Human cloning should be permitted

Lol i didn't had much time either at previous round since i only got a 20 minute break. .. anyway. .. Dont forget you are facing a 15 year old student here :P 1) When I started the debate, I laid the groundwork that government funding would be illegal, thus this is irrelevant. But, scientists can find funding from other sources, it does not strictly have to be from the government. You've proven my point, illegal funding = illegal. Using the illegal fund to create clone = illegal. Conclusion? Its illegal, stop bothering it. 2) Identical twins have identical DNA. They are formed when a zygote splits in two, forming two identical embryos. The source you quoted even says: "Identical -- or monozygotic -- twins form when a single fertilized egg splits in two after conception. " The single fertilized egg has only been fertilized by ONE sperm, not two, since it is only biologically possible for an egg to be fertilized by one sperm [1]. Yes, you are right since i failed in biology. .. BUT, it doesn't explain why an identical twin has 2 different fingerprint and a clone has the same fingerprint. They may look like same, but even a close up examination proves its 2 different prints. Source: . http://www.straightdope.com... 3) I'm making the point that the government will not make clones to take over the army since In-vitro has not done so already. Your contention only adds to my assertion. Thank you. No, it doesn't. Your suggestion was this: "Scientists practice In-vitro fertilization, in which an egg is fertilized outside the human body, and then replaced back into the uterus. Arguments which state that a government would use cloning to produce armies should in theory already be capable with regular In-vitro fertilization. Sure, the babies would not be identical, but they would provide the manpower necessary for an army. " I should've looked this into a different way. I tell you this, woman gets pregnant, they get baby. But, what if the woman can't get pregnant and wants a child? There is the In-vitro fetilization for the problem. But, you think that because In-vitro is allowed, cloning should be allowed as well. No it isnt the same sadly, because the the procedures of those 2 are entirely different. In-vitro requires you to inject an egg into a woman for it to grow. Cloning is to make an identical someone by using another living organism sample to create the same thing as the sample. Of course, you said that we all can use In-vitro just to create an army, but no one wants to help the army by getting injected with an egg and then borning a baby that later gets forced to join the army. Of course you CANT force them, so thats out of question. Cloning is also the same, if a person DOESNT want to be cloned, THEN YOU CANT DO IT. Forcing people is illegal and if you plan on legalizing cloning, why do you need those huge amount of people then? This is something for the society to decide, if they don't want to, they won't agree with you. Sadly, you can't give back an answe because i already refuted you. 4) Con seems to miss the point on this issue. Identical twins are genetically the same, and clones are genetically the same, but since personality is determined by environment, upbringing and ideas exposed to, both clones and identical twins will be mentally unique. For the remainder of this debate, clones and identical twins are one in the same in regards to genetic similarity. Since it is almost impossible to reproduce exact living conditions for clones, as it is for identical twins, they end up as mentally different, unique individuals. Great, now you bring up a story that a clone doesn't have the same mental as the original? Now I ask you, HOW did you know that, since there has been NO clones created in this world, only attempts. .. and failed. If you cant bring me the source, i regard this as false. Identical twins, started as baby as you know and how their minds evolves is up to them. Conclusion? You cant compare identical twins with clones as they are nearly the same but not the same. Source: . http://en.wikipedia.org... 5) I'm making the point that since the procedures to make a clone are legal, and since clones already exist naturally, that there should be no problem to artificially create a clone. It is quite relevant to this debate. Let the society decide whether we allow human cloning or not. 6) Once again, a commonly held contention for the abuse of clones is negated by me, and my opponent agrees. It very much has to do with the debate because it outlines one of the fears of cloning. Oh and why do you think they fear of the clones? And if they fear of the clones, do you think they still want to allow cloning? And if they don't fear clones, do you still think this argument was needed? Conclusion: IRRELEVANT ---------------------------------------------------- 1) Of course I am speaking hypothetically, this debate is hypothetical in nature. If we assume that humans are being cloned, is it so far-fetched to assume that maybe animals are being cloned as well for food. I mean, animals have been cloned already (fact), and since it does solve the food problem, would it not be possible? Maybe I shouldn't brought up the fact of this since i didn't understand what a reproductive cloning was. But, even a slight mistake has its risks like carrying a deadly virus in it or deforming it. We know that animals has been cloned, but they all end up dying very shortly and after 1 of the 277 attempts, a lamb has survived to adulthood before dying. Its even affected by Arthritite, an infection that something we ALL dont want. 2) Yes, people die and babies are born, but its the way the babies are CONCEIVED is what I am referring to. The US government already allows In-vitro babies to be conceived and born, so why is it so wrong if cloned babies are allowed to be conceived and born? You seem like you are making the contention that no help should be given to couples trying to artificially conceive (In-vitro) since it will "throw off the cycle" of births and deaths. This is a bad argument, and one that goes against current US policy. No, im not against In-vitro since its a process where real eggcells are fertilized and then injected into a woman. Cloning is by creating a same person, which we all are against. (Reason why its illegal in first place) Don't mix those 2 things together and have me think that its the same. 3) If we created a clone of Einstein, that clone would hopefully contain all of the curiosity and brilliance of the original (if it was genetically passed down that is). He would be able to expand upon the ideas of the original and continue where the original Einstein had left off. It would probably NOT be like asking "the same person over and over again to study for us. " No, it is asking the same person over and over again. And think about the technology of then and now. Do you still think Einstein can help us after he fell so far backwards from technology after dying? There will be more people there who can take over from Einstein. Einstein already has done his thing for us and we can continue the progress of his research on our own. My conclusion ------------------------------------- I have refuted every last argument pro has dished on me and I can continue doing this if he keeps asking the same thing. You keep thinking that i haven't refuted it yet or poorly, but you just see it wrong. Your arguments can't prove whether we should allow cloning or not and i have refuted it for you.