Cloning

[Pah]

Dolly scientists' human clone bid

Professor Ian Wilmut makes a point during the media briefing
The scientists who cloned Dolly the sheep have formally applied for a licence to clone human embryos to find a cure for motor neurone disease.

Article posted here

What, exactly, are the religious concerns about cloning? What is the moral principle being violated?

-pah-

 

[Ronald]

Article posted here

What, exactly, are the religious concerns about cloning? What is the moral principle being violated?

-pah-

What if God withholds issuance of a soul? Would IT be Golem? LOL!

 

[Raphael]

Whenever a human person is created, either by procreation or scientific manipulation, for this being to have life it must have a soul. Humans are given at the moment of creation an immortal soul. The soul united to a specific body both generates life to the body and because it is an immortal soul also gives the human person free will and reason. This procreative act is intimately connected to the procreative act in which mankind shares in a finite way the Divine Attribute of our Creator God. The main purpose for human cloning is to create individual human persons made in the image and likeness of God, possessing immortal souls, for the purpose of destruction of their lives for the purpose of scientific expeimentation and research. This act denies the dignity of the human person. There are many other religious, moral and philisophical reasons behind the concerns expressed by many worldwide religions.

 

[Feathers in Hair]

Wouldn't, then, the Divine, being infinite, have made plans for the seperate souls of such clones? I don't know where I stand on the issue, but I'd say it's tantamount to judging God to say that S/He wouldn't have.

 

[Pah]

Whenever a human person is created, either by procreation or scientific manipulation, for this being to have life it must have a soul. Humans are given at the moment of creation an immortal soul. The soul united to a specific body both generates life to the body and because it is an immortal soul also gives the human person free will and reason. This procreative act is intimately connected to the procreative act in which mankind shares in a finite way the Divine Attribute of our Creator God. The main purpose for human cloning is to create individual human persons made in the image and likeness of God, possessing immortal souls, for the purpose of destruction of their lives for the purpose of scientific expeimentation and research. This act denies the dignity of the human person. There are many other religious, moral and philisophical reasons behind the concerns expressed by many worldwide religions.

Then, it sounds alright if they had let the embros reach full term. It seems you have nothing against cloning just the early termination.

Let me also add why have you picked the moment of creation to be the time when a soul is given. The early church thought for many centuries that it did not happen until the fetus was "quickened". The Bible has a very strong indication that the soul was not created until "God's breath" was present which would be birth. So why that very early point?

-pah-

 

[Lightkeeper]

What about the people who believe they with God in Heaven and then decide to be born and have a body? Wouldn't this mean the soul exists before conception?

 

[Scott1]

"The troubling possibility of the cloning of human beings for "reproductive" purposes through the technical substitution of responsible procreation is contrary to the dignity of sonship. Even more troubling are the pressing demands of groups of researchers for the legalization of cloning in order to subject the human embryos "produced" to manipulation and experimentation, and subsequently to destroy them. This state of affairs highlights a serious deterioration, both in the recognition of the dignity of life and of human procreation and in the knowledge of the irreplaceable and fundamental role and value of the family, not only for the individual but for all humanity."


For the complete text:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PCFCLONE.HTM

 

[nomad438]

I am not really sure of my position on cloning. On one hand, cloning is bad because it gives the potential for bad things, such as diseases, and other things to be created in mass quanity. But on the other hand it can also be used to restore things, and help people such as infertile couples create babies.

 

[linwood]

I`m inclined to agree with Scott I believe.

My concern would be with the human dignity issue.

I believe we would need to lay down some laws about where a clone resides in all human rights regards.

I know it may seem a given to most but many misconceptions can drive intolerance that would make racism look like school yard taunting.

The treatment of a clone would also be an issue that needs to be resolved before anyone cloned any human.

 

[Scott1]

I`m inclined to agree with Scott I believe.

Did hell freeze over and I didn't hear about it?

Thanks linwood.
Scott

 

[Pah]

Did hell freeze over and I didn't hear about it?

Thanks linwood.
Scott

Never mind - I'll make up for that.

My idea of a clone is that a new person is created. Though police lab identification will (or "may" - fingerprints "may" vary) be difficult, the disparity in ages will be a give away.

I would also assume that anything of a religious nature would be confered on the new person.

Does that thaw the ice a bit, Scott?

-pah-

 

[linwood]

I would also assume that anything of a religious nature would be confered on the new person.

Pah could you dumb that down for me a bit.
Exactly what are you saying?

I have another question.

How would the various religious sects react to a human clone on a personal level?
How would they treat him/her?

