Would human clones be soul-less?

[vern_humphrey]

Darrel:

hehe

I’m saying that technology is a geometric progression which I mention in the second half of my post (which you ignored). I agree that an adult is a difficult thing to reproduce in an accelerated manor. But I can’t assume that at some point in the future even if it’s a thousand years from now that it won’t happen.

Nor can we assume that it will happen. No one can see that far into the future. If you want to use computers as an example, the developer of the FIRST computer (before the Civil War) assumed it would be run on steam.

But technology took a different turn.

Darrel:

What limits do you place on future technology? Do you feel that this is totally impossible forever? I say there is no limit on it and all sorts of incredible discoveries can be made.

The limits are on our ability to predict the future. No one can say what will happen in the next thousand years.

Darrel:

If these things are produced in a tank in an adult form will they have a soul?

-D

If they do not, they will be mere animals – and it isn’t immoral to clone an animal.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

Wildgraywolf,

It appears to me that you are misunderstanding what people are posting, vern humphrey and I in particular. The reason I think that is because you will quote from my post and comment as thought you think it is wrong; e.g.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blood Rain
Docetism is the heresy that Jesus was part human

Wildgraywolf: Jesus wasn’t part anything. Jesus is totally God and totally human. Two natures in one Being. Does the term Incarnation mean anything to you? Check out my signature and perhaps it’s possible the Nicean and Apostles Creed slipped your mind.

my bold- BR)

and…
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blood Rain
To see if it can be done.
To figure out how it can be done.
To be the first to do so.
To do something “beneficial” with a human clone like transplants.
To do something malicious with a human clone like transplants.
To do something that my brain can’t even conceive.

Wildgraywolf: I think that would take away from human dignity, would you not agree?

If one considers my posts in their entirety my position is clear.

Finally,
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blood Rain
Would the idea of human clones even be a problem if clones lacked a rational soul?

Wildgreywolf: I think it would be for the same reason you noted below.

My question was rhetorical. My comment that followed was to spell that out.

I think your are doing this with vern humphrey’s posts as well, but I will let him speak for himself. If you feel like you are repeating yourself it’s because others are trying to clarify their position to you and you don’t seem to be getting it.

Now, if I’m the one who has misunderstood comments in this thread, please, someone, clue me in.

 

[flick427]

And what if they did not have a soul…would we be justified in loving them any less?

It is not up to us either way…we can not see a soul therefore have no way of knowing, but we can love, and that is all we can do to counter the hate that brings on these sort of moral problems in our world.

 

[vern_humphrey]

flick427:

And what if they did not have a soul…would we be justified in loving them any less?

It is not up to us either way…we can not see a soul therefore have no way of knowing, but we can love, and that is all we can do to counter the hate that brings on these sort of moral problems in our world.

If they did not have an immortal soul, they would not be human – that’s the ultimate definition of humanity, possession of an immortal soul.

But the Church’s position is the would have immortal souls – which is why we cannot morally clone humans, but cloning animals (which do not have immortal souls, of course) is acceptable.

 

[sarcophagus]

I don’t know if this applies right now, but i read this earlier in the thread.

It would be time-consuming, costly and ultimatley inefficient to clone humans for harversting body parts. That is why they only clone specific body parts…which can be done. Instead of growing a human, they grow, say, a kidney in a petri dish.

As of right now, the only place that has legalized reproductive cloning is in England and that was only done in order to harvest stem cells from embryonic blastocysts (wrong…i agree).

I’m taking biotechnology as my major and bioethics is a major part of the curriculum. As far as I know, no one (with a right mind) wants to clone humans. But before people lecture me (i know someone inevitably will), I’ve already made my decision that the only cloning I will do is genetic cloning (ie. DNA) to produce new drugs, anitbiotics, vaccines etc.

 

[ElizabethAnne]

Wildgraywolf:

I would disagree with you here, because clones are engineered outside of God’s natural reproductive process.

I would agree with you here in saying that the clone would be a copy - a fictional human being as it were.

God created humans; male and female and God created our reproductive processes. Without males and females - fathers and mothers - there is no conception. Without conception there can be no human being.

I would hypothesize that human cloning is not possible, but of course I have no way of knowing that. If it were possible to create a human being that way, I am sure God would give that person a soul. As others have said in this thread, God is taken out of the creation of a human being in the Invitro process, but those children have souls.

 

[Prometheum_x]

Would a human cell culture (such as cancer cells extracted from a human and then grown in a petri dish) be considered a) a new human being b) a part of the original human or c) just a collection of cells possessing only a mortal soul, like the animals?