Would a human clone have Original Sin?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Michael17F
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
If you believe a clone would not be human, and have no soul, do you think killing him would be okay. After all, he would grow to adulthood just like “normal” people, go to school, get a job. Or maybe it’s okay to kill the clone while it’s a fetus, IF you believe it is not human.
 
40.png
weller2:
Problem is, what I have written above is a heresy according to the Council of Trent:

This view has been reiterated in Humani Generis (in a different context), which actually references the above decree of Trent:

From where I sit, an IVF baby, and even more so a clone is a true man who did not take their origin through natural generation from Adam, as its creation involved an obviously unnatural step. Hence the sentiment that IVF babies and/or clones are not true men (i.e. lack soul), because acknowledging their full humanity would be equivalent to a formal heresy.

In other words, we have new Gallileo affair. Science has discovered (produced) things which cannot exist according to Catholic theology. Even worse: saying that they do exist is a formal heresy, which in turn carries an automatic latae sentenciae excommunication.
No not quite. Let’s take it one by one. First, from the Council of Trent:
  1. If any one asserts, that this sin of Adam,–which in its origin is one, and being transfused into all by propagation, not by imitation, is in each one as his own, --is taken away either by the powers of human nature, or by any other remedy than the merit of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath reconciled us to God in his own blood, made unto us justice, santification, and redemption; or if he denies that the said merit of Jesus Christ is applied, both to adults and to infants, by the sacrament of baptism rightly administered in the form of the church; let him be anathema.
What’s being condemned here is Pelagianism, which taught that original sin is not passed on to Adam’s descendants, but instead it’s merely a bad example and we inherit it by imitation. The Church is teaching that original sin is truly passed on to all of Adam’s descendants. It’s not something that only affected him.

Far from being contrary to Church teaching, believing clones and IVF babies inherit original sin is consistent with it. In fact, it would actually be heresy and contrary to the Council to say that there are some human beings who are descended from Adam and don’t have original sin. Clones and IVF babies are truly descendants of Adam (it’s impossible to be a human being and not be Adam’s descendant) and therefore they do inherit original sin. They are members of the human race, which is a fallen race.

As far as Humani Generis goes, it wasn’t dealing with the issue of original sin at all, or even modern reproduction. I’ll quote the relevant part again:
  1. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents.
You made the claim that the existence of IVF babies contradicts this, but that’s not accurate. The pope is condemning the theory of polygenism which states that after Adam there were true men who were not descendants of him. The pope is not teaching that if someone is conceived and born outside the natural order they are not human beings or descendants of Adam. Rather, he’s teaching that all human beings trace their ancestry back to Adam, and not to some other humans who were not descended naturally from him.

As I already pointed out, IVF babies and clones ARE true descendants of Adam, every human being who has ever lived is. Sexual reproduction or lack of it doesn’t change that fact. That’s impossible, and neither of these documents are making that claim.

Therefore, it’s not heresy to say people conceived out of the natural order are true human beings and inherit original sin, but actually very much in line with it.
 
If you believe a clone would not be human, and have no soul, do you think killing him would be okay. After all, he would grow to adulthood just like “normal” people, go to school, get a job. Or maybe it’s okay to kill the clone while it’s a fetus, IF you believe it is not human.
That would not be my place to determine that. One would have to speculate about how God feels about non-humans…or human-like beings created by man…difficult to even think about imo??

You think the abortion fight is bad, wait until human clones are introduced, it will make the entire abortion battle seem miniscule.
 
That would not be my place to determine that. One would have to speculate about how God feels about non-humans…or human-like beings created by man…difficult to even think about imo??

You think the abortion fight is bad, wait until human clones are introduced, it will make the entire abortion battle seem miniscule.
That’s the problem - we could only speculate. I have a disturbing feeling that humans have already been cloned - privately. Mammals have been cloned successfully for years (sheep, cows, horses, cats, dogs, etc.), so I believe the technology exists for human cloning.
 
You think the abortion fight is bad, wait until human clones are introduced, it will make the entire abortion battle seem miniscule.
But wouldn’t you be on the pro-choice side of killing clones?
 
