Does the human embryo have a soul?

[mercytruth]

We agree on the point that genetic modification and cloning should be banned. And that this offends God.

But you simply have no authority or basis to make the assertion that clones would be subhuman or not have souls. They would be human beings. Still in the image and likeness of God.

This is correct, I have no authority to assume that human clones or genetically modified humans would not have human souls. This is strictly my interpretation about the commandment, “Thou shall not tempt the Lord thy God”. Yours is an opinion also, in stating that what science duplicates can be assumed to be in the image and likeness of God.

shalom

micah

 

[mercytruth]

Ok. let me see here: The soul is a constant don’t forget.

Intelligence would not be a property of soul… Intelligence is a relative-translational mechanism, a tool which may or may not encourage the liveliness of soul.

A soul cannot be intelligent because it is all infinite and all intelligent in its relative soul state of measure… I will try the word brightness.

That’s the whole property of soul…it is not relative to anything other then its own measure which is effected by the whole beings “hope in the becoming natural and intended existence”

Either is encouraged due to relative translations or discouraged due to disordered relative translations, interfering with the intended progress. So a mentally handi-capped person would not have less soul due to less intelligent property…I think that seems fair.

People may say the slow are less…but maybe it is themselves that are less as fear is engaged promoting an irrational advantage of soul out of a confusion for leverage. There are all kinds of slowness…it could be a slow soul…that is different and another stemming circumstance… The soul is a constant, and a very important property of all that is, in its important contribution which is necessary and needed by the whole.

These cloning ideas are interesting, if man can figure out a way to create out another man without having sex out of curiosity and a weird seeming advantage against I might add the unfolding nature of creation…well then…what else is new…? This would be immoral, because it objects and interferes showing non-acceptance to a seriously pronounced degree…it is wrong I believe I feel this is a shrug issue, just a sophisticated donor mother for the carrying, and another monkey wrench that man will have to get over in humanitys learning progress… Rest assured its a different person…the word “clone” sneaks its way into soul idea’s…if its another person then it would have a soul.

So I am assuming that you believe that God imparts a soul to every human being at conception? Would a hypothetical person who is cloned or genetically modified in its DNA have a human soul or an animal soul?

God’s peace

micah

 

[mercytruth]

An actual experiment would sort out a few ideas.

If God chose to not waste a perfectly good human body, and instilled a “soul” into it, that would tell us two things:

1. God is not ruled by our considerations as to what He will or will not do.
2. Measurements of personality and intelligence across cloned subjects will give us clues as to “soul’s” contribution to the mind in general.

If God chose not to give the clone a soul, we would have a very clear and unequivocal understanding of the “soul’s” contribution to the human mind.

Well, if scientists were to take us down that road, I think we like lemmings, would all be jumping off the proverbial cliff. And in the case of Jesus Christ who was tempted to do so, it could also be said to such scientists, “Thou shall not tempt the Lord thy God”. Do we really want to open the floodgates of multiple Josef Mengeles and their diabolical schemes of manipulating the DNA of a human being?

God’s peace to you

micah

 

[mercytruth]

Micah,
Do you have any appreciation of how frustrating it is to have spent years developing a theory, only to have someone come along and mess it up with some annoying data?

Seriously, I love this reference. I’d no idea that such data were out there. Makes me wonder if my old short story was not trying to tell me something.

Your link included two distinct sections. I did not find the philosophical component credible, but it is way too early to write it off. References in the data section were spotty, but I shall take your word that there is more such material out there, and will check it out.

I have some ideas about how to interpret the data, but this is the kind of thing that I may just have to allow to simmer a few months, as I did with the dark-energy mystery and other ideas.

Thank you so much for passing this information along!

Likewise, thanks for the clarification on fetal breathing. Thinking about it, it makes good sense that lungs start exercising with amniotic fluid.

I wish that there was some divine use for me. That may explain why I’m still alive, albeit with the loss of some original parts. It is comforting to believe such things. However, I distrust comfortable beliefs, and my theories do not include the notion that the Creator gets personally involved in the affairs of the confused inhabitants of this obscure planet. If He really wanted me to do the little chore that I’ve taken on, He’d have made me smarter and given me some friends and allies. Whine, whine.

Here is one such website:
paulpearsall.com/info/press/3.html

It’s OK to distrust comfortable beliefs as you say. There is nothing comfortable about some of the teachings of Jesus Christ. And yes, it often seems that we are confused inhabitants on this one planet in the great vastness of the universe. I know that the Creator loves you because He fashioned you and gave you a living soul. How you express the glory of your Creator that He has imparted to you, is part of the mystery of being alive.

God’s peace to you

micah

 

[AdamP88]

Yours is an opinion also, in stating that what science duplicates can be assumed to be in the image and likeness of God.

Actually this is not an opinion - this is Catholic Church Teaching. See the catechism.

 

[minkymurph]

I was always taught that no one knows the exact point at which God confers the soul on the developing embryo, and one reason we belief life begins at the moment of conception is because we don’t know the exact point at which a fertilized ovum ceases to be biological material and becomes human life.

 

[oval]

So I am assuming that you believe that God imparts a soul to every human being at conception? Would a hypothetical person who is cloned or genetically modified in its DNA have a human soul or an animal soul?

God’s peace

micah

Well you may as well bring the examples you have in mind out on the playing board so they can be assessed without greater time used up explaining an expected hasty rebut…I gotta duck out for a few hours…peace

 

[AdamP88]

I was always taught that no one knows the exact point at which God confers the soul on the developing embryo, and one reason we belief life begins at the moment of conception is because we don’t know the exact point at which a fertilized ovum ceases to be biological material and becomes human life.

Correct.

This is why we treat all conceived human as a person with a soul. To do otherwise would be, in fact, to treat life as disposable and be an offence to God.

 

[mercytruth]

I was always taught that no one knows the exact point at which God confers the soul on the developing embryo, and one reason we belief life begins at the moment of conception is because we don’t know the exact point at which a fertilized ovum ceases to be biological material and becomes human life.

True, this is Catholic teaching. We are respect and protect human life from the moment of conception eventhough it is not known when God confers the soul to human life.

I would expand on this teaching. All life forms are sacred creations of our sovereign Creator who is holy. We should not be changing or duplicating the DNA of any of God’s creation in the labs of science. This to myself, is a scacrilege against our Creator.

Unfortunately, there is has been so much of this DNA manipulation of God’s original life forms, that now we have fish and cats that glow in the dark, goats that produce a spider web substance within their milk that is used for industrial purposes, goats that produce human DNA induced milk for babies who have difficulty with digesting, and God only knows what else.

We are headed down a very, very dangerous path. Anytime we can say that the end justifies the means, as in the case of DNA modification of God’s created life forms we are allowing science to become god. Ultimately, if we do not put a halt to this, science will determine the issues of what is life, when it begins, and when it ends.

may God help us

micah

 

[AdamP88]

Genetic engineering is not immoral in and of itself. Only when conducted on humans is it evil.

And…we already had fish that glow in the dark.

 

[mercytruth]

Genetic engineering is not immoral in and of itself. Only when conducted on humans is it evil.

And…we already had fish that glow in the dark.

You are entitled to your opinion.

In is my belief, that it is wrong to change and distort God’s original created forms of life in the labs of science. Are there no limits to what science should be allowed to do in changing God’s creation?

God’s peace

micah

 

[AdamP88]

There are limits. But the moral limits to what science can to to benefit mankind are, thankfully, not set by you.

Genetic engineering can be of incredible benefit to humanity. However, boundaries must be maintained. It is immoral and wrong to experiment upon human embryos.

However this does does not mean that if such a creation were to come into existence it would be something other than human. It would still be human. Therefore it makes sense to deduce that it would be a person in it’s own right and have a human soul.

A clone is not an exact copy…it would not have the same personality or exact characteristics of its parent.

Your reasoning is flawed and you are clinging to an opinion based on an irrational fear of science.

I recommend you read the encyclical “Faith and Reason” by Blessed John Paul II

God Bless

 

[mercytruth]

There are limits. But the moral limits to what science can to to benefit mankind are, thankfully, not set by you.

Genetic engineering can be of incredible benefit to humanity. However, boundaries must be maintained. It is immoral and wrong to experiment upon human embryos.

However this does does not mean that if such a creation were to come into existence it would be something other than human. It would still be human. Therefore it makes sense to deduce that it would be a person in it’s own right and have a human soul.

A clone is not an exact copy…it would not have the same personality or exact characteristics of its parent.

Your reasoning is flawed and you are clinging to an opinion based on an irrational fear of science.

I recommend you read the encyclical “Faith and Reason” by Blessed John Paul II

God Bless

There are no moral limits set by anyone in the United States. It is a free for all.

Your reasoning states that science can intervene in the creation of new life forms for ‘the sake of humanity’, experimentation, or for profit, because this is what is proceeding in the US at this time.

My reasoning states that science should not be interfering in the sovereign domain of our Creator. My reasoning states that God is the author of life, and not science.

Frankly, it is the science of corporations who have taken upon themselves to decide what is moral, and have taken us all down a road that is destroying life on this planet. It is corporations who decide what constitutes life in the US, and life to them is the pursuit of mammon, and not the pursuit of God.

Corporations do not exist without investors, and investors do not invest unless corporations can show a profit. So profit becomes the over riding decision maker in the boardrooms of America, not morality.

God be merciful to us sinners

micah.

 

[minkymurph]

True, this is Catholic teaching. We are respect and protect human life from the moment of conception eventhough it is not known when God confers the soul to human life.

I would expand on this teaching. All life forms are sacred creations of our sovereign Creator who is holy. We should not be changing or duplicating the DNA of any of God’s creation in the labs of science. This to myself, is a scacrilege against our Creator.

Unfortunately, there is has been so much of this DNA manipulation of God’s original life forms, that now we have fish and cats that glow in the dark, goats that produce a spider web substance within their milk that is used for industrial purposes, goats that produce human DNA induced milk for babies who have difficulty with digesting, and God only knows what else.

We are headed down a very, very dangerous path. Anytime we can say that the end justifies the means, as in the case of DNA modification of God’s created life forms we are allowing science to become god. Ultimately, if we do not put a halt to this, science will determine the issues of what is life, when it begins, and when it ends.

may God help us

micah

Sometimes I think we humans do things just because we can.

 

[levinas12]

A totipotent cell has the capacity to form an entire organism. Human development begins when a sperm fertilizes an egg and creates a single totipotent cell. In the first hours after fertilization, this cell divides into identical totipotent cells. Approximately four days after fertilization and after several cycles of cell division, these totipotent cells begin to specialize.

So, it seems that within four days of fertilization the zygote, a cell of such has the capacity to form an entire organism.

medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=18261

I do not know if this answers your question. You found what I just found, confirmation?

Not sure if the question is completely answered.

Can you separate one totipotent cell from another totipotent cell and still produce a whole organism (either from the removed totipotent cell or from the remaining totipotent cells or from both? Or is some interaction between totipotent cells required to produce a whole organism? Or is a critical mass of a number of totipotent cells required to proceed to the next stage of development?

These are important questions in the context of arguing that the human person (I prefer to use “person” instead of “soul”) is present at conception. Certainly, with identical twins, there are two human persons involved (although I don’t want to get into the order of precedence).

Again, a biologist’s opinion would be helpful.

 

[AdamP88]

God is the author of life, and not science.

God is the author of creation. Science can change and use what God has already created. But only god is truly capable of creation.

Only God can bring life from nothingness.

Do you not see a distinction between the genetic engineering of human beings and plants or animals?

Do you see why it is a good thing to use some of the things that God has given us to create cures for disease etc.

Obviously the line must be drawn but there is a clear distinction between kinds of genetic experimentation and you are lumping them into one category.

 

[mercytruth]

Not sure if the question is completely answered.

Can you separate one totipotent cell from another totipotent cell and still produce a whole organism (either from the removed totipotent cell or from the remaining totipotent cells or from both? Or is some interaction between totipotent cells required to produce a whole organism? Or is a critical mass of a number of totipotent cells required to proceed to the next stage of development?

These are important questions in the context of arguing that the human person (I prefer to use “person” instead of “soul”) is present at conception. Certainly, with identical twins, there are two human persons involved (although I don’t want to get into the order of precedence).

Again, a biologist’s opinion would be helpful.

Agreed, a biolgtist’s opinion would be helpful. Questions help all of us to understand the issues at hand.

God’s peace

micah

 

[mercytruth]

God is the author of creation. Science can change and use what God has already created. But only god is truly capable of creation.

Only God can bring life from nothingness.

Do you not see a distinction between the genetic engineering of human beings and plants or animals?

Do you see why it is a good thing to use some of the things that God has given us to create cures for disease etc.

Obviously the line must be drawn but there is a clear distinction between kinds of genetic experimentation and you are lumping them into one category.

Yes, there is a distinction betwen genetic engineering of human beings from the genetic engineering of animals and plants.

There are levels of distinctions. The major level that seems to be the most intolerable, is when a portion of DNA from a human being is inserted into the DNA of an animal, or visa versa. Once we go down that road, at what point is this new form of life no longer human?
1% DNA of an animal, 10%, 30%, 50% in the make up of this newly created human/animal?

Another intolerable level is combining human DNA into robotics to create some sort of human machine, or machine human.

A second level of distinction is when DNA from one animal is inserted into the DNA of another animal. Do we really want to create new species of animals without knowing if such species are safe?

Do we really know if the genetically modified plants that have pesticides and insectides as part of their DNA are safe for consumption? GMO foods are banned in Europe. Why is much of our food in the US now becoming GMO? Do we have any long term data to assume that these are safe for consumption?

Should cloned beef be allowed for consumption in the US without labeling ,and without proper data as for its safety?

The cure of diseases would be one distinction that one might be able to justify genetic engineering as long as there was not a transfer of animal DNA to human DNA.

God’s peace

micah

 

[oval]

So what is the popular answer to the question… how does the soul interact with the physical world?

 

[greylorn]

Well, if scientists were to take us down that road, I think we like lemmings, would all be jumping off the proverbial cliff. And in the case of Jesus Christ who was tempted to do so, it could also be said to such scientists, “Thou shall not tempt the Lord thy God”. Do we really want to open the floodgates of multiple Josef Mengeles and their diabolical schemes of manipulating the DNA of a human being?

God’s peace to you

micah

Micah,

I like that road even less than you. I abhor Genetically Modified foods and regard the Monsanto Corporation as fundamentally evil. But like it or not, we are on that road.

That’s a collectivist “we.” There are a lot of nations willing to drive it, even if we are not.

It’s like biological and chemical weapons, and other devices for mass annihilation. We can either refuse to develop them, and thus to learn about them, or be at the mercy of those who do.

There are plenty of nations capable of cloning human beings, and it would be stupid to believe that several have not already done so. Those most likely to have done so are pretty much our enemies; if not at the immediate moment, just wait a few years until we can no longer repay our Chinese creditor, and they sell our loans to the Russians.

To refuse knowledge is to be ruled by those unafraid of it.