Human cloning: it's the soul, stupid

townhall ^ | January 4, 2003 | David Limbaugh

[Cvengr]

A fourth justification might be more ulterior. Fallen angels, demons, or evil spirits as a group of beings identified throughout human history and prehistoric from Divinely inspired Scripture have been understood to be disembodied in some fashion. There are also records of demonic possession and influence of other persons and animals.

Considering the origin of the idea from the Raelian movement, and unabashed testimony of the same, it seems as though there is some preoccupation with cloning from the domain of evil spirits.

Since those same persons are asociated with malevolent deception, it seems as though the topic is ripe for their manipulation.

You make outstading points, and from a human perspective, it seems foolish to attempt to clone. Yet, I am not surprised that some persons may exist who seek to manufacture replacement human body parts, maintain/secure personal relationships, and biologically engineer their children.

Here are some others,...perhaps variations on the topics you bring to mind.

Manufacture standing armies.
Provide a new meaning to 'double agents'.
Sex Toys.
Slavery.
Creation of new classes or manipulating class numbers.
Voter Fraud.
Space travel.
Sports advantage/rigged games and wagering.

[Cvengr]

I don't know about the Tower of Babel association.

I understand the perspective of the Roman Catholic Church with regards to In Vitro Fertilization is that since the act omits a human act of conception coincident with sexual relations, that it counterfeits His process for procreation and omits the bodily love between husband and wife. The omission of that familial love is discernible and sufficient to establish a more safe doctrine to avoid and condemn such behavior.

Such a position might also read into Scripture a bit. He may have created all things and the soul might be more closely asociated with the biological functioning of the brain and its association with the spirit.

Certain fleshly and natural aspects of the soul might implicitly be created in the clone as a side effect/consequence of God's creation already. This is more of a study of functionality or function of functions as possible worlds, rather than a deduction.

[opocno]

Any chance that spokeswoman Dr. Brigitte could clone herself some new teeth? That is one hideous smile; underlines the Dr. Frankenstein theme!

[Aquinasfan]

I do not think it will have a human soul.

The key to understanding the issue lies in Thomistic/Aristotelian philosophy. The human soul is the substantial form of the human body. If a living human body exists then it must have a substantial form or soul.

[Aquinasfan]

The soul is an unnecessary reification of the abstract concept of our identity & consciousness.

My soul is my identity and it is through the soul that I am conscious of myself. Otherwise, what is my identity? My identity cannot be my thoughts because I would have as many selves as discrete thoughts. Is my self a scanning-mechanism in the brain? Then I would have as many selves as discrete acts of scanning, et cetera, ad infinitum.

[Aquinasfan]

In a sense, cloning is the ultimate form of masturbation -- a self-centered act of pleasure, utterly devoid of passion, and ultimately narcissistic.

I think you have succinctly captured the essence of cloning.

[steve-b]

Well this is limitation of current technology and science.

True, but it's sufficient reason to condemn attempts at human reproductive cloning as unethical for the present.

When the bugs are worked out of the process for other mammals (which will probably happen in a few decades), then the more fundamental issues will have to be addressed.

[Aquinasfan]

Yeah, in fact even if my whole brain were transplanted into another body, some of my mind would still be left in the old one.

Then you'd have two minds on the issue.

[jennyp]

The key to understanding the issue lies in Thomistic/Aristotelian philosophy. The human soul is the substantial form of the human body. If a living human body exists then it must have a substantial form or soul.

That's a great article you linked to! A very clear introduction to Aquinas' concept of the soul. I'd agree with his first argument where he basically says that the soul is the "form", or functional organization of the animal. Here he's clearly borrowing from Aristotle.

But the article is correct, IMO: His theory as a whole breaks down, because this concept of the soul contradicts the Christian doctrine that the soul is a separate entity from the body that survives bodily death in some supernatural dimension. There's no way you can integrate these two concepts coherently.