Human cloning: it's the soul, stupid

townhall ^ | January 4, 2003 | David Limbaugh

[go star go]

Oh my. Am I logged on?

Apparently not...

[Polycarp]

I cannot accept the idea that a clone is not human

I think you made a leap here that others have not made.

The question is not whether the clone is human but whether this human clone will be infused with a soul.

[jennyp]

Even transfering all thoughts and memory would not recreate you. There are chemicals in your body that affected your recording of memory and your current intrepretation of those memories that would not exist in a clone. ...

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.

I once had some surgery done in my abdominal region, and I had a spinal tap. This is where they inject novocaine into the base of the spine, shutting off all communication to the legs & other parts down there.

Afterwards, lying there in the recovery room, getting bored out of my wits, I tried desperately to move my feet. I couldn't yet, 'cuz the novocaine hadn't worn off. But it didn't feel like I couldn't move my feet - it felt like I never really had intended to move my feet in the first place!

The lack of feedback from the leg nerves was translated in my mind as "I must not have been serious in the first place". It took a lot of effort to overcome that feeling.

So, on that basis alone I think that transferring (physically or electrically or whatever) just the information in the brain wouldn't recreate the whole "mind". But then, if I was dying, I guess it would have to do.

[jennyp]

The question is not whether the clone is human but whether this human clone will be infused with a soul.

But how could you tell??? How do you know there is such a thing as a "soul" in the first place, apart from your religious belief?

[Polycarp]

Obviously we are talking past each other. I had not been aware that the debate had shifted from whether a clone has a soul to whether a clone is even human. That is a different debate altogether.

[go star go]

The question is not whether the clone is human but whether this human clone will be infused with a soul.

What would be the difference? Are you saying a human can exist without a soul?

[B-Chan]

But how is that (procreation divorced from intercourse) any different from in vitro fertilization?

In terms of morality, it is no different. Both cloning and in vitro fertilization techniques are intrinsicially and objectvely morally disordered.

"[Artificial reproductive t]echniques involving only the married couple (homologous artificial insemination and fertilization) are perhaps less reprehensible [than sperm/egg donor procedures], yet remain morally unacceptable. They dissociate the sexual act from the procreative act. The act which brings the child into existence is no longer an act by which two persons give themselves to one another, but one that 'entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of doctors and biologists and establishes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person. Such a relationship of domination is in itself contrary to the dignity and equality that must be common to parents and children.'[CDF, Donum vitae II, 5.] 'Under the moral aspect procreation is deprived of its proper perfection when it is not willed as the fruit of the conjugal act, that is to say, of the specific act of the spouses' union .... Only respect for the link between the meanings of the conjugal act and respect for the unity of the human being make possible procreation in conformity with the dignity of the person.'" -- [Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2577]

In other words: any fertilization technique other than that which occurs naturally and biologically as the result of sexual intercourse between husband-wife is disordered because it severs the relationship between reproduction and the ultimate act of unselfish human bonding (loving sexual relations between spouses). Furthermore, such techniques are insulting to the dignity of the sacrament of marriage; by providing a way for unmarried persons to "reproduce" without benefit of marriage, IVF diminishes the perceived value of the marriage bond within a society and undermines the status of the human family as the fundamental social unit. Finally, such techniques are insulting to the dignity of the human person: just as reducing a a human being to the status of property (i.e. chattel slavery) is immoral, reducing a human being to the status of a manufactured product (i.e an entity engineered in a laboratory) is intrinsically immoral.

In a world where orphans abound, the selfish desire to reproduce one's own DNA at any cost is immoral. For those infertile couples with a true desire to raise and nurture children, adoption is the only moral choice.

[go star go]

They dissociate the sexual act from the procreative act.

I guess this means that animals are sinners yet they have no soul. Right?

[Polycarp]

Are you saying a human can exist without a soul?

I don't know! This is part of the whole clone question.

Does it have a soul? Will God allow His Natural Law to be so violated by our arrogance and pride that human clones come into existence? If so, will He infuse such a "monster" with a human soul? If not, will it even be able to "live"?

These are the questions being asked.

Personally, I do not think God will permit man to commit this catastrophy.

Even if He does, I do not think He is bound by His Natural Law to infuse the soul into human flesh created in this fashion.

If a clone is created, and God does not infuse it with a soul, will it, can it, evenLIVE?

I don't know...I speak as a Catholic but certainly not for Catholicism.

[B-Chan]

I'm not sure what you're asking here. Care to rephrase?

[Jhoffa_]

If life begins at conception, is a clone life?

I bet a clone would emphatically say YES!

(And I have a feeling we will be able to ask one soon enough..)

[Polycarp]

See the original article:

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart," I think He's referring to our souls, our essences, not our yet to be fully formed brains. It is a chilling thought that His Jeremiah statement may not apply to beings that He did not form in the womb but that human scientists did.

We better quit ignoring these pressing moral issues, because we can be sure that science is not going to wait for us to catch up.

This whole thread is about the simple fact that we do not know the answers, and scientific advances are far outstripping the moral frameworks erected so far upon which these advanced must be evaluated.

Science divorced from ethics and morals is a danger to be feared more than most other things today.

[go star go]

The base of your thesis was that "They dissociate the sexual act from the procreative act.". I'm pretty sure that dogs and cats don't breed with the idea that they are about to make babies. They do it because chemical make her smell like she wants it and he goes for it. Thus, they must be sinners according to your thesis yet they do not have an ounce of human DNA nor a soul. Right?

[Polycarp]

I have a feeling we will be able to ask one soon enough

Don't hold your breath:

CLONIAD HOAX BECOMING OBVIOUS

PARIS, January 3, 2003 (LifeSiteNews.com) - International media continue to be captivated by the Raelian UFO cult's increasingly ludicrous claims to have implanted several cult followers with cloned embryos. One of them, baby "Eve," was allegedly born last week and flown back into the United States, according to Cloniad, the cult's amateur research subsidiary.

Having yesterday promised imminent DNA proof that the newborn -- whom no one outside the cult has actually seen -- is a cloned replica of her mother, Cloniad chief executive Brigitte Boisselier told France 2 TV and BBC's Newsnight that the tests have now been "delayed" and may never take place(!) because the parents are nervous about publicity.

In the latest reports, Cloniad has announced that a "second cloned baby" will be born by the end of the week, somewhere in Europe. "Perhaps the second child will be more accessible because it is in Europe and the country in which he or she will be born may be less sensitive," Boisselier said.

For BBC News coverage see:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2624661.stm

For related coverage see:

CLONIAD PROMISES DNA PROOF OF CLONED BABY WITHIN A WEEK

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2003/jan/03010201.html

[Polycarp]

any fertilization technique other than that which occurs naturally and biologically as the result of sexual intercourse between husband-wife is disordered

Definitely. But the fact that both are equally illicit, for similar reasons, does not necessarily bear upon the Natural Law and how it intersects with the infusion of the soul in IVF versus cloning.

[Jhoffa_]

I don't doubt the cloniad child is a hoax, and it worked brilliantly.. tons of free publicity. You couldn't buy media hype like this if you wanted to.

But there are enough scientists just dying to have their name etched in the history books that someone, somewhere is going to keep trying till they succeed. Regardless of how many abortions it takes, regardless of the health and well being of the child and mother, regardless of the law.. regardless of anything.

[dpwiener]

Why yes, I can clone a soul. My associates and I have perfected the process, and we have a patent pending. And I'll send you a prospectus for the company, SoulAid (OTCBB:SOULSRUS), giving you a ground floor opportunity for just a $1,000 investment. You'd be nuts to pass this up!

The problem is that we have no idea as to the current market value of a soul. Who knows what Satan has to pay these days? Where's the aftermarket in soul trading? Is a soul indivisible, or can you sell shares in it? What's the discounted future value of a soul? Is there an intrinsic interest rate?

Until you can answer these questions and many others in a prospectus, your Souls-R-Us IPO is going nowhere.

[B-Chan]

Animals are not free moral agents and therefore are not capable of sin. Sin is an act of deliberate choice on the part of a being possessed of free will; since animals act on instinct, each according to its own nature, they cannot choose to disobey God (i.e. sin).

[Vigilant1]

P:
"Obviously you do not read the silly religious extremist dogma correctly. Try to be more vigilant, and feel free to play again some time."

What a productive and informative reply!

Do you seriously think there won't be groups of religious extremists that label clones as 'soulless monsters','Satan's Children', etc.? And you think such people would not be a threat? Here's a news flash for you. People kill each other for just having differnent religious beliefs than they do. What do you think they'd do to a person they thought was a soulless abomination? What do you think the Wahibbists will have to say about this, for example?

Perhaps you should try thinking about a subject before posting on it.

[First Amendment]

Science divorced from ethics and morals is a danger to be feared more than most other things today.

This is one of the best statements on this thread. Scientists think that because they CAN do something, they MUST do it. In other words, they are trying their best to usurp the position of God. Only disaster will come of their efforts.

Another point - where there is life, that is the symptom of the presence of the soul. But the soul who might inhabit the cloned human (if they are actually able to do it, which I doubt) would probably have twisted consciousness.