That’s the problem - we could only speculate. I have a disturbing feeling that humans have already been cloned - privately. Mammals have been cloned successfully for years (sheep, cows, horses, cats, dogs, etc.), so I believe the technology exists for human cloning.
Oh yes, I agree that it is highly likely some rogue scientist somewhere has cloned a human by now, I believe human cloning is only illegal in a few countries, and I could see the interest if a nation suddenly had the ability to mass produce military fit men…ready for battle…reminds me of the sci fi movie with Arnold S. ( 6th day…I think the title was??) where the clones are matured and literally come off a production line at about the age of 25.!!

The last part when the clone was asking its human donor to quickly give take off his clothes before he died, so the clone could put them on…scary to think about!!
 
Big difference in an identical twin and a clone, a twin is created and formed in the womb, in other words, done by God, a clone would be something mankind did, or interfering with what nature intended IMO. I understand the science behind it though, but disagree that the clone would have a soul.
Until we develop functioning artificial wombs, a clone (like a child conceived through IVF) would have to be implanted to gestate in a womb, so if that’s your objection, either we’ve had undetectable soulless humans since the 70s or a clone would not lack a soul.

In actuality, though, the womb doesn’t have anything to do with it. The soul isn’t part of the natural process; it’s something that God creates and introduces separately to each human body. It does not seem to matter how that body comes about.

Cloning is weird (and sinful per the Church), but it’s really just another way of assembling the same building blocks we’re all made. It’s not “man-made life” any more than a child conceived by ordinary intercourse is.

Usagi
 
Let’s take surogate motherhood with IVF. Does the child receive the original sin via: (a) genetic father, (b) genetic mother or (c) surrogate mother?

If your answer is (c), then consider, hypothetically, that an animal (such as cow or pig) is used as surogate. In such case the original sin would not transmitted because animals are not fallen.

If the answer is (a) or (b) then it means that original sin is a genetic disease, which means that the responsible loci could be identified and modifed using genetic engineering (at least in principle). Voila, designer babies – free of original sin!
The answer is “none of the above,” since Original Sin is a spiritual condition rather than a physical one. It is not, and has never been, literally genetic. As someone else explained. “propagation, not imitation” means that we have the defect simply by virtue of being human, without having to learn it from the example of others. Whether there is a physical sex act involved has nothing to do with it.
So again, the development of medicine has pretty much killed Augustine’s idea that original sin is transmitted via sexual reproduction – because we have effectively developed asexual reproduction when we have developed IVF. So either IVF transmits original sin, or it does not. If it does, that means that Augustine was wrong (and a large part of Catholic theology is called into question, particularly the teachings on Virgin Mary and sexuality). If Augustine was right, then IVF does not transmit original sin, but that would mean that each IVF baby is immaculately conceived, i.e. free of original sin. You can see where that leads.
What on earth does this have to do with “a large part of Catholic theology … particularly the teachings on Virgin Mary and sexuality”?
Catholic theologians have managed to handwave the problem created by IVF by asserting ensoulment at conception. Fertilization of the egg creates a genetically distinct individual, this individual is ensouled, and in process somehow inherits original sin.
But cloning falsifies that defense. We start with a woman, we take her ovum, we place DNA from her somatic cell into that ovum, and implant the embryo into her uterus. The embryo develops, and she gives birth to a child which is her genetic copy… But there was no conception! So there can be no ensoulment!
Your thinking on this is bizarrely mechanistic. No one asserts that conception causes ensoulment and that you can’t have ensoulment without an ordinary conception. The two are presumed to coincide because you can’t have a (living) human body without a human soul, no matter how small or simple the body is. The larger point being defended is that no human can be declared to be subhuman or nonhuman. The fact that IVF children and cloned children are just like everyone else is a perfect illustration of that truth, not a contradiction of it.
This is patent nonsense: at the end, you will get a perfectly functioning human, so it follows that this human must be ensouled. If this human is something that your theology says cannot exist, then I posit that the problem is with your theology, and not with the human in question.
Fortunately, our theology is nowhere near as fragile as all that.
From where I sit, an IVF baby, and even more so a clone is a true man who did not take their origin through natural generation from Adam, as its creation involved an obviously unnatural step. Hence the sentiment that IVF babies and/or clones are not true men (i.e. lack soul), because acknowledging their full humanity would be equivalent to a formal heresy.
Notice that it is you, and not the Church, making this declaration. The Church may disapprove of certain means of bringing new humans into being, but She does not deny the full humanity and value of the children so produced. That some people on this thread have done so is shameful and kind of creepy, but has nothing to do with defending the Church against reality.
In other words, we have new Gallileo affair. Science has discovered (produced) things which cannot exist according to Catholic theology. Even worse: saying that they do exist is a formal heresy, which in turn carries an automatic latae sentenciae excommunication.
This is simply nonsense. The Church embraces all persons regardless of origin and clearly has no particular difficulty with their existence.

Usagi
 
That’s going off-topic, but there are several problems with ensoulment at conception:
  1. If the blastocyst splits, producing twins, what happens with the soul?
  2. The same for siamese twins – where we have an incomplete split.
  3. Something like half of all fertilized eggs fail to implant – that’s a great waste of souls – and in Catholicism souls don’t reincarnate – where do they go?
  4. Ectopic pregnancy and other complications – why would you give a soul to something which will either die, or kill the woman and then die?
  5. Molar pregnancy – a fertilized egg which develops into cancer – either completely, or cancer mixed with fetal tissue – what about that?
  6. Anencephalia – a child without part of the brain responsible for higher functions.
Again, the idea is not that conception somehow forces a soul into existence – the soul is not part of the biological process at all – but that the two are ordinarily presumed to coincide, because every human body receives a human soul. Ensoulment is God’s doing, and God has complete knowledge and power over what is going to happen to a particular zygote. These unusual circumstances do not surprise God or force Him to scramble for a backup plan.
  1. Twins (and therefore the delayed twins known as clones) have distinct souls. At what point in the process the distinct souls are infused, we cannot know. Following the principle that a (living) body always has a soul, I would suspect that one is provided at conception and the second at the time of division into twins, but that is pure speculation.
  2. Conjoined twins are still two distinct individuals, so two souls as above.
  3. The ultimate destination of souls is Heaven, so it’s hardly a “waste of souls” if some people sadly don’t make it very far at all into their lives. (God, of course, has the power not to create a soul in some particular case, but since He seems to want as large a family as possible, I cannot safely declare that He ever chooses not to.)
  4. See previous answer.
  5. See previous two answers.
  6. Disability, even severe disability, does not render a person nonhuman or soulless.
Usagi
 
If our society insists on pushing this “I have to be great and feel about something” mentality, someone is probably going to try this at some point.
I would be surprised if there are not already many attempts to clone human beings. Think of some of the more secretive societies around the world. It’s already been done with mammals. I’m sure when one of these “people” reaches a socially acceptable level of function, there will be a coming out party. It will not surprise me one bit. Once a technology is available, it is basically impossible for human beings everywhere to resist the temptation.
 
Oh yes, I agree that it is highly likely some rogue scientist somewhere has cloned a human by now, I believe human cloning is only illegal in a few countries, and I could see the interest if a nation suddenly had the ability to mass produce military fit men…ready for battle…reminds me of the sci fi movie with Arnold S. ( 6th day…I think the title was??) where the clones are matured and literally come off a production line at about the age of 25.!!

The last part when the clone was asking its human donor to quickly give take off his clothes before he died, so the clone could put them on…scary to think about!!
While it is a potential application that I’m sure many would be interested in, I doubt we’ll be seeing human-clone armies any time soon. It’s my understanding that clones are generally more sickly than their naturally-conceived counterparts. And, of course, any attempt to force massive amounts of people to grow into armies would probably be fraught with other human rights violations and complications.

Anyways, what’s the argument for why a clone wouldn’t have a soul? Seems to me he or she obviously would. The idea that a human clone is somehow non-human simply due to the manner of his conception is ridiculous.
 
Clones would have an individual human soul for the same reason an identical twin does.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top