Human cloning (Full Version)

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



Message

solo_soprano22 -> Human cloning (4/2/2008 2:39:31 PM)

What are your thoughts on human cloning?

That's all! [8D]



1love1God1way -> RE: Human cloning (4/2/2008 3:26:37 PM)

I think one of me is more than enough.



john_mark -> RE: Human cloning (4/2/2008 4:23:57 PM)

makes for some interesting thought. would clones have souls? is having a soul a function of biology or is it imparted by God? if having a soul is simply part of the biological process of human reproduction then i guess they would have souls. i dont know just wondering. actually the idea of cloning in some way reminds me of the tower of babel....



Jhud -> RE: Human cloning (4/2/2008 4:25:54 PM)

I think if we could just if we could just create a vast fighting force of cloned soldiers, perhaps cloned from a single very capable soldier, all would be right with the Emp...er, world. [sm=tiefighter.gif]

Seriously, I think that the most significant moral challenge of the twenty-first century is the systematic dismantling of the underlying structure that binds sex, reproduction, and family together according to God's design. And the farther we get from that, the less able believers will be in terms of asserting their beliefs in the culture at large.

This is particularly true as most believers cannot articulate a cohesive view of God's design for sex, reproduction and family, much less model it.

Cloning is just one part of that.



DaveW -> RE: Human cloning (4/4/2008 3:19:15 PM)

In the year 4545
wont need your husband wont need your wife
You'll pick your sons, pick your daughters too
from the bottom of a long glass tube
Woe, woe

===================

Send in the clones
There ought to be clones
Don't bother, they're here.

Sorry, I just felt like singing a little.

This will happen. Someone in some 3rd world unsupervised lab will eventually do it.

Its a shame, its wrong, but IMO it is inevetable. So how will the church respond to these people?



WesP -> RE: Human cloning (4/4/2008 3:43:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaveW

In the year 4545
wont need your husband wont need your wife
You'll pick your sons, pick your daughters too
from the bottom of a long glass tube
Woe, woe

===================

Send in the clones
There ought to be clones
Don't bother, they're here.

Sorry, I just felt like singing a little.

This will happen. Someone in some 3rd world unsupervised lab will eventually do it.

Its a shame, its wrong, but IMO it is inevetable. So how will the church respond to these people?


Hmmm...kinda scary if you associate it with the mortal wound being healed in the end times.



tenfour -> RE: Human cloning (4/6/2008 12:15:45 AM)

What scares me about cloning is that if it does start happening, some Christians might think of clones as soulless animals, which I think would probably be untrue.



1love1God1way -> RE: Human cloning (4/6/2008 12:21:33 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tenfour

What scares me about cloning is that if it does start happening, some Christians might think of clones as soulless animals, which I think would probably be untrue.


We can replicate a soul?

Or is God going to give the science made person a soul?



LCannon -> RE: Human cloning (4/6/2008 12:52:23 AM)

Identical twins(natural clones)each carry a spark of life unique to the individual. Even cloned animals will have unique characteristics. No doubt human clones would have them too both visible and in temper.



solo_soprano22 -> RE: Human cloning (4/6/2008 12:56:28 AM)

quote:

This will happen. Someone in some 3rd world unsupervised lab will eventually do it.

Its a shame, its wrong, but IMO it is inevetable. So how will the church respond to these people?


I don't see why they shouldn't be responded to like IVF babies are...(I hope IVF babies are treated well today. [8|]) Or why shouldn't they-- because they are "copies"? [sm=rolleyes.gif]



1love1God1way -> RE: Human cloning (4/6/2008 3:27:37 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LCannon

Identical twins(natural clones)each carry a spark of life unique to the individual. Even cloned animals will have unique characteristics. No doubt human clones would have them too both visible and in temper.


Personalities are not souls, and twins are not clones.



solo_soprano22 -> RE: Human cloning (4/6/2008 10:14:11 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: 1love1God1way

quote:

ORIGINAL: LCannon

Identical twins(natural clones)each carry a spark of life unique to the individual. Even cloned animals will have unique characteristics. No doubt human clones would have them too both visible and in temper.


Personalities are not souls, and twins are not clones.


Yeah, identical twins are clones.



tenfour -> RE: Human cloning (4/7/2008 12:50:12 AM)

Cloning produces exactly the same thing as an identical twin.

From the Bible, we don't know much about the soul. When or how it is imparted by God. And where it is distinct from the flesh. How does it affect thought process, if at all? How can it even be identified in a person?

I don't believe we can assume that a clone person would be soulless or incapable of salvation. It's a dangerous thought to have, that a person could be soulless...one that helped perpetuate the slave trade and the slaughter of natives in the Americas.



DaveW -> RE: Human cloning (4/7/2008 6:45:27 AM)

Twins are not clones. Cloning is taking something already in existance and duplicating it after the fact. Twins develop together at the same time. Geneticaly, of course there is no difference between a clone and an identical twin. It is just a matter of timing and procedure.

As to whether an individual can be "soul-less" whether an individual, a twin or a clone, I think the bible suggests we all have our own soul.



solo_soprano22 -> RE: Human cloning (4/7/2008 8:43:25 AM)

Identical twinning is cloning. (Sounds like some don't know the true definition.)

You have one embryo that then splits into two. You have a "mother" cell, from which comes an identical cell. The definition of a clone is a genetic twin. An identical twin has a "mother" embryo and a duplicate embryo. The duplicate is the clone. (I'm pretty sure we can't tell which is which.) A twin doesn't pop up when sperm hits egg. The embryo can twin up to a certain day after fertilization.



Jhud -> RE: Human cloning (4/7/2008 2:48:34 PM)

Yeah their is no reason to suppose a clone wouldn't have a soul, though from a public policy perspective that matters little, as no human is generally held by either science or government to 'have a soul' any longer - which may be part of the problem.

The problem with this is that it is part of the growing inclination of our society to see humans as part of just another industrial process, the result of which is that people are a consumable good by which one can make a profit.



drmark -> RE: Human cloning (4/7/2008 2:58:17 PM)

quote:

Identical twinning is cloning. (Sounds like some don't know the true definition.)
Identical twinning is a subset of generic cloning. Cloning as used in biotech parlance is not equivalent to identical twinning. (Sounds like some would like to mix-and-match definitions - possibly for political purposes? [8|])



Sun_Tzu -> RE: Human cloning (4/9/2008 9:21:15 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: solo_soprano22

What are your thoughts on human cloning?

That's all! [8D]


Well that depends on who is being cloned. If it was Bush... I am against it. If it is you...well... lets just say there would a lot more beauty in this world if you were re-created a couple thousand times.

I should have called myself "Smooth Criminal" or even "Slick", yeow![8D]



GeorgiaNerd -> RE: Human cloning (4/10/2008 3:46:52 AM)

I think that clones would turn out even less similar to the original than identical twins are for three reasons. First of all, the lack of a shared environment for development has been proven to produce identical twins that are less alike. Secondly, the formation of bar bodies in females (where one X chromosome becomes inactive) has proven to produce cats with different coat colors. Finally, wasn't there something wrong with Dolly's developmental age?

I'm curious why we are having so much trouble cloning primates. Hopefully, scientists will figure out how to do it soon.



Sun_Tzu -> RE: Human cloning (4/10/2008 9:09:34 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaveW

Twins are not clones. Cloning is taking something already in existance and duplicating it after the fact. Twins develop together at the same time. Geneticaly, of course there is no difference between a clone and an identical twin. It is just a matter of timing and procedure.

As to whether an individual can be "soul-less" whether an individual, a twin or a clone, I think the bible suggests we all have our own soul.



Regardless, genetically speaking it is the same as having a twin. The clone will develop with it's own brain patterns, therefore making it different then the original.

The real danger of cloning though is redundancy. The gene pool would become stale if you started introducing clones into the mix. Genetic variation is what keeps a species strong and able to develop resistance to diseases and other environmental hazards. That is how micro-evolution works.

One thing that bothers me though is that with every new technology there is never the moral/philosophical debate as to "should we attempt this"? We need a global team of philosophers and scientists debating the issue until all avenues of the issue have been explored and addressed.



drmark -> RE: Human cloning (4/11/2008 5:44:33 AM)

quote:

Hopefully, scientists will figure out how to do it soon.
Why and for what purpose(s), RedcoatMello? Can you cite a single scientific article that demonstrates a medically beneficial treatment based on cloning technology, in particular SCNT? I can cite hundreds of articles showing benefit from adult stem cell research which specifically avoids potential ethical issues. Why should scientists waste their limited time and money on worthless research?

quote:

We need a global team of philosophers and scientists debating the issue until all avenues of the issue have been explored and addressed.
Philosophers and scientists have botched ethical issues for 200 years. How about some quality Christian physicians, bioethicists, and theologians on your "global team". Can you think of anyone better to represent the values of human dignity and matters of the soul, Sun_Tzu?



GeorgiaNerd -> RE: Human cloning (4/12/2008 1:00:19 AM)

quote:

Why and for what purpose(s), RedcoatMello? Can you cite a single scientific article that demonstrates a medically beneficial treatment based on cloning technology, in particular SCNT? I can cite hundreds of articles showing benefit from adult stem cell research which specifically avoids potential ethical issues. Why should scientists waste their limited time and money on worthless research?


Well, I'm not at all interested in human or primate medicine, so I'm not really looking at it from that point of view. I'm more interested in developmental biology and psychology. I'm just a lowly music theory major. I was talking about using the technology on other primates first of course. The fact that our technology has only worked a few times on primates suggests to me that an important discovery in the realm of developmental biology could be made by figuring out what makes primates different with regards to this technology. I also think that it could be useful with regards to the genes vs. environment and nature vs. nurture debates. In the developmental biology field, the research would be more effective with embryonic stem cells because the adult stems cells can be partially determined. All of the developmental biologists I have interacted with would rather be using embryonic stem cells in their research. I don't think cloning or stem cell research is worthless, anyways. There is some process that we don't understand going on, and as a curious person i want to know what it is.



solo_soprano22 -> RE: Human cloning (4/12/2008 1:24:43 AM)

quote:

Why should scientists waste their limited time and money on worthless research?


How do you know it's worthless? [&:] (Unless you can see into the future, I suppose.)



Annie64 -> RE: Human cloning (4/12/2008 2:36:00 AM)

Cloning is wrong, because it would involve creating and then destroying embryos in the process. But if it were ever developed, a clone would be as human as you or I and would have a soul. If genetically it is the same as an identical twin, then it would be fully human and would have a soul--which is why it would be wrong to destroy the embryos.

If we were ever able to successfully clone a human being, we would still not be creating a human being from nothing. We would not be the creators of the clone. God still would be.



drmark -> RE: Human cloning (4/12/2008 9:38:23 AM)

quote:

All of the developmental biologists I have interacted with would rather be using embryonic stem cells in their research.

quote:

How do you know it's worthless?
If I remember correctly, s_s22, you're a bright pre-med student. Why don't you perform a brief literature search to share with the misinformed developmental biologists that RcM interacts with. I will get you started with references 7-11 from this article on what is wrong with ESCR.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI