Cloning animals is beneficial

Refutation 1: Comment by Sleezehead It states “Cloning of animals is fine. Animal rights? We eat them. Maybe when we don't we can talk about animal rights.” The common thing about both of them is that they both includes killing animals. But the difference is that cloned meat creates suffering for the animal that produced the meat while it’s still alive. So in comparison naturally bred animals are better for food. Refutation 2: Cloning animals with specific traits, like creating factory machines My opponent has said about cloning animals that have certain traits in massive quantity and using them like machines. The problem with this is that the animals will not be likely to be treated like living things anymore. According to http://www.farmsanctuary.org... factory farming is “Far from the idyllic, spacious pastures that are shown in advertisements for meat, milk, and eggs, factory farms typically consist of large numbers of animals being raised in extreme confinement. Animals on factory farms are regarded as commodities to be exploited for profit. They undergo painful mutilations and are bred to grow unnaturally fast and large for the purpose of maximizing meat, egg, and milk production for the food industry. Their bodies cannot support this growth, which results in debilitating and painful conditions and deformities.” It also states factory farming gives the environment a lot of pressure from pollution. I’m afraid that cloning animals will become the new kind of factory farming. Refutation 3: Maintaining biodiversity According to the National Geographic Magazine March 2013, in around 1999 Spanish scientists tried to revive the Pyrenean ibex. They implanted 57 implantations in surrogate mothers. Only 7 were pregnant. And of those pregnancies’ , six ended in miscarriages. The one ibex clone that came out died after 10 minutes it was born, due to a deformation in a lung. Past experiences show cloning is an unreliable technology. Even if cloning does become a reliable technology, the history of bringing back species to the wild has been fraught with difficulty. In 1982, a huge effort went into restoring the Arabian Oryx to a refuge in central Oman. Almost all were wiped out by poachers. This shows even if you did somehow get the animals, that’s only a tiny part of the problem. Animal that are extinct have no place left to call home, as the environment is what causes animals to go extinct. Refutation 4: Biomedical Research As I have already showed in my first round, cloned animals tend to have a lot of health problems. So the idea of creating a lot of genetically identical lab animals just doesn’t sound real. Also, there isn’t much reason for someone to want to have identical research models, as having a lot of diversity makes it more effective to know if your biomedical research actually works. Refutation 5: Cloning Dead Pets Since cloning is still in a experimenting stage (and the company haven’t made any clones yet), I don’t think cloning dead pets counts as an argument. Maybe if they (by this I mean the private cloning companies) actually succeeded in creating one, I’ll see it as an argument. Also, I don’t think it’s right to want to have another identical pet. I mean, there are stray dogs and cats in shelters all around the world. It’s better to just adopt one than spend a ton of cash on recreating a pet. Maybe more than a ton of cash, because you will have to spend money on the bad health of the clone you bought… Refutation 6: Treatment for human diseases Not really done yet, so “don’t count your eggs before they hatch”.