|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
 Posted - 01/04/2003 : 15:26:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by NubiWan
Profit, yas want profit? How 'bout slaves? No worry, they aren't really human afterall. Think even yas would have to aggree, along with the vast majority of humanity that worships almighty god in the religion of their chosing, these creatures would have no 'soul.'
I posted about this over at II. The theist claim that clones do not have souls is a curious one in that it seems absurdly easy to test. Presumably, soul-theists assert that the presence of the soul has some observable effect on our behavior, including what many call "spirituality." Now, any cloned human born with a normal brain sans soul should exibit no behaviors that are consistent with "spirituality," without exception. All cloned humans should thus be atheists, or at least apatheists.
quote:
Just think of the medical advances, we could make with test subjects such as these. And what a relief of not actually having to supply warriors from within our own families, to cast off the yoke of suppression from various folk, what don't see things our way.
The mildly frightening thing is that, presumably ideas exist that involve the genetic removal or modification of certain parts of the brain in order to isolate human-specific behaviors. Certainly someone has considered the possibility of creating a clone with a limited cortex, attempting to remove the "center of humanity" so that experimentation no longer seems so taboo.
|
I believe that, as a species, human beings define their reality through suffering and misery.
-Agent Smith |
 |
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 01/04/2003 : 15:57:24 [Permalink]
|
Exactly who claimed that clones don't have any souls. I have heard plenty of religious guys say that cloning was wrong and evil, but nobody outright said anything bad about the victims/products of cloning.
The slave thing does not strike me as very likely either.
A clone child would be indistinguishable from a