What exactly would their value judgements of his/her existence be?

Scott..how would Catholics view/treat this being?

Baptists?
Muslims?
Jews?

Anyone want to put in their 2 cents?

The concerns I have about this aren`t just the morality issues of actually cloning a person since I don`t really know if I have any.

The morality concerns I have are how would this new person be accepted in society if at all?

 

[Scott1]

pah,



I was sure that TWO atheists would not agree with me in the same thread.... hell would surely freeze over then!



As far as your post goes:

It does not change a thing for me. A clone, although I applaud your assumption that it would have a new "religious nature"/soul, it would still
not show the proper respect due for natural procreation and (in my opinion) do FURTHER damage to the family.


The family (at least from what I can see in this country) is a mess. We as a society should do more to strengthen family bonds, not support something that would further splinter the concept of a nuclear family.

I don't know if anyone asked this already, pah, but what is the ADVANTAGE of cloning?

 

[Scott1]

Scott..how would Catholics view/treat this being?

What a great question linwood! I must say that I'm only guessing, but the Church would most certainly show the person the dignity and respect that it teaches to offer EVERY person on this Earth.
It's amazing that we abort thousands of babies, but need clones somehow..... why not just keep a few kids alive instead of cloning a new one?

My brain hurts.
Scott

 

[linwood]

Ok forget my earlier plea for clarity Scott cleared it up for me.

It's amazing that we abort thousands of babies, but need clones somehow..... why not just keep a few kids alive instead of cloning a new one?

It does indeed seem a bit ..odd.

My idea of a clone is that a new person is created. Though police lab identification will (or "may" - fingerprints "may" vary) be difficult, the disparity in ages will be a give away.

Please remember I`m not very educated about cloning so this may sound like a foolish question ..please be kind with your reply.

Would a clone have a distinct DNA or would he/she have a duplicate DNA of whatever material was used to clone?

I would think he/she would be identical.

If identical would there be a way to place an artificial "marker" within his/her DNA in order to make him/her distinct?

 

[Pah]

pah,



I was sure that TWO atheists would not agree with me in the same thread.... hell would surely freeze over then!



As far as your post goes:

It does not change a thing for me. A clone, although I applaud your assumption that it would have a new "religious nature"/soul, it would still not show the proper respect due for natural procreation and (in my opinion) do FURTHER damage to the family.


The family (at least from what I can see in this country) is a mess. We as a society should do more to strengthen family bonds, not support something that would further splinter the concept of a nuclear family.

I don't know if anyone asked this already, pah, but what is the ADVANTAGE of cloning?

I'm not aware of any objection (though there may be one) from the RCC regarding in vitro conception. I'm not sure this question is on-topic but what the heck, it is my thread.

There is a similarity to cloning in that the ova is primed from extraneous material instead of sperm. The is no disruption to established life. The egg then, if the procedure "takes" starts it's dividing process.

I know there will be abuses of the system (growing a transplant "bank" for instance but that can be taken care of by law). I would like to see the primary purpose of cloning as an aid to families as an alternative to natural procreation joining the in vitro process. The advantage over in vitro is that it does not have to resort to bringing in "foreign" gametes from outside the family should that be necessary for in vitro.

-pah-

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I was sure that TWO atheists would not agree with me in the same thread.... hell would surely freeze over then!

Tell the devil to turn up the thermostat! Although I'm not really educated on the subject, I'm going to tentatively agree with Scott and linwood on this...I have strong reservations about cloning...though I admit a moral arguments relating to destroying a single cell that doesn't have consciousness but is a member of our species is...difficult.

 

[Pah]

Would a clone have a distinct DNA or would he/she have a duplicate DNA of whatever material was used to clone?

I would think he/she would be identical.

If identical would there be a way to place an artificial "marker" within his/her DNA in order to make him/her distinct?

Identical is what I understand.

I suppose it would be possible to "mark" the new DNA, but I don't see why this extra step should be done (assuming it is an adult that is the donor).

-pah-

 

[thomasedison]

It might be unfair on those who are not cloned. If human beings are able to manipulate genes, someday, it will the babies whose parents are rich a chance to become superstrong if such is what their parents decide. That means they will not rise up through their own ability. They will be essentially mutants. However, cloning will be very helpful in eradicating diseases and having an extremely long life.

 

[Bastet]

I don't know about anyone else, but I don't have such a high opinion of myself that I would want a mini-me around. I wouldn't wish that on anyone lol. Surely there are other ways besides cloning, to research cures for diseases...