Would a clone have a soul?

[mangy_dog]

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 latter…abomination.

I have heard this possibility referred to as “a soulless it”.

 

[severus68]

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?

Shame on you to call any child an abomination.

 

[Shiranui117]

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.

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

 

[teachccd]

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.

People do not “create” people. Only God can create anything. People just find ways of changing things into their own “creations”. You put the word child in quotes indicating to me that this development is less than human. If that were the case then the term “human cloning” is mute since the result is not a human.

Now, if you see that humans can take what God already created and act is such a way that is an abomination (not unlike rape) then you can see that the result is a human being, body and soul. We cannot differentiate here. Either what is produced is a human or it is not. If it is then that human was created by God even through the abomination af man. If what is produced is not human then there is no discussion.

 

[StrawberryJam]

The latter…abomination.

I have heard this possibility referred to as “a soulless it”.

By catholic theology? Please cite sources if that is so.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Questionhaver,

The church speaks loudly against what she knows is false. She is very very quiet on matters which she is not knowing.
Your ideas are not found in the Early Fathers, who of course knew not what would come to pass today. Your ideas are not found in the CCC or with your Pope. Where do your ideas come from?

 

[Newbie2]

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

No doubt…and the clone could just be kept alive in a big vat. No need to give it an independant human life.

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.

Taking scripture a little too literally, methinks, with a dash of eisagesis…

Now you just sound like a westboro baptist member…

No, it would have to then be a gay clone…

 

[severus68]

People do not “create” people. Only God can create anything. People just find ways of changing things into their own “creations”. You put the word child in quotes indicating to me that this development is less than human. If that were the case then the term “human cloning” is mute since the result is not a human.

Now, if you see that humans can take what God already created and act is such a way that is an abomination (not unlike rape) then you can see that the result is a human being, body and soul. We cannot differentiate here. Either what is produced is a human or it is not. If it is then that human was created by God even through the abomination af man. If what is produced is not human then there is no discussion.

Quite right, only God creates life. If a human being is cloned,dont see it happening, it may be an abominable act but the human clone is not an abomination itself .

 

[runningdude]

Of course humans conceived by cloning have souls! That’s why cloning, especially cloning only for harvesting organs is evil, because it involves the death of HUMAN!

This is why the church has forbidden cloning!

Cloning involves taking an unfertilized egg, removing the genetic material and replacing with complete genetic material from the individual animal to be cloned. The egg is now no longer an egg, but an embryo. If it is a human embryo, then it is a unique HUMAN! As an embryo, it has the potential to develop into a full grown HUMAN individual, and we have the utmost moral obligation to aid that CHILD in his or her growth.

As has been mentioned elsewhere in this thread, clone have a high rate of miscarriage and birth defects. By creating human children through cloning, we risk THOUSANDS of children dieing in test tubes as the so called experiments are carried out. Worse still, misguided scientists may abort the children to “spare” them life with these defects.

As for the case of human DNA being added to that of other animals, the presumption must always be in favor of life. There can be no “threshold”. Any embryo created must be carried to term, and presumed to have a human soul and cared for as any other severely disabled child.

Every human is precious before God’s eyes. We need to respect all life. Even if conceived under the evilest and foul conditions, “behold a child is born”!

 

[Questionhaver]

So, bringing up the earlier point of artificial insemination, are babies resulting from that “not human,” too?

Both gametes come from a human and the babies grow up like any other babies after insemination. There’s no mutilation, manipulation or corruption of the child.
It’s human.

Personally, I’ve never heard of creating an entire human just to transplant a heart. It’s much more practical to just create the heart, then put that in. “therapeutic cloning,” as I understand it, is ONLY creating the necessary organs, and NOT cloning an entire human for the sole purpose of “spare parts.”

Very smart …
Even if you’re merely “cloning the organ”, where do you think the material required for it comes from? You clone the entire human and let it grow to a pre-embrionic state, after which stem cells are taken from it, killing it in the process. These stem cells are in turn grown into whatever organ required.
The Catholic faith requires us to consider that pre-embrionic state fully human already.

(CCC 2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.)

Therefore, therapeutic cloning is breeding humen for the sake of mutilating them.

The other idea you’re referring to, is/was also a considered possibility, however, the costs would be infinitely higher.

What’s the difference between having the thought and saying what that thought is?! Jesus told us that we can’t think of killing someone or lust after someone in our hearts, because that’s the same thing as killing someone or committing adultery. So what’s the difference between thinking someone is an abomination and calling them one?!

That’s not quite what I meant.
You are correct in saying there is no difference if I think or say it.
I am, however, saying there is a difference between saying it to somebody who is not a clone and saying it to the clone itself. The latter is an act of aggression, whereas the former is not. Not saying it to the clone will also allow me to act towards it like I would to any human being, whereas screaming at them most likely would not.

People do not “create” people. Only God can create anything. People just find ways of changing things into their own “creations”. You put the word child in quotes indicating to me that this development is less than human. If that were the case then the term “human cloning” is mute since the result is not a human.

Now, if you see that humans can take what God already created and act is such a way that is an abomination (not unlike rape) then you can see that the result is a human being, body and soul. We cannot differentiate here. Either what is produced is a human or it is not. If it is then that human was created by God even through the abomination af man. If what is produced is not human then there is no discussion.

You’re good, you know that?

I do see your point and I’m starting to agree.
So if I conceded and we considered a clone to be a human and cloning to be the same as rape, we’d consider all clones - including genetically manipulated ones - fully human?

Questionhaver,

The church speaks loudly against what she knows is false. She is very very quiet on matters which she is not knowing.
Your ideas are not found in the Early Fathers, who of course knew not what would come to pass today. Your ideas are not found in the CCC or with your Pope. Where do your ideas come from?

My ideas may not be found in the Early Fathers, the CCC or with the Pope, then again, I never claimed my ideas to be official Church doctrine, have I?
'tis supposed to be a discussion and discussions require its participants to voice their opinions. If there are any official teachings contradicting my personal opinion or if I can be convinced my opinion is wrong, I’ll gladly change my point of view.
Also, there is a reason I chose that particular nick when registering.

 

[teachccd]

I do see your point and I’m starting to agree.
So if I conceded and we considered a clone to be a human and cloning to be the same as rape, we’d consider all clones - including genetically manipulated ones - fully human?

Well yes. People are born naturally with genetic mutations and they are completely human. Let me ask you something if I may. What do you classify the product of cloning as? Is it an animal? If so, what species?

The act of cloning is an abomination and totally contrary to the will of God. But we cannot perceive the product of cloning as a non-human unless we are willing to admit it’s altered classification. Is it a living being? If yes, does it have the charicteristics of a human? Can this being think rationally?

I guess to answer your question, “Is a clone fully human” I would have to ask you your difinition of “partially human”. Can water be partially wet? As much as science fiction would have one attest there are no such things as mermaids… Peace…teachccd

 

[Et_Cetera]

Go for a walk or a bike ride, or even take a trip to the local pub.

 

[Questionhaver]

Well yes. People are born naturally with genetic mutations and they are completely human. Let me ask you something if I may. What do you classify the product of cloning as? Is it an animal? If so, what species?

The act of cloning is an abomination and totally contrary to the will of God. But we cannot perceive the product of cloning as a non-human unless we are willing to admit it’s altered classification. Is it a living being? If yes, does it have the charicteristics of a human? Can this being think rationally?

I’d have classified a clone below an animal and given it an own kingdom in the empire eukaryota. One of science’s cruelst jokes, designed to resemble the shape of man, due to it’s artificial entity unable to be considered an animal.
Is it a living being, most certainly so. Does it have the characteristics of a human, that depends on how you’d define these. Can it think rationally? Not if science can prevent it. After all, a clone is intended to be a toolbox. Having your new kidney think of its own? Allowing your spare heart to have a conscience? No, sir.

And I’d say it’s one thing for genetic mutations to happen naturally (as they do every single day of our lives) but another for these mutations to be enforced and controlled.
Also, most mutations taking place in our daily lives never have any effects. And these who do are usually called cancer, which is way different from altering the human body to one’s gusto. I’m not saying such drastical changes like mermaids would be possible. That is - fortunately - still mere fiction, as are most extreme changes. But even little changes can go a long way.

I guess to answer your question, “Is a clone fully human” I would have to ask you your difinition of “partially human”. Can water be partially wet? As much as science fiction would have one attest there are no such things as mermaids… Peace…teachccd

Well, can water be partially wet?
Take ice, for example, that isn’t actually wet, unless it melts.
Now, if I took some ice and redesigned it to be unable to melt (yes, I know it’s impossible, but bear with me), it wouldn’t match your definition of water as being wet. Nor would it match your definition of ice as frozen liquid.
And yet, it would still be the same as water, namely any amount of the molecule H-O-H . You could now say either “it’s H2O, so it’s water” or “even though it’s H2O it cannot be water”.

Now, if we take a human being and look at how it starts its existance, then every human being, whether normally conceived or through IVF, is the product of the merging of two parents’ DNA (contained in the gametes). A clone, however, get’s its DNA from but one parent, the other providing but an empty room (that isn’t necessarily of human origin because it’s much cheaper and easier if it is not (as far as I know, current tests are with rabbits’ eggs)).
Now, we could say either “the result is a single cell, containing everything needed to grow a human shape, so it’s human” or “even though the result is a single cell containing everything needed to grow a human shape, it cannot be human”.
(And that’s still without genetical manipulation.)

That’s one of my main problems in considering clones human … even at the very beginning they don’t match “human”.
Or to say it differently, at most, mankind and clones will probably be like crocodiles and alligatores. (And that’s the most clone-friendly statement I can muster.)

All down to definitions, I guess…
But maybe I’m overthinking things.

Go for a walk or a bike ride, or even take a trip to the local pub.

Thank you for your very constructive post.

 

[sojo]

When an egg and sperm are taken from 2 humans, put into a petrie dish, the egg is fertilized and put back in a woman (any woman’s) body… how would that be any less “manufactured” than when cells from one person are put into a petrie dish, manipulated and then reinserted in a woman’s body? Both abominations, just like the act of rape is an abomination.

However, the Church teaches that though the act used to make new life possible may be an abomination, the resulting baby is innocent, and his/her life comes from God and is a blessing and deserving of full dignity.

So yes, I believe a clone would have a soul. To treat any baby, no matter what horrible acts were used to start it’s life (or how disabled, or how short its life span may be) is a blessing from God with an immortal soul and the right to dignity and life.