Human cloning should be permitted

My biology is as a sharp as they come :) I've been a pre-med at SBU for 4 years now. ==Pro Counters== 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. 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]. 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. 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. 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. 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. ==Con Contentions & Pro Rebuttal== 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? 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. 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." ==Pro Contentions== Once again, I ask why my personal freedom to clone myself should be hindered. Con has not presented a suitable argument to this contention yet. ==Conclusion== I have refuted my opponents arguments, and I have sustained my own. As far as I am concerned my opponent has done nothing, or at least very little, to damage my argument. With my understanding of biology, I have made the most truthful contentions I can conjure. Each round my opponent has claimed to have disproved me, but I have proved him wrong in regards to each point, in addition to him inadvertently ceding a few of them to me. I ask that the voters put aside their personal opinions on the matter and vote based off of the arguments presented here in this forum. I thank my opponent for accepting this debate, and I hope he had as much fun as I did during it. Vote Pro [1] http://www.ornl.gov...