RE: Human cloning (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Morality & Ethics



Message

ponymt -> RE: Human cloning (4/28/2008 10:43:34 PM)

It seems very odd to me that in a forum such as this there is no shortage of opinions, yet none are substantiated by scripture either directly or by principle. As good and insightful as they may be, they are still just subjective opinions!



solo_soprano22 -> RE: Human cloning (4/28/2008 10:57:44 PM)

What Biblical principle would you apply here-- either by principle or directly?



drmark -> RE: Human cloning (4/29/2008 8:25:18 AM)

How about Jeremiah 1:5 which says (in principle) that God knows us and has distinct plans for each of us from the time of conception. Therefore, is it morally right for another person to interfere with that individual's God-given autonomy through genetic manipulation or deliberate killing?



ponymt -> RE: Human cloning (4/30/2008 1:31:05 AM)

One could make the argument that “genetic manipulation” is A-moral; it can be used in either a negative or positive way. Furthermore, it could also be argued that “genetic manipulation” is part of God’s mandate (Gen. 1:28) for humans to “subdue” the earth. Is a birth (and hence a life) that was brought about by artificial insemination part of God’s plan? Is it not God who bestows the essence of life regardless of how the environment for that life was achieved (i.e. devoted married couple or a women who was raped)?



drmark -> RE: Human cloning (4/30/2008 2:30:05 PM)

quote:

One could make the argument that “genetic manipulation” is A-moral; it can be used in either a negative or positive way.
Define "negative or positive way", please. Positive by fallible human standards of success or positive by infallible standards of God's Sovereignty? Big difference, ponymt!

quote:

Furthermore, it could also be argued that “genetic manipulation” is part of God’s mandate (Gen. 1:28) for humans to “subdue” the earth.
Seems to be a pretty lousy argument in light of the original text - verses 1:26 and 28 specifically describe what humans are to "rule over". I do not see fellow humans in the list!

quote:

Is a birth (and hence a life) that was brought about by artificial insemination part of God’s plan?
I find this a very challenging issue to understand theologically. If God has allowed humans to develop technology supporting "artificial life", was that part of His plan? Obviously, God created Adam with the ability to sin - was that (Adam's disobedience) part of His plan also? I don't think so!

quote:

Is it not God who bestows the essence of life regardless of how the environment for that life was achieved (i.e. devoted married couple or a women who was raped)?
Indeed, so the take home point is that ALL human life is sacred and valuable in God's eyes! All the more reason not to mess around with things we really don't understand, right?



ponymt -> RE: Human cloning (5/1/2008 1:19:24 AM)

As I read through the opinions and perspectives represented thus far it appears many were formulated using the false premise that Man is capable of “creating” life.
Not only is this completely and utterly false, but if followed to its natural conclusion would undermine basic Bible doctrine and call into question the relationship between Creator and created! God’s Word clearly states that He Himself is the “Creator of life” (Gen. 2:7, Jn. 1:3&4).
Man can manipulate various aspects of physical life, prolong and perhaps even enhance life itself, yet he will never possess the power to “create” life. Cloning, rather it be plants, animals or humans is nothing more than replicating life.

When God said for humans to “subdue” the earth in Gen. 1:28 it was a mandate for man to be pro-active in the world He had entrusted to him. Using the talents and abilities God had bestowed on man he was to learn, discover and progress in all manner of life. Furthermore, providing an environment by which life might be replicated does not constitute “ruling over” fellow humans.



drmark -> RE: Human cloning (5/1/2008 11:53:07 AM)

quote:

Furthermore, providing an environment by which life might be replicated does not constitute “ruling over” fellow humans.
It most certainly does if the cloning involves human embryos! Unless you consider human embryos not to be "fellow humans". What's your position on this, ponymt?



ponymt -> RE: Human cloning (5/2/2008 12:11:32 AM)

Given the current challenges surrounding the research and development of successful animal cloning, I do believe that research involving human embryos would be immoral at this time. Should R&D of animal cloning progress to a point in which the embryos regularly develop into viable offspring, at that point I would say human cloning would be morally defendable.
The following is excerpt from Wikipedia and submitted as for a positive use of human cloning; “Human reproductive cloning also would produce benefits. Antinori and Zavos hope to create a fertility treatment that allows parent who are both infertile to have children with at least some of their DNA in their offspring.”



drmark -> RE: Human cloning (5/2/2008 8:57:01 AM)

quote:

Should R&D of animal cloning progress to a point in which the embryos regularly develop into viable offspring, at that point I would say human cloning would be morally defendable.
So as long as the embryo may potentially develop into "viable offspring", then it makes no difference what we do with that embryo. Are you really understanding the "morally defendable" implications of this thought process, ponymt?



Gallivant -> RE: Human cloning (5/3/2008 12:29:23 PM)

I really don't even want to think about it. I honestly see no point in the whole cloning thing.



2by2 -> RE: Human cloning (5/3/2008 4:34:40 PM)

I think of God's words "Before you were formed in your mother's womb I knew you" (Jeremiah 1:5) , not "While created in your genetics laboratory, I knew you."

Will he know you if you are developed and grown in a laboratory?

I have a theory and it probably is very non-traditional, about souls. I have studied God's word and in Genesis, he refers to "Us" and "Our" (Genesis 1:26). I believe that ALL of our souls were created many, many eons ago before God created the heavens and the earth, and that God knows ALL of us before were were formed in our mothers' wombs because we were with him before we were put into our earthly bodies.

And it is okay if you don't agree with me. As I said, it is just my theory...


Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth. NKJV Genesis 1:26



ponymt -> RE: Human cloning (5/4/2008 10:48:52 AM)

This topic is somewhat interesting and I had hoped it would provoke some thoughtful and stimulating discussion, however I must confess, I don’t know if the misrepresentation of statements (where the intent should be obvious) is deliberate or is it simply a matter of comprehension? If it is deliberate, I find these attempts at baiting another into foolish arguments insulting, childish and rather taxing.
Nowhere in my statement is it stated or implied that it “doesn’t matter” what is done with or to an embryo. The quote from Wikipedia was clearly an example of how cloning could be used to help facilitate the development of life.



drmark -> RE: Human cloning (5/4/2008 5:13:43 PM)

Maybe you need to read what you've posted a little more carefully, ponymt, before accusing folks of insults, foolishness, and such.

Once more, you specifically stated the following: "Should R&D of animal cloning progress to a point in which the embryos regularly develop into viable offspring, at that point I would say human cloning would be morally defendable." This is NOT from the Wiki exerpt, is it? To rephrase for clarity, your statement says: If animal cloning progresses to a point of success at which time the resultant embryos are regularly viable, then I (ponymt) believe it would then be morally acceptable to clone humans.

The obvious implication to me from this if-then conditional is that the loss of human embryos due to suboptimal technology is what primarily concerns your moral acceptance of cloning at the present time. However, once that technology improves in animal models, then your moral objections are eliminated, regardless of the purpose for which the human embryos have been cloned. If I have misunderstood or misrepresented your position, then please clarify it for us, ponymt.



Focusing -> RE: Human cloning (5/8/2008 3:34:57 PM)

I think human cloning in wrong. So is animal cloning. I've been privy to some of the work that's gone on and how it's done, and all I can say is ... it's unnatural and I completely disagree with it.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI