Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Soul of a Clone (Vanity)
self | 12/31/02 | Self

Posted on 12/31/2002 4:53:27 PM PST by cincinnati65

As the possibility of creating a human clone appears to be closing on reality, there are a number of questions that come to mind, particularly when reconciling with my Christian beliefs. For instance, if a human clone is created, will a soul inhabit the body? If so, what soul? If a clone is created that is a living, breathing duplicate of a human, what does this say about my belief that it is God that provides the immortal soul within humans?


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS:
I know this is open-ended, but I'm curious to see what others think about the subject.
1 posted on 12/31/2002 4:53:27 PM PST by cincinnati65
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: cincinnati65
How could a clone be non-human? Of course it is.
2 posted on 12/31/2002 4:54:37 PM PST by Ramius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ramius
Hmmm... that didn't read right. Of course it is human, is what I meant.
3 posted on 12/31/2002 4:55:19 PM PST by Ramius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: cincinnati65
It isn't a duplicate of a person. It is another person, made from the same plan, but a separate new individual.
4 posted on 12/31/2002 4:56:42 PM PST by Ramius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ramius
Okay, you create a clone. You get a human being, true. But, the question is, is it a soul-less automaton made of flesh and bone, capable of "living", or would it have a separate soul?
5 posted on 12/31/2002 5:00:00 PM PST by cincinnati65
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: cincinnati65
Not being particularly religeous, I'm not sure that I see the conflict that you seem to.

In my view, identical twins (the naturally-occurring cloning of one child from its sibling) each have their own unique souls. I don't see why a person's body having been artificially cloned would preclude him from having a soul anymore than being a twin would.

6 posted on 12/31/2002 5:02:48 PM PST by Bob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cincinnati65
A clone is, if perfectly rendered, an identical twin with a different birthday. Nothing more. Everyone who has ever met identical twins knows that they are two different people with each possessing just what God intends for us all to possess.

The problems with cloning, so far as I can discern them are:

1). Playing God instead of worshiping Him. This problem is insurmountable and renders moot the others.

2). Imperfect clones who then suffer from their imperfections.

3). Clones subsequently being afforded fewer rights than all men are endowed by their creator (i.e. God).

I say it's a clear no-go.

7 posted on 12/31/2002 5:05:27 PM PST by rogue yam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bob
The key here in your comment is "naturally-occurring" - as in (according to my beliefs) "God-intended". Now, we have "artificially-occurring" cloning, with man stepping into the role of God. The question is: Who supplies the soul?
8 posted on 12/31/2002 5:10:12 PM PST by cincinnati65
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: rogue yam
WOW! Your point '3' opens a whole can of worms, doesn't it? "Endowed by their Creator" -- does that mean these scientists can determine what rights a clone does or does not possess?
9 posted on 12/31/2002 5:12:36 PM PST by cincinnati65
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: cincinnati65
Man is not stepping into the role of God. Man does not create life, he merely arranges the place and the hour where it begins. The process still belongs to God.

That being said... we have no business doing it. It is vanity on our part and nothing more. People only want to do it to prove that they can. There is no purpose to it, and no need for it. It's not like we *need* more people around here... that's for sure.
10 posted on 12/31/2002 5:27:29 PM PST by Ramius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: cincinnati65
It is possible a clone body is very questionable! Each of us have a body that is sanction by God!

Who does not have a body is demons? So no one has knowledge which spirit resides in this clone!

In my faith we say Lucifer did not keep his 1st estate, therefore was not entitled to the second estate which is a body! So these evil spirits were homeless!

Who really knows who will be inhabiting these bodies!

11 posted on 12/31/2002 6:26:43 PM PST by restornu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: cincinnati65
Now, we have "artificially-occurring" cloning, with man stepping into the role of God. The question is: Who supplies the soul?

One school of thought asserts that the soul is formed at the point of conception. While the technique may change in the future, I believe that the current cloning process uses an egg that has been previously fertilized (and thus has a soul) after which the genetic material is removed and replaced with that from the clone DNA donor (being a "true" clone only if the clone DNA donor is also the egg donor, since otherwise there will be differences in mitochondrial DNA).

It would seem reasonable to assume that the clone retains the previously existing soul, since all that has happened is a "DNA transplant" (and in the same way that a person who gets a kidney transplant and a heart transplant and a lung transplant and as many other organs as can be named doesn't lose any of his soul, neither would the new child, regardless of the extent of the "transplant").

Of course, using this logic the "clone" is the victim of medical malpractice, in the same way someone who was the recipient of an unnecessary organ transplant would be, unless the DNA transfer was absolutely necessary to prevent or correct some otherwise inevitable genetic disease.
12 posted on 12/31/2002 6:32:29 PM PST by Technogeeb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: cincinnati65
Don't ask dumb questions. Particularly not when they have
already been answered by the post to which you are replying.
13 posted on 12/31/2002 6:44:03 PM PST by rogue yam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: rogue yam
Don't ask dumb questions

I was taught their are no dumb questions! It is how we learn!

Your a little harsh aren't you?

14 posted on 12/31/2002 6:54:16 PM PST by restornu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: restornu
I don't think I'm overly harsh for an adult forum.

That there are no dumb questions is an appropriate model for children. Such an approach is not workable elsewhere. Everyone's time is valuable. It is each of our responsibility to pay attention and think for ourselves and not waste each other's time.

At least that's what I learned in engineering college.

15 posted on 12/31/2002 7:00:52 PM PST by rogue yam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: cincinnati65
Raelians, Catholics and the Clone Age

Toward the end of this article the writer addresses the body and soul issue. Sources mentioned also.

16 posted on 12/31/2002 7:22:57 PM PST by Salvation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wimpycat
Welcome to the fruit loop convention. Yee-hah!
17 posted on 12/31/2002 7:23:47 PM PST by Chancellor Palpatine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rogue yam
Everyone's time is valuable. It is each of our responsibility to pay attention and think for ourselves and not waste each other's time.

TRUE!

But we do have the choice if we think a question is foolish or a thread is not interesting to pass on by!

May you have A Healthy and Happy New Years!

18 posted on 12/31/2002 7:35:00 PM PST by restornu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Technogeeb
I believe there is a very simple way to express this:
- It is God alone who gives life.
- God has NEVER been surprised by a life that appears.
- If this so-called cloning process results in a new life, it is because He allowed it, for whatever reason.
I don't believe God condones cloning, but only God can give "life." That said, it would seem that it obviates the question of the soul...yes, this new baby has a soul.
19 posted on 01/01/2003 12:03:42 AM PST by LiteKeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Technogeeb
I believe there is a very simple way to express this:
- It is God alone who gives life.
- God has NEVER been surprised by a life that appears.
- If this so-called cloning process results in a new life, it is because He allowed it, for whatever reason.
I don't believe God condones cloning, but only God can give "life." That said, it would seem that it obviates the question of the soul...yes, this new baby has a soul.
20 posted on 01/01/2003 12:06:55 AM PST by LiteKeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Technogeeb
There are within Christian tradition (Roman, Protestant, Orthodox) three views of the origin of the individual soul.

FIRST: Preexistence. This view as taught by Origen, maintains that souls of mankind had a conscious state in some sort of previous state. This condemns them to be born into bodies in this life. (almost sounds like reincarnation)

SECOND: Traducianism. This view teaches that the soul is generated by the two parents in the same manner as the physical charistics of the individual.

THIRD: Creationism. This is the majourity view of all of the churches. Creationism is the view that the soul is created by the direct and immediate agency of God, and is infused into the person at conception.

Of those three views, i personally favour Traducianism, as it avoids a messy problem of Creationism, namely if the soul is created by immediate agency of God, and is indued with original sin, QED, God is the source of sin! By a traducian understanding, a soul corrupted by original sin is the responsibility of the parents who were also corrupted by original sin. It also explains better the Incarnation, if Jesus had no human father, he could not have had a human soul corrupted by sin.

This leads back to the issue of the clone. If there are not two zygotes (egg and sperm) is there a soul? i think not. i fear the thought of human clones. Without a soul, what do we have? An amoral, unrestrained, reasoning sociopathic person. Since cloning does not necessarily require a fertilised embryo, one should be afraid, very afraid.
21 posted on 01/01/2003 2:19:40 AM PST by Calvinist_Dark_Lord
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Calvinist_Dark_Lord; All
Source: Hodge, Charles Systematic Theology, Vol II

There has been enough plagerising recently :-)
22 posted on 01/01/2003 2:24:07 AM PST by Calvinist_Dark_Lord
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Calvinist_Dark_Lord
Of those three views, i personally favour Traducianism

That does seem the most logical view.

This leads back to the issue of the clone. If there are not two zygotes (egg and sperm) is there a soul? i think not

But that was the point of my earlier post. There ARE both egg and sperm, at least with all the techniques I have studied (granted, I haven't looked at the research in several years, and if another process has been developed I would be equally concerned about the soul issue). The process involves replacing the DNA of a previously fertilized egg with the DNA of some other individual (the target to be cloned). Thus, the conception event that has created the soul has already happened.

Without a soul, what do we have? An amoral, unrestrained, reasoning sociopathic person

Hmm. I think somebody needs to inform the FDA of an illegal cloning operation in Hope, Arkansas.

Since cloning does not necessarily require a fertilised embryo

Are you certain of this? (Not to question your facts; I simply haven't looked at the research in several years. Do you have any links to mammal cloning that doesn't require pre-fertilization of the cell? Or are you just assuming future technical progress?).
23 posted on 01/01/2003 9:04:35 AM PST by Technogeeb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Technogeeb
Unfortunately, i am relying on my memory, i cannot quote a source at present. i do however recall that there was a news blurb which offered "hope" for lesbian couples who desired to have children, that no longer would they need to use the "turkey baster" method of conception, that the DNA could be from both women only. i believe that there had been experiments that had induced an egg to begin dividing and growing. Very scary.

As per Traducianism, i put myself somewhat at odds with my Reformed Brethern, but Augustine leaned that way also, although he did not formally accept the position. i can find no other answer for the sticky (no pun intended!) theological problems implicit with Creationism.

Hmmm... you may be on to something there, i wonder if there were any UFO abductions of women in Arkansas in the 40's.
24 posted on 01/01/2003 10:41:17 AM PST by Calvinist_Dark_Lord
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: cincinnati65
I'll bet the same question was asked when they first were doing test tube babies, and that doesn't seem to concern folks anymore.
25 posted on 01/01/2003 10:46:23 AM PST by T. P. Pole
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ramius
I think the question about the soul is an important one, because many tend to believe that the "soul" is created at the time of conception, and with cloning, there is no real conception steming from a male and a female. There is the generation of a being from a single cell of the one who is cloned. In the case of the recent alleged birth of the cloned female, it was a skin cell that was used. If a cloned person has a unique soul, we may need to re-think our definition and understanding of the creation of a human person. There are huge moral implications.
26 posted on 01/01/2003 11:24:05 AM PST by Dusty Rose
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Dusty Rose
It depends what cloning method is used. if Two zygotes are present there is a male and female involved, conception just happened outside of the female body. if there are not two zygotes...what hath we wrought?
27 posted on 01/01/2003 11:42:53 AM PST by Calvinist_Dark_Lord
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Calvinist_Dark_Lord
While much more eloquently stated than my original post, THIS was the source of my initial question.
28 posted on 01/01/2003 12:51:03 PM PST by cincinnati65
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: cincinnati65
See my post #21 above. i did appear to digress a bit there, but brought it back, i hope. as to my answer to "what hath we wrought"... The Antichrist, or maybe even an entire generation of antichrists. Man without an immaterial nature (soul, spirit, what ever you wish to call it) is nothing but a very intelligent brute, without scrupples or restraint.
29 posted on 01/01/2003 1:18:42 PM PST by Calvinist_Dark_Lord
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: rogue yam
To ask a question, even a dumb question, is not a waste of time. It is the best use of time by someone who knows not the answer.

What wastes time is for someone who knows the answer to engage the asker in drivel not related to the answer to the question, merely so that he may briefly feel superior.

So there. Neener neener neener. Oops... looks like I wasted a little more time. :-)
30 posted on 01/01/2003 1:21:39 PM PST by Ramius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Dusty Rose
Yes, of course there are moral implications, and I think nomatter what that we have no business in cloning.

To me though, the soul question is moot. The existence of a soul (whatever that really means) is assumed. It would have to be proven that a cloned person is somehow soul-less, and that is impossible. It is not a meaningful question.
31 posted on 01/01/2003 1:25:32 PM PST by Ramius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: cincinnati65
From a theological standpoint, the soul is produced when the seed of man is joined with the woman, and a child is formed. This is the mechanism for passing on the sin nature of Adam, and why Jesus Christ had to be born of a virgin and not be of the seed of Adam.

To break that chain, then one allegedly is breaking the "sins of the father" mechanism, and similarly is breaking the chain of inherited salvation. (see Romans 5)

It would seem wrong for God to honor man's attempts to subvert YHWH by creating their own savior (one who does not inherit the sin nature) by installing a haploid soul, does it?

