The argument made by my opponent that is hardest to refute is the argument about how therapeutic cloning can benefit our society. Therapeutic cloning is cloning to heal people instead of to create more people. The argument says that organs could be cloned that would not be rejected by the person receiving them and there would be a much shorter waiting list, since the organs needed could be cloned. Therapeutic cloning could also cure diseases like diabetes and parkinsons disease. This argument is hard to refute because of all the benefits therapeutic cloning seems to have. It seems to be all benefits with no negative effects at all. It is the perfect way to solve many of the worlds problems. This is why it is so hard to refute, because it is perfect. Or is it? The world may never know. But, if you think about the argument more you can start seeing it is not perfect but in fact flawed in many ways, and can be refuted.
First I plan to refute the argument through questioning values. Therapeutic cloning involves the killing of fertilized human embryos, and that is wrong. I will also challenge the premise of therapeutic cloning being able to cure diseases. Recently, scientists have reported that parkinsons disease can probably not be cured through therapeutic cloning. Since therapeutic cloning cannot cure the diseases it promised to cure, it should be banished from the land. And also we donít have the technology to use therapeutic cloning, so it would involve time and money to research this, and anything you have to do extensive research on isnít worth researching at all.