Replies

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?).

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.