If you want to get real wild about speculation regarding clones, I submit that the Nephilim of Genesis 6 were clones. They have the common trait of clones (giganticism) and an empty shell does provide the idillic host for demon posession, since there is no fear of the Paraclete invading the soul and cleaning house, so to speak. The "bene elohiym" of 6:4, can be translated "sons of gods" (notice little 'g' gods). If the antediluvian scientists played "God" and practiced their own eugenics through cloning, then the product would indeed be their "sons", and in theological terms, their "men of great name", would mean that they were subjected to the authority and dominion of their god-like creators. (do a study on the topic of "naming")

What a great way to eliminate this population of clones than through a thoroughal global deluge? And to prevent man from quickly restarting their cloning efforts in Babel, to confuse them. (BTW, Nebechadnezzar did indeed rebuild the "Tower that reached unto heaven", so say the historians and honest archaeologists)

So now we are cloning again... allegedly.
And what did Solomon say ? "There is nothing new under the sun"
And what did Jesus Christ say? "As in the days of Noah..."


32 posted on 01/01/2003 10:07:22 PM PST by Dr Warmoose
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Calvinist_Dark_Lord
This leads back to the issue of the clone. If there are not two zygotes (egg and sperm) is there a soul? i think not. i fear the thought of human clones. Without a soul, what do we have? An amoral, unrestrained, reasoning sociopathic person. Since cloning does not necessarily require a fertilised embryo, one should be afraid, very afraid.

AntiChrist is clone model 666?

The greek allows this kind of reading... and the prophetical requirements can all be met (provided one's eschatology was pre-mil). Recovering from a head-wound would simply mean regrowing from stem-cell. Because of DNA corruption, the clone rapidly resembles the age of the source cell, so one can have the illusion of age by starting with an older donor.

Now we know that Satan is the Great Deceiver, and the AC is supposed to deceive the world...

Should stop. Sounding like an Art Bell replacement.

33 posted on 01/01/2003 10:13:56 PM PST by Dr Warmoose
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Calvinist_Dark_Lord
***Without a soul, what do we have? An amoral, unrestrained, reasoning sociopathic person.***

Is your reference to Bill or Hillary?
34 posted on 01/01/2003 10:16:40 PM PST by drstevej
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: drstevej
Personally, i'd lean towards Bill, but even amoral, unrestrained, reasoning sociopaths can restrain themselves when they act with enlightened self interest, so... guess the answer to your question is to plead the false alternative falacy,

...What do you mean Bill OR Hillary.... BOTH!
35 posted on 01/01/2003 10:24:41 PM PST by Calvinist_Dark_Lord
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Dr Warmoose
i am not premillenial. My statement deals in the context of moral character not eschatology, but i do have some theories. Best bet on the Nephelim, fallen angels, i don't quite buy the standard arguments against, some big holes in reasoning.
36 posted on 01/01/2003 10:30:44 PM PST by Calvinist_Dark_Lord
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Calvinist_Dark_Lord
***...What do you mean Bill OR Hillary.... BOTH! ***

A tip of the hat to you for your insightful correction.

BTW, good to have you around.
37 posted on 01/01/2003 10:31:58 PM PST by drstevej
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: drstevej
Took me a while to figure out how to answer that one, it is getting late here in eastern standard time land. This was fun, and it is a subject i've given some thought to. i'm not certain anyone has thought out the implications, technology is moving too fast, and the un repealable law of unintended consequences is going to soon give us a real big bite on the a$$ if we don't think about these things.

Thank you for your kind words, and good nite to all :-|zzz
38 posted on 01/01/2003 11:04:35 PM PST by Calvinist_Dark_Lord
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Dr Warmoose
.."Sounding like an Art Bell replacement."

That wouldn't mean an Art Bell ........clone, would it!!! ;^)

39 posted on 01/02/2003 12:00:12 AM PST by Cvengr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Dr Warmoose
You touch closer upon the major issues involved,..good post.

Here's a few of the issues I've found.

1) Background, ..God forms man, makes the soul and creates the spirit.

We might take as an assumption that the body aspect is being dublicated or counterfeited or manipulated in cloning. Independent of soul or spirit issues, first issue may be to quantify and qualify the actual cloning or repoduction of the body. Even if the DNA is perfectly rproduced or cloned, have we actually reproduced the body or merely a close proximity or apparent reproduction? Science might not have the wherewithal to actually prove this point, so some logical doubt might remaon,...an identification problem, if you will. This also touches upon the scope of science, perception, identification, and domain of the physical.

2) The claim is made that the human is cloned,...let's know clarify this to mean the human body,...as the claim.

