Therapeutic Cloning:Should it be legal in the U.S.?

[mercytruth]

**Therapeutic cloning does result in the destruction of an embryo after stem cells are extracted and this destruction has stirred controversy over the morality of the procedure. Some argue that the pros outweigh the cons with regards to treating disease whilst others have likened the destruction to an abortion. Still others state that this doesn’t change the fact the embryo could potentially be a human being and so destruction of the embryo is no different than destruction of a human life.

Because reproductive cloning does utilise SCNT as the primary step, there is also still fear that given our knowledge base to perform reproductive cloning, a scientist may attempt to move beyond therapeutic cloning to creation of a human being.

To this date, no human being has been successfully cloned but the possibility of this occurring is a frightening one not only for the general public and policy makers, but also for most of the ethical scientific field. The majority of scientists are adamantly opposed to reproductive cloning and instead, support therapeutic cloning for treating disease. With policies and careful monitoring in place to ensure that therapeutic cloning is used responsibly, we can all benefit from the potential of this procedure to eventually treat, or perhaps one day cure, many diseases. **

explorestemcells.co.uk/TherapeuticCloning.html

 

[St_Francis]

If Therapeutic cloning is creating an embryo BABY from someone’s cells and then destroying KILLING the baby, then of course it should not be legal, any more than abortion should be legal.

 

[mercytruth]

If Therapeutic cloning is creating an embryo BABY from someone’s cells and then destroying KILLING the baby, then of course it should not be legal, any more than abortion should be legal.

This is a theological question regarding your response. Is an embryo which is created outside, or inside the womb by artificial means by scientists endowed with a human soul?

Thanks, and God’s peace

micah

 

[manualman]

I find it helps to translate medical lingo into plain English first.

When does human life begin? Well, the only scientifically discernable moment when a substantial and radical change occurs in the essence of the organism is at fertilization when a unique DNA pattern is formed from the parental DNA halves.

If science were to discover the biochemical trigger by which they could ‘trick’ a cell from a person into “thinking” it is a newly fertilized egg (zygote in the lingo, I think) and behaving the same, then it is rational to assume that it IS the same sort of process that occurs when identical twins are formed.

So NOW, your question comes down to this: Would it be moral for a parent to remove one identical twin from the mother’s womb and keep it in frozen storage as a source for spare body parts should the ‘desired’ twin ever need them?

Aghast yet? I hope so!

 

[buffalo]

Why do we want clones?

 

[mercytruth]

Why do we want clones?

The Catholic Church consistenly teaches against the cloning of human beings. The UN banned human cloning in a non-binding resolution.

The reason I bring this up is to discuss whether a cloned human being created by scientists has a human soul.

In addition, The Sanctity of Human Life Act H.R.212 in effect legalizes the cloning of human embryos by protecting them from abortion. Why this act would include the protection of cloned embryos and other possible genetically modified human embryos is beyond my understanding.

Congress should be banning human cloning and genetic modification of the human being. We do not want to legalize the creations of another Josef Mengele.

God’s peace

micah

 

[kbwall]

Secular logic:

Earth is overpopulated, thus justifies the use of artificial birth control methods.

Let’s clone human beings.

 

[edwest2]

The Church wants us to protect human life from conception to natural death.

This is therapeutic cloning:

explorestemcells.co.uk/therapeuticcloning.html

A far more preferable and moral option would be to build duplicate replacement organs:

sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120621130720.htm

It’s called regenerative medicine. And there have already been some successes.

“The science of regenerative medicine has already had success engineering skin, cartilage, bladders, urine tubes, trachea and blood vessels in the lab that were successfully implanted in patients. These structures were able to receive oxygen and nutrients from nearby vascularized tissues until they developed their own blood vessel supply.”

To answer the OP: No.

Peace,
Ed

 

[St_Francis]

This is a theological question regarding your response. Is an embryo which is created outside, or inside the womb by artificial means by scientists endowed with a human soul?

Thanks, and God’s peace

micah

The Church does not teach when an unborn child is ensouled; however, we know that abortion has always been condemned by the Church, and we know that we are dealing with individual and innocent human beings, who are immoral to kill.

Moreoever, cloning is itself immoral.

 

[mercytruth]

The Church does not teach when an unborn child is ensouled; however, we know that abortion has always been condemned by the Church, and we know that we are dealing with individual and innocent human beings, who are immoral to kill.

Moreoever, cloning is itself immoral.

I do not think we know with certitude whether a cloned embryo is a human person.

**The Pontifical Academy for Life, on July 9, 1997, declared that human cloning, if done, would not duplicate a person. The clone would duplicate body structures, but not personal identity. The Academy stated that the spiritual soul cannot be generated by the parents, cannot be produced by artificial fertilization, cannot be cloned (see The Pope Speaks, 1998, p. 28). **

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=2968&CFID=4983715&CFTOKEN=10320238

Now, I am being more patient with you, and will proceed with the hypothetical. What if a cloned human embryo came to term and was born? We have these comments by the author of this above article. Notice he uses terms such as likely, we may assume, I believe. The question therefore is not an open and shut case.

**Let us assume for the sake of discussion that it would be possible to clone humans by the method which produced Dolly the sheep. We ask whether the Creator would then create a soul to enliven the fused human cell. The answer is likely to be yes.

God usually prefers to remain hidden so as not to deprive us of freedom to believe in Him or to refuse belief. He hides Himself from our eyes in this life so that our faith remains voluntary and free. It was St. Augustine who once said that if at the time of Baptism God would make the body immortal while He cleanses the soul of Original Sin, everyone would flock to Baptism, and faith would become too much like vision. We might reason that if God would not create souls when humans sin, when they fornicate, or commit rape, or do cloning, He would force our faith. He remains hidden to enable our faith to be free. St. Thomas Aquinas also observed that the natural process of conception proceeds as usual even after adultery because the sin of the free will does not become part of the biological process. The child remains innocent of the sin, he assures us (see Summa Contra Gentiles, II,89,16).

We may assume, I believe, that God would create souls for clones if technicians present viable biological materials. God does not usually stop evil by intervening visibly. He asks us to desist from doing evil in the first place. Dr. Luc Gormally, Director of the Linacre Centre, London, observes that when human biological materials are all in place, they are in a condition ready to receive a rational soul (Dolentium Hominum 28 (1995) pp. 27-31).

Cloners are technological rapists. Sex rapists seek gratification through brute force against hapless victims. Technological rapists gratify an irresponsible lust for power by manufacturing children who have no parents. It is impossible to clone in a manner by which they can give a father and a mother to the child. A cloned child would have no father, no mother. It would be an orphan. It is a product of technology. Microscopes and pincettes are not parents. But every child has a right to parents; it is a universal right.

Whether the cloner seeks to produce a super race by eugenic improvement; whether narcissistic impulses drive him to reproduce his own precious self; whether he intends to provide entertainers, sports champions, literary geniuses, even a population of Einsteins for human welfare, he wrongs the child whom he manipulates to achieve a child clone. A cloned child is a slave produced for the good of others, not for its own good. It is treated like property managed for the benefit of others. It is not treated with the dignity of a human being who belongs to himself and to God, but to no other human person. This is the heart of the matter.**

God’s peace

micah

 

[manualman]

micah, I’m not a moral theologian, but something seems pretty OFF by your citation. Artificial conception and insemination was NOT new in 1997. It’s immoral, but not uncommon. I’m thinking you’ve got a bad translation, at best.

Artificial cloning, assuming scientists can do it at all, would similarly always be morally wrong, but would not be substantially different than what happens with identical twins. Surely nobody argues that twins split one soul???

 

[mercytruth]

micah, I’m not a moral theologian, but something seems pretty OFF by your citation. Artificial conception and insemination was NOT new in 1997. It’s immoral, but not uncommon. I’m thinking you’ve got a bad translation, at best.

Artificial cloning, assuming scientists can do it at all, would similarly always be morally wrong, but would not be substantially different than what happens with identical twins. Surely nobody argues that twins split one soul???

I was only quoting what the Pontifical Academy for Life said on July 9, 1997:

declared that human cloning, if done, would not duplicate a person

A ‘person’, I am assuming from the context, is a human being with a human soul.

I respect your viewpoint, but it is not a viewpoint that has been theologically defined in concrete absolute terms.

God’s peace

micah

 

[Nate13]

Your totally butchering this quote:

The Pontifical Academy for Life, on July 9, 1997, declared that human cloning, if done, would not duplicate a person. The clone would duplicate body structures, but not personal identity. The Academy stated that the spiritual soul cannot be generated by the parents, cannot be produced by artificial fertilization, cannot be cloned (see The Pope Speaks, 1998, p. 28).

The whole point of this statement is to say you can’t clone souls, i.e when you clone someone you have a new person. If you notice it also says a soul is not generated by the parents as well. What they are pointing out here is that regardless of however man happens to muck up human reproduction it will have no impact on whether a new human life will have a soul or not, because that is completely done by God. I know of zero reasons to believe any human life would not have a soul regardless of how its produced, therefore you should have no problem with protecting human life no matter how its produced. While we should of course oppose cloning, artificial insemination, and other perversions that separate the creation of life from the loving act between spouses, the defense of human life should be a given.

You have said yourself your aren’t sure in these matters, so please stop spouting this stuff as if its fact.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Your totally butchering this quote:

The whole point of this statement is to say you can’t clone souls, i.e when you clone someone you have a new person. If you notice it also says a soul is not generated by the parents as well. What they are pointing out here is that regardless of however man happens to muck up human reproduction it will have no impact on whether a new human life will have a soul or not, because that is completely done by God. I know of zero reasons to believe any human life would not have a soul regardless of how its produced, therefore you should have no problem with protecting human life no matter how its produced. While we should of course oppose cloning, artificial insemination, and other perversions that separate the creation of life from the loving act between spouses, the defense of human life should be a given.

You have said yourself your aren’t sure in these matters, so please stop spouting this stuff as if its fact.

 

[mercytruth]

Your totally butchering this quote:

The whole point of this statement is to say you can’t clone souls, i.e when you clone someone you have a new person. If you notice it also says a soul is not generated by the parents as well. What they are pointing out here is that regardless of however man happens to muck up human reproduction it will have no impact on whether a new human life will have a soul or not, because that is completely done by God. I know of zero reasons to believe any human life would not have a soul regardless of how its produced, therefore you should have no problem with protecting human life no matter how its produced. While we should of course oppose cloning, artificial insemination, and other perversions that separate the creation of life from the loving act between spouses, the defense of human life should be a given.

You have said yourself your aren’t sure in these matters, so please stop spouting this stuff as if its fact.

I read the statement about no one can clone a soul, I also read the statement that a cloned embryo if done would not duplicate a person.

No one knows whether God would validate this cloned embryo by ensouling it with a human soul, thereby making it a person. You do not know for sure, I do not know for sure. I can only say what I tend to believe. I tend to believe that God would not validate something that is artificially created by science, and not by God. We are created in God’s image and likeness by God and not by science.

Science is not my god. My God is sovereign over the creation of life, and satan would like nothing more than to try to duplicate the role of our Sovereign Creator by creating mutant and distorted forms of the life forms that God has already created.

I also know it would be much easier to Federally ban the creation of human cloning, then to legislate the illegality of aborting a cloned embryo. Unless, you think your unsubstantiated beliefs should be the law of the land.

This is my belief, you are entitled to your belief.

with that said, I still wish you God’s peace

micah

 

[Marc_Anthony]

I read the statement about no one can clone a soul, I also read the statement that a cloned embryo if done would not duplicate a person.

No one knows whether God would validate this cloned embryo by ensouling it with a human soul, thereby making it a person.

I’m going to answer this as a Thomist; St. Thomas’s metaphysical construct is the most generally by the Church.

The thing is that humans are composites of soul AND body. The body is as much a part of what makes us human as the soul is.

A human embryo is a human body, just not fully developed. ALL living things have souls; that’s what makes us “alive”. The fact that a zygote is a HUMAN body means it will develop a HUMAN soul.

Body and soul are inextricably linked; this is one of the reasons the Resurrection of the Body is so important.

 

[St_Francis]

I do not think we know with certitude whether a cloned embryo is a human person.

I think that the writer ofthis piece you are quoting was writing a theological opinion in an appropriate manner. He is not in a position to say for 100% sure that clones are full human beings with souls, but here are the reasons he believes that they are. The fact that he acknowledges that he is not the Pope and that this not dogmatic Church teaching does not mean that there is room for acting as if clones have no souls or are less than human.

And we should most certainly err on the side of caution, no?

**The Pontifical Academy for Life, on July 9, 1997, declared that human cloning, if done, would not duplicate a person. The clone would duplicate body structures, but not personal identity. The Academy stated that the spiritual soul cannot be generated by the parents, cannot be produced by artificial fertilization, cannot be cloned (see The Pope Speaks, 1998, p. 28). **

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=2968&CFID=4983715&CFTOKEN=10320238

Now, I am being more patient with you,

i have no idea why!

and will proceed with the hypothetical. What if a cloned human embryo came to term and was born? We have these comments by the author of this above article. Notice he uses terms such as likely, we may assume, I believe. The question therefore is not an open and shut case.

And your point is…? Because it sounds like you are arguing that we can use clones for our own purposes?

 

[St_Francis]

The Catholic Church consistenly teaches against the cloning of human beings. The UN banned human cloning in a non-binding resolution.

…

In addition, The Sanctity of Human Life Act H.R.212 in effect legalizes the cloning of human embryos by protecting them from abortion. Why this act would include the protection of cloned embryos and other possible genetically modified human embryos is beyond my understanding.*

Congress should be banning human cloning and genetic modification of the human being. We do not want to legalize the creations of another Josef Mengele.

God’s peace

micah

Yes, we should make cloning illegal, but the fact that this act forbids the killing of clones in no way legitimizes cloning–in no way precludes prohibiting cloning.*

The reason I bring this up is to discuss whether a cloned human being created by scientists has a human soul.

I do not think we know with certitude whether a cloned embryo is a human person.

I think that the writer of this piece you are quoting was writing a theological opinion in an appropriate manner. He is not in a position to say for 100% sure that clones are full human beings with souls, but here are the reasons he believes that they are. The fact that he acknowledges that he is not the Pope and that this not dogmatic Church teaching does not mean that there is room for acting as if clones have no souls or are less than human.

However, this does not say what you seem to be taking from it.*

**The Pontifical Academy for Life, on July 9, 1997, declared that human cloning, if done, would not duplicate a person. The clone would duplicate body structures, but not personal identity. The Academy stated that the spiritual soul cannot be generated by the parents, cannot be produced by artificial fertilization, cannot be cloned (see The Pope Speaks, 1998, p. 28). **

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=2968&CFID=4983715&CFTOKEN=10320238

When the Academy says that the clone is not a duplicate of a person, what they are saying is that the clone is *more than a duplicate. They are saying that the cloned human has his own identity–that he is a separate person with his own rights and in no way the property of the person drom whom he was cloned.

If I were cloned, the clone would be separate from me and not an extension of me the way my arm or heart is. I can chose to donate my kidney to someone, but I could not chose to donate a part of the clone’s body.

Now, I am being more patient with you,

i am astonished and bemused…

and will proceed with the hypothetical. What if a cloned human embryo came to term and was born? We have these comments by the author of this above article. Notice he uses terms such as likely, we may assume, I believe. The question therefore is not an open and shut case.

You seem to be arguing that we should be able to use clones for our own purposes, and I really don’t understand that. Surely if we are not absolutely positive of their spiritual standing, we should still err on the side of caution, no?

 

[mercytruth]

Yes, we should make cloning illegal, but the fact that this act forbids the killing of clones in no way legitimizes cloning–in no way precludes prohibiting cloning.*

I think that the writer of this piece you are quoting was writing a theological opinion in an appropriate manner. He is not in a position to say for 100% sure that clones are full human beings with souls, but here are the reasons he believes that they are. The fact that he acknowledges that he is not the Pope and that this not dogmatic Church teaching does not mean that there is room for acting as if clones have no souls or are less than human.

However, this does not say what you seem to be taking from it.*

When the Academy says that the clone is not a duplicate of a person, what they are saying is that the clone is *more than a duplicate. They are saying that the cloned human has his own identity–that he is a separate person with his own rights and in no way the property of the person drom whom he was cloned.

If I were cloned, the clone would be separate from me and not an extension of me the way my arm or heart is. I can chose to donate my kidney to someone, but I could not chose to donate a part of the clone’s body.

i am astonished and bemused…

You seem to be arguing that we should be able to use clones for our own purposes, and I really don’t understand that. Surely if we are not absolutely positive of their spiritual standing, we should still err on the side of caution, no?

Don’t be astonished or amused, as I was posting on another thread related to this subject, and you have been very reasonable and polite in your responses. So, in effect I appreciate your dialogue.

Admittedly, the other thread has me very concerned about the inroads of genetic modification and human cloning, and I personally think we should outlaw all human cloning, and the genetic modification of humans. Rather than protecting the rights of cloned or genetically modified ‘human’ embryos

If H.R.212 were to actually amend the US Constitution, this Act would in effect give personhood status to cloned and genetically modified ‘human’ embryos. This would be a dangerous back door legalization of human clone and human genetically modified experimentation. Something which DARPA would probably welcome as they are currently pursuing, or would like to pursue in their desire to create the super soldier.

dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2187276/U-S-Army-Soldiers-able-run-Olympic-speed-wont-need-food-sleep-gene-technology.html

It seems to me that the quotation of the Pontifical Study does not give personhood status to human clone body structures:

The Pontifical Academy for Life, on July 9, 1997, declared that human cloning, if done, would not duplicate a person. The clone would duplicate body structures, but not personal identity

So my discussion regarding this whole topic is whether we would legitimize human clone and genetic modification experimentation by granting U.S. Constitutional personhood status to such life forms which have not been theologically defined as ‘persons’.

If the Republican Congress has trouble with the destroying of human clone and genetically modified embryos, then they should introduce a bill that would outlaw all such experimentation rather than giving personhood status to such.

I do not know the motive of the Congressmen who voted for this bill, neither the ones who wrote the bill. We have so much PAC money going into the election of our Congresssmen that it is difficult to know who their supporters are, and what their financial backers are seeking. The Defense Department budget is huge and is equivalent to the amount that all nations of the world spend on defense combined.

DARPA is pursuing genetic modification of humans in creating a super soldier. So l think we should be vigilant in not legitmizing such experimentation by giving personhood status to these experimental embryos and genetically modified embryos.

God’s peace

micah

 

[Do_Good_Then_Go]

Don’t be astonished or amused, as I was posting on another thread related to this subject, and you have been very reasonable and polite in your responses. So, in effect I appreciate your dialogue.

Admittedly, the other thread has me very concerned about the inroads of genetic modification and human cloning, and I personally think we should outlaw all human cloning, and the genetic modification of humans. Rather than protecting the rights of cloned or genetically modified ‘human’ embryos

If H.R.212 were to actually amend the US Constitution, this Act would in effect give personhood status to cloned and genetically modified ‘human’ embryos. This would be a dangerous back door legalization of human clone and human genetically modified experimentation. Something which DARPA would probably welcome as they are currently pursuing, or would like to pursue in their desire to create the super soldier.

dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2187276/U-S-Army-Soldiers-able-run-Olympic-speed-wont-need-food-sleep-gene-technology.html

It seems to me that the quotation of the Pontifical Study does not give personhood status to human clone body structures:

The Pontifical Academy for Life, on July 9, 1997, declared that human cloning, if done, would not duplicate a person. The clone would duplicate body structures, but not personal identity

So my discussion regarding this whole topic is whether we would legitimize human clone and genetic modification experimentation by granting U.S. Constitutional personhood status to such life forms which have not been theologically defined as ‘persons’.

If the Republican Congress has trouble with the destroying of human clone and genetically modified embryos, then they should introduce a bill that would outlaw all such experimentation rather than giving personhood status to such.

I do not know the motive of the Congressmen who voted for this bill, neither the ones who wrote the bill. We have so much PAC money going into the election of our Congresssmen that it is difficult to know who their supporters are, and what their financial backers are seeking. The Defense Department budget is huge and is equivalent to the amount that all nations of the world spend on defense combined.

DARPA is pursuing genetic modification of humans in creating a super soldier. So l think we should be vigilant in not legitmizing such experimentation by giving personhood status to these experimental embryos and genetically modified embryos.

God’s peace

micah

It seems you’re reading the bolded part to mean that the clone wouldn’t have a personal identity of its own whereas I read it to mean that even if it were possible to duplicate the body parts, it’s not possible to duplicate personal identity so the clone would have to have its own new and different personal identity, not that it wouldn’t have one at all. Similar to the case of identical twins where one sperm and one ovum makes first one zygote but then splits into two some time later. We know that identical twins (and conjoined twins) have a personal identity each despite the fact that they came from one so why the assumption that a clone wouldn’t?