Would a clone have a soul?

[duffyk4]

So, in the unfortunate circumstance in which a human is cloned, would the clone have a soul? Or we he just be considered an animal, or an abomination?

 

[Rolltide]

Natural clones already occur in nature. They’re called identical twins. This would simply be an artificial way of producing the same thing. Yes they would have a soul.

That said, it would be completely unethical to artificially create one.

 

[willofgods]

I can imagine that just as a child conceived through the sin of rape has a soul, so too would the child conceived through the sin of cloning.

 

[StrawberryJam]

So, in the unfortunate circumstance in which a human is cloned, would the clone have a soul? Or we he just be considered an animal, or an abomination?

I must be missing something here. I do believe there is a document the catholic church has regarding human dignity. No where in that very very long document did I see any kind of mention of a human having less dignity or rights for any reasons.
Maybe I missed it, or perhaps you can explain it to me?

 

[budgie2]

So, in the unfortunate circumstance in which a human is cloned, would the clone have a soul? Or we he just be considered an animal, or an abomination?

I wouldn’t believe everything I read about scientific progress unless I see it with my own eyes. There’s mass murderer scientists, so you can’t trust everybody’s word. Dolly could have been a hoax.

 

[Big_Dummy]

Yes, Eve was a clone of Adam with one cromosome change.

 

[teachccd]

So, in the unfortunate circumstance in which a human is cloned, would the clone have a soul? Or we he just be considered an animal, or an abomination?

Yes. All human beings have immortal souls…

 

[edwest2]

Yes, Eve was a clone of Adam with one cromosome change.

Can you provide any evidence to support that statement?

God bless,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

A clone would have a soul but here’s the problem. The plan is for “therapeutic cloning.” The clone would become a source of spare parts for the original. The organs taken from the clone would not require a lifetime of taking antirejection medication by the original.

A ghastly and inhuman idea.

God bless,
Ed

 

[curlycool89]

A clone would have a soul but here’s the problem. The plan is for “therapeutic cloning.” The clone would become a source of spare parts for the original. The organs taken from the clone would not require a lifetime of taking antirejection medication by the original.

A ghastly and inhuman idea.

That’s terrible! Talk about completely undermining human dignity.

 

[UponTheAltar]

Can you provide any evidence to support that statement?

God bless,
Ed

Well, the bible says that Eve was made from Adam’s rib and a clone is a person taken from the genetic material of another person so, Eve was cloned from Adam. Twins started out as one cell but, split, they are clones of each other. As for the chromosome thing, I think that is just the x y chromosome thing that makes you male or female so, yeah.

 

[Questionhaver]

I can imagine that just as a child conceived through the sin of rape has a soul, so too would the child conceived through the sin of cloning.

Except clones aren’t conceived … they are manufactured.

I must be missing something here. I do believe there is a document the catholic church has regarding human dignity. No where in that very very long document did I see any kind of mention of a human having less dignity or rights for any reasons.

You just made me wonder about some important questions:
Can a man-made clone be considered a creation of God’s?
Can a man-made clone be considered human at all?

I dare say, a clone, created by human knowledge and technique is a violation of this world’s orders and an abomination regardless of how human it looks - a vile and soulless creature at heart.

When God creates twins, he wills it to happen, just as he wills them to have a soul each. I was taught that a soul is imortal and cannot be damaged by anything we could do or say. For that reason, it should be impossible to clone a soul.
Now if we cannot clone a soul, where should that clone have a soul from? Do you really think God will grant something a soul that’s the biggest insult to him since the tower of Babel?

Big Dummy;6908882:

Yes, Eve was a clone of Adam with one cromosome change.

Can you provide any evidence to support that statement?

God bless,
Ed

What he meant was probably

[BIBLEDRB]Genesis 2:21-22[/BIBLEDRB]

The genetical material would therefore have been exactly the same (Adam’s) for Eve.
We know that the human chromosome set includes the gonosome combination XY for male and XX for female.
So “all God had to do” was changing that one Y-gonosome to a X-gonosome and rebuild the body, which if it had been done by human means would in fact be considered cloning.

The argument, though, that for that reason a clone created by man would have a soul, though, is maybe not quite as valid as it might seem, methinks. Remember, this is God creating something and willing it to have a soul and therefore unlike anything man can or should achieve.

A clone would have a soul but here’s the problem. The plan is for “therapeutic cloning.” The clone would become a source of spare parts for the original. The organs taken from the clone would not require a lifetime of taking antirejection medication by the original.

A ghastly and inhuman idea.

God bless,
Ed

Indeed, that’s one idea they had.
I pray we never learn enough about God’s creations for these atrocities to become reality.
We’re frighteningly close. God forbid we should ever succeed.

I’m wondering, though, where do you get that certainity regarding the clone’s “soul” from?

So, in the unfortunate circumstance in which a human is cloned, would the clone have a soul? Or we he just be considered an animal, or an abomination?

The above being my two cents, I’d say that a clone can be considered neither human nor animal and cannot possibly have a soul.
In fact, I’d consider it the greatest abomination human vanity could create.

 

[Rolltide]

The above being my two cents, I’d say that a clone can be considered neither human nor animal and cannot possibly have a soul.
In fact, I’d consider it the greatest abomination human vanity could create.

Well first, I’d guess that a chimera would be a far greater abomination… where human and animal DNA is mixed to create a new creature. Second, I think that human clones would still pretty clearly be human. Their DNA would still be 100% human. After all, we artificially inseminate people in a variety of ways every day, including in some cases by artificially injecting sperm into an egg itself. While this may, according to Catholic teaching, violate God’s laws, it doesn’t make the result a non-human without a soul because God is taken out of the mix.

 

[ironband]

The soul is the animating force of the body. This is true for plants (vegetable souls), animals (sensitive souls), and humans (rational souls). Wherever there is life, there is a soul.

If the clone has no soul, it will not have life. Assuming it is alive, the kind of soul it has will be easily figured by its behavior - a body animated by a vegetable soul would be capable of only growth; a body animated by a sensitive soul would be capable of growth and feeling; a body animated by a rational soul would be capable of growth, feeling, and rational thought (and, by definition, human).

All souls are created by God, no matter their type. Since folks have already cloned plants and animals, and they are alive and exhibiting behavior consistent with the appropriate soul, it is highly likely that a human clone would indeed have a rational soul.

Jimmy Akin answers this question here: catholic.com/thisrock/quickquestions/keyword/soul/page2 (see the last question on the page)

 

[didymus]

A clone would have a soul but here’s the problem. The plan is for “therapeutic cloning.” The clone would become a source of spare parts for the original. The organs taken from the clone would not require a lifetime of taking antirejection medication by the original.

A ghastly and inhuman idea.

God bless,
Ed

Bzzzt!

That was the idea, that a clone’s organs would “be your own” and not rejected. The idea is to eventually produce cloned organs without a complete clone.

But scientists have discovered in animal experiments:

It is very difficult to make a clone, very high rate of miscarriage, birth defects &c so getting a “perfect copy” is far more difficult than bioengineers first tried to sell the public (and investors) on.

Even when you get a “perfect copy” and do a transplant the body rejects it. Even though the organ is genetically the same the body apparently still identifies it as foreign (Hey! That’s not the liver I had yesterday.) and attacks.

One question I’ve wondered about, similar to the OP’s: if humans are genetically engineered how different would they have to be before they were no longer considered human?

A long time ago I read a short story in Analog SF magazine where humans had to be gengineered to live on other planets, survive higher gravity, strange atmospheres, &c. One of the characters was a Cardinal who did visitations to make sure that alterations hadn’t gone too far.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Except clones aren’t conceived … they are manufactured.

You just made me wonder about some important questions:
Can a man-made clone be considered a creation of God’s?
Can a man-made clone be considered human at all?

I dare say, a clone, created by human knowledge and technique is a violation of this world’s orders and an abomination regardless of how human it looks - a vile and soulless creature at heart.

When God creates twins, he wills it to happen, just as he wills them to have a soul each. I was taught that a soul is imortal and cannot be damaged by anything we could do or say. For that reason, it should be impossible to clone a soul.
Now if we cannot clone a soul, where should that clone have a soul from? Do you really think God will grant something a soul that’s the biggest insult to him since the tower of Babel?

What he meant was probably

[BIBLEDRB]Genesis 2:21-22[/BIBLEDRB]

The genetical material would therefore have been exactly the same (Adam’s) for Eve.
We know that the human chromosome set includes the gonosome combination XY for male and XX for female.
So “all God had to do” was changing that one Y-gonosome to a X-gonosome and rebuild the body, which if it had been done by human means would in fact be considered cloning.

The argument, though, that for that reason a clone created by man would have a soul, though, is maybe not quite as valid as it might seem, methinks. Remember, this is God creating something and willing it to have a soul and therefore unlike anything man can or should achieve.

Indeed, that’s one idea they had.
I pray we never learn enough about God’s creations for these atrocities to become reality.
We’re frighteningly close. God forbid we should ever succeed.

I’m wondering, though, where do you get that certainity regarding the clone’s “soul” from?

The above being my two cents, I’d say that a clone can be considered neither human nor animal and cannot possibly have a soul.
In fact, I’d consider it the greatest abomination human vanity could create.

Can the Man Made medicine be a cause for God to be given thanks to?
If God gives people the gift to find these things, then what?

 

[UponTheAltar]

The above being my two cents, I’d say that a clone can be considered neither human nor animal and cannot possibly have a soul.
In fact, I’d consider it the greatest abomination human vanity could create.

Now you just sound like a westboro baptist member…

There are abominations conceived all the time, children out of wedlock but, they all have souls as well. Once the spark of human life begins, naturally or naturally, God fills it with a soul. I mean, I imagine you standing face to face with a poor cloned girl and yelling, “you are a soulless abomination!” Do you honestly think God would allow a human, no matter how he was created, to not have a soul?

 

[teachccd]

Except clones aren’t conceived … they are manufactured.

You just made me wonder about some important questions:
Can a man-made clone be considered a creation of God’s?
Can a man-made clone be considered human at all?

I dare say, a clone, created by human knowledge and technique is a violation of this world’s orders and an abomination regardless of how human it looks - a vile and soulless creature at heart.

When God creates twins, he wills it to happen, just as he wills them to have a soul each. I was taught that a soul is imortal and cannot be damaged by anything we could do or say. For that reason, it should be impossible to clone a soul.
Now if we cannot clone a soul, where should that clone have a soul from? Do you really think God will grant something a soul that’s the biggest insult to him since the tower of Babel?

.

First of all, humans do not procreate the soul. The soul is created by God. While there is no definitive Church teaching as to when exactly this take place we do have the definition of a human being. A human being is a body/soul unity and this is defined by the Church. The Church also teaches that life begins at conception. So when we put these two concepts into reason we cannot help but see that the soul is created at the moment of conception.

Now we have to ask ourselves if a human being is only defined as a human being by the method of his/her creation. Do we find that a person born of a mother who was raped is less of a human being because God would never will a rape? That would seem utterly senseless even in the scientific world.God still gives that child a soul and has infinitely loved that child from all eternity.

To say that the cloned person is an abomination is as ridiculous as it would be to say that a person conceived by a rape is an abomination. The abomination is the disordered act but the result is still a creation of God. Many people are created out of wedlock which is also contrary to the will of God.

In closing, to say that a person who was cloned is a vile and souless individual is an abomination since it could never be the will of God that we should pass such a judgment on an innocent person. A test tube (IVF) baby could be defined as “manufactured” and we definitely don’t want to go down that road…teachccd

 

[StrawberryJam]

I am very disheartend to read some of the comments on this thread by catholics who I have always thought to be pro life.

I am pro life. And comments here by catholics has upset me very much.

 

[Questionhaver]

Well first, I’d guess that a chimera would be a far greater abomination… where human and animal DNA is mixed to create a new creature.

Except that it’s pretty close to impossible to do something like that due to the very natures of the materials you’d be working with.

If man was made in God’s image and man creates a clone in his own image, that’s what I’d call an insult beyond abominable.

Second, I think that human clones would still pretty clearly be human. Their DNA would still be 100% human. After all, we artificially inseminate people in a variety of ways every day, including in some cases by artificially injecting sperm into an egg itself. While this may, according to Catholic teaching, violate God’s laws, it doesn’t make the result a non-human without a soul because God is taken out of the mix.

Certainly, biologically speaking the clone would be human.
I agree that I’ll have to concede concerning the soul (thanks, ironband) but I couldn’t call that creature human - exactly because “God is taken out of the mix”.

Can the Man Made medicine be a cause for God to be given thanks to?

Certainly.Taking dead substances to create other dead substances that in turn can save life is at heart not so different from brewing a tea. Even using vira or bacteria to transport these dead substances in the human body isn’t so different from having a transfusion. However, breeding humen for the sake of mutilating them, even if the later would save life, I cannot agree with.

There are abominations conceived all the time, children out of wedlock but, they all have souls as well. Once the spark of human life begins, naturally or naturally, God fills it with a soul.

Personally, I would not consider these children out of wedlock abominations. The act of fathering children out of wedlock can be considered an Abomination, but these children are creations of God’s and I doubt any of His creations can be abominable.

I mean, I imagine you standing face to face with a poor cloned girl and yelling, “you are a soulless abomination!”

Very funny. [/sarcasm] It’s one thing to think of them as an abomination but a completely other to openly throw it at them.

Now we have to ask ourselves if a human being is only defined as a human being by the method of his/her creation. Do we find that a person born of a mother who was raped is less of a human being because God would never will a rape? That would seem utterly senseless even in the scientific world.God still gives that child a soul and has infinitely loved that child from all eternity.

Of course. But a child born from a raped woman is still conceived the same way as any other child.

To say that the cloned person is an abomination is as ridiculous as it would be to say that a person conceived by a rape is an abomination. The abomination is the disordered act but the result is still a creation of God. Many people are created out of wedlock which is also contrary to the will of God.

The important difference, though, is that nothing about rape or sex out of wedlock is artificial. And the child the woman may or may not conceive as a result of either act is fully and wholly a creation of God’s.
When cloning a human being, though, you could control close to everything about it and create it in accordance with man’s ideals. The “child” created by cloning can be reduced to a mere effigy of man’s vanity and megalomania.
The two ideas are poles apart.

In closing, to say that a person who was cloned is a vile and souless individual is an abomination since it could never be the will of God that we should pass such a judgment on an innocent person. A test tube (IVF) baby could be defined as “manufactured” and we definitely don’t want to go down that road…teachccd

Now, that got me thinking.
Thank you.

I am very disheartend to read some of the comments on this thread by catholics who I have always thought to be pro life.
I am pro life. And comments here by catholics has upset me very much.

I have yet to read a single line supporting this post of yours.
Maybe you could specify what disheartened you?