Does this imply the soul or spirit will also be human?
Substantial theological doctrines have been made regarding soul and spirit, but generally, the soul and spirit of man are associated with personhood and distinct identities. Most doctrines I've found, tend to reason to more advanced doctrine within stipulative definition systems based upon Scripture, but diverge on a number of points.

Dicotomous vs Tricotomous
Some assert the soul and spirit are referencing the same object, essentially a nonmaterial essence of man in a dicotomous view. Others take from creation verses, the discernment of body, soul and spirit or tricotomous view.

Salvation and the Scriptural discussions of indwelling definitely associate the Holy Spirit with the spirit of man and the natural or cosmic man is understood to be dead in spiritual things (dead as in separated from God).

The soul is frequently associate with the mind, with conscience, with thought, with memory, with personage, with decision making, with ideas, to list but a few.

The Greek word PNEUMA is also translated in some cases as spirit and in others as soul, or breath of life. Accordingly some doctrines of soul, indicate that all animals have soul, but only man has been given spirit from God. Other secular discussions on spirit, associate spirit with animals as a life breathed feature.

2a) Variations on a theme.
Some doctrines hold, the body is first formed in post Adamic man by conception. We might say present day science materially deals in detail with this perspective of the body. Some posit the soul begins with conception, some pre-conception, some assert the soul is made sometime during first to second trimester.

The spirit has also been associated with pre-conception, conception, and upon childbirth or separation from the womb, and also possibly with an age of accountability only known by God.

In both issues, a number of doctrines emerge, generally focused on soul associated with brain development in the body, and spirit, seperately created by God after birth.

An important issue occurs here. Much of Scripture approaches the entire subject, not from the point of view of when soul and spirit are created or identified with persons, but rather with emphasis on how the Holy Spirit is related to man's spirit after faith and belief. This entire approach is probably no better stated than simply studying Scripture itself.

IMHO, this note might shed more light on the entire issue than semantics. It simply might not matter with respect to our relationship to God about these issues. But it might be very discernible to study these issues, because they are likely to be used by the Adversary in his attempt to counterfeit God's plan and we might be inadvertantly damaged by the conflict. Additionally, these isues might be massive stumbling blocks for natural man from coming to place faith in God.

2b) issues of soul made in the womb and spirit created upon separation of the body from the womb. This point of view nicely resolves many issues regarding abortion. Abortion might still be opposed, on the basis that one should not condone the taking of life withut regard, just as one shouldn't slaughter animals in reckless abandon, but it might well better frame an issue with regards to murder.

Interestingly, this doctrinal position might shed much more light upon partial birth abortion. Ulterior reasons to advance partial birth abortions might lie much more critically upon the timing and assignment of soul and spirit than even researchers might intuit. The procedure might be encouraged by Adversarial deception.

WRT cloning, the issues made regarding human chain of sin nature and upon salvation are critically important surrounding soul and spirit.

It might be the case that body, soul, and spirit are intrinsically linked such that cloning simply reproduces man and all ddoctrinal issues are moot. In such a case, the only real concerns would be natural man seeking immortality via the body and disregarding the Holy Spirit. If so, then they would also perish in a destruction of earth by fire.

The association with UFOs, fallen angels, and plans counterfeit to Scripture, though, indicates the entire issue is soehow very important in the Adversary's counterfeit plan.

The Nephilim, I would more associate with hybrid bodily issues as opposed to soul, spirit issues. But their study seems also appropriate in discernment of the cloning issue.
40 posted on 01/02/2003 12:48:45 AM PST by Cvengr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: cincinnati65
The question is: Who supplies the soul?

Other than your faith, how do you know that a soul actually exists? What evidence is there?

41 posted on 01/02/2003 4:23:23 PM PST by Mike4Freedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: cincinnati65
A clone is like a twin. So two bodies means two souls. You can't have the same soul in two bodies.
42 posted on 01/02/2003 11:41:41 PM PST by God is good
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rogue yam
Cloning humans for spare parts is not my idea of doing humanity a favor.

Actually, the biggest problem I have with cloning is the amount of embryos that must be destroyed doing research and even during the actual cloning process.

Another problem I have with not so much the cloning itself, the misnomer that cloning is creating new life without God's help. Not quite. You still need an already created egg and sperm, which God created in the first place. Try creating a man from the dust of the ground, now then you would have something.

Cloning advocates still have a lot of issues they fail to address.

A good site: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/QA.asp

43 posted on 01/03/2003 12:03:25 AM PST by God is good
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: restornu
There are no dumb questions, just dumb people.

Just joking btw, don't take it too personal.
44 posted on 01/03/2003 12:06:30 AM PST by God is good
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson