Human Clone.
- Thread starter Nelka
- Start date
- Status
W
wjp984
Guest
I would think so.
I mean, identical twins are essentially clones of one another and they both have separate souls.
Besides, the cloned child is innocent of any wrongdoing.
I mean, identical twins are essentially clones of one another and they both have separate souls.
Besides, the cloned child is innocent of any wrongdoing.
A
Art321
Guest
Exactly! The cloned child would have a human soul and would be a beloved child of God. Although cloing is extremely immoral and just be avoided at all times.
W
Whitacre_Girl
Guest
You guys are right - a clone would be no different than someone who was conceived in a test tube, a petri dish, or out of wedlock (such as myself). The manner of conception is not the fault of the one conceived. They would have a soul just as all the other “illicitly” conceived do. 
K
kbwall
Guest
I believe clones would definitely have a soul. Despite what magic sci-fi tries to put into the process of cloning, the process actually resembles artificial insemination a lot.
While on the topic, is human cloning evil in and of itself? I mean, I understand why people oppose it currently. It’s highly unreliable, which would result in dozens of aborted clone embryos just to produce one functional clone. And the DNA degrades, so that clone will have a shortened lifespan than that of the original. Combine that with the fact that there’s just no real point to it (we’re not exactly running out of humans so badly that we need to clone them). However, hypothetically speaking, if one could develop a clone with near one hundred percent certainty (producing no dead embryos), and somehow find a way around the DNA degradation, would it be moral to develop a clone? For the sake of argument, let’s ignore the purpose of this clone.
While on the topic, is human cloning evil in and of itself? I mean, I understand why people oppose it currently. It’s highly unreliable, which would result in dozens of aborted clone embryos just to produce one functional clone. And the DNA degrades, so that clone will have a shortened lifespan than that of the original. Combine that with the fact that there’s just no real point to it (we’re not exactly running out of humans so badly that we need to clone them). However, hypothetically speaking, if one could develop a clone with near one hundred percent certainty (producing no dead embryos), and somehow find a way around the DNA degradation, would it be moral to develop a clone? For the sake of argument, let’s ignore the purpose of this clone.
P
promethius
Guest
We believe is the key word. It is God’s choice. Flesh alone does not a human make. If a clone were raised and it obviously had no capacity for moral awareness, it would not be human. It would be an animal soul, driven by instinct alone, in a human body… or we might only be able to clone a body and it would be completely vapid, unable to act as a human does… utterly without any soul.
But if it does have a human soul, it will be a soul given by God…
Cloning is not evil because it allows some embryos to die or degrades DNA. Normal conception processes result in many embryos failing to gestate as well.
Cloning is evil for the same reason that artificial inception is: it is man, interfering with God’s role in the life creating act by attempting to force creation. God is the arbiter of life, not man, and it is hubris to believe that we should (or even can) tinker with this. God wills that some couples be unable to conceive, and that others should conceive.
SIDE NOTE: on top of the fact that it is murder, this is ANOTHER reason that abortion is a horrendous evil… interfering with God’s life-giving authority by ending life unnaturally.
K
kbwall
Guest
Duly noted, but it is also man’s idea that clones would not have a soul. It is fiction that makes cloning something special. The process of cloning isn’t some grand thing that generates a human out of thin air, and there is no real reason to question why a clone would be born without a soul anymore than there is to question if people born of wedlock or test tubes have souls.
Well, yeah…
Not disagreeing with this, but I know what you’re trying to infer. God still have every oppurtunity to grant or deny life for artificially inseminated babies, as well as clones. This is not to excuse cloning or artificial inception, I’m just saying that God still has the final vote as to if the baby is born or not.
P
promethius
Guest
Except that being born out of wedlock is in no way synonymous with either artificial insemination or cloning. Fornication is entirely different from attempting to “play God.”
Adding to that, we know that artificial insemination results in a human soul (regardless of the fact that it is morally wrong to engage in it)… but we also know that artificial insemination involves the process of conception, albeit forced, while cloning does not.
If cloning a human being (forgoing conception) is such an abomination before God that He utterly won’t allow it, then the human being will be born without a human soul. Cloning is not “no different” from artificial inception, it is entirely worlds apart in it’s process.
Sure does, but that doesn’t mean that the act isn’t intrinsically evil. We would have to see what a clone turns out like to see where God falls on whether or not He’d allow it or reject it as a complete abomination…
… but granted that to do that would require doing something which is objectively evil, I think that’s a question that is better left unasked.
- Status