloning in flies has been very successful, mammalian cloning is much more difficult. [4] In fact, studies have indicated that complex animal clones are more likely to have birth defects and other issues. [5] For example, an ibex cloned in 2009 survived for seven minutes before dying of lung defects, and a water buffalo cloned in India in 2009 also died of lung defects [5]. Thus, the problems would be magnified in humans and would cause unnecessary suffering. This is unjust to the clones and is sufficient reason to continue to ban cloning.Affirmative CaseMy opponent seems to have forgotten that he was supposed to arguing for human cloning, and not against it, but that was his mistake, not mine, so I should not be faulted for it.. That said, you can extend the adoption argument. According to my opponent, it would be easier to adopt than to clone. Given that cloning is expensive and that success rates are low, I wholeheartedly agree. This is an argument against cloning, so you can extend it. You can also extend the vanity and genetic illness arguments because they also support my position. My opponent concedes to all of these, so you can turn them against him and negate.He next discusses creating a class of superhumans. There are third problems. First, it assumes that cloning is accurate and causes no problems. The entirety of my case demonstrates that there are a myriad of problems with clones, including premature death, defects in 1/25 genes, etc. This indicates that the dream of creating superhumans is an impossibility. Second, it assumes that only individuals with "good genes" would want to be cloned/would be cloned. This is obviously not true; cloning it jeopardizes the existence of the human species. If the species were too similar genetically, then it would be easier to destroy large proportions of the population with diseases that individuals were susceptible to. Nobody has a perfect genome, and everyone is more vulnerable to some diseases than others are. Variation is necessary in order to strengthen the viability of a species, which he is reducing by allowing for cloning.He next discusses curing diseases. This has three problems. First, it is excluded from this debate because it involves therapeutic cloning, and not human cloning. Second, there are other ways in which we can do this without actually cloning anyone. For example, we can use induced pluripotent stem cells to create/harvest organs without actually cloning an individual and creating a new embryo/genetic copy of the individual. Finally, creating an individual to harvest his organs is murder and violates his rights. It is therfore unethical and unjust.His final argument is about body replacements. You can simply cross apply the arguments I made about curing diseases here; these two ideas are similar so the same rebuttals apply.Thank you. Sources1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://web.mit.edu...3. http://en.wikipedia.org...4. http://www.nature.com...; 5. http://en.wikipedia.org...; 4.