Continuing the discussion of whether ‘human’ embryos have a soul. I thought this discussion from the same Catholic website would be helpful in determining whether a cloned ‘human’ embryo would have an soul. (It also speaks of stem-cell research in the same manner):
**Some, while respecting this teaching of the Church, make further ethical observations about the early embryo. First, fertilization is a process that takes about 24 hours to complete and therefore is not a specific moment one can point to. As a side note, should a human be cloned, there would be no fertilization at all because the nucleus of one cell is placed into another cell that has its nucleus removed and is stimulated to begin cell division. The life of that individual would not begin at fertilization.
Second, the whole development of an embryo into a fetus and eventually into a child is a process, not a series of sharply defined steps. This is important because it is really difficult to tell precisely where a fetus is in the process of development. One knows where the fetus is after the stage has been entered into. It is not easy to make precise developmental statements and then moral judgments made in relation to them.
But more specifically, many ethicists focus on the fact that up until about a week or so into the pregnancy, the fertilized egg has the capacity to divide and become identical twins. In some cases it has been observed that such divided eggs blend back together into one blastocyst (what the fertilized egg is called at around 4-5 days of development).
And if the egg is fertilized in vitro, one cell can be removed (to have its genetic structure analyzed) and the developmental process is not harmed. In fact, all the cells of the blastocyst can be separated and each has the capacity to become a whole human being. This point is clearly important biologically: These cells can become either a whole organism or be coaxed into becoming any specialized cell in the body.
But this is important philosophically also. Because the cells of the blastocyst can be divided so that each part can become a whole, the blastocyst lacks true individuality—the capacity not to be able to be divided.
If one were to divide me, you would wind up with two halves. If one divides the cells of the blastocyst, one obtains several cells all capable of becoming individuals. The reason why this is philosophically important is that if the organism is not first an individual, it is difficult to understand how it could be a person. Being an individual organism is a first necessary, though certainly not sufficient, stage for being a person.
On the basis of the argument that the blastocyst is not yet an individual, some would argue that while the blastocyst is a living organism, possessing the human genetic code, such an organism is indeed valuable, but its value is not yet that accorded to a person.
Therefore some would conclude that killing the human blastocyst is not murder because there is as yet no personal subject to experience that wrong. Such a killing is a disvalue, to be sure, but a disvalue that might be offset by other positive values, such as health. The conclusion that some would draw, then, is that at least a case can be made for the use of human embryos in stem-cell research. **
americancatholic.org/newsletters/CU/ac0102.asp
So, frankly it is my opinion, that artificial creation of ‘human embryos’ would not be granted human souls by our Creator. **“Thou shall not tempt the LORD thy God”. **Essentially, science would be doing that. Science could take the human DNA from corpses, skin, or where ever, or they could combine human DNA with animals, or they could essentially create a Frankenstein, and thereby tempt our holy God into giving their distorted creations a soul.
God’s peace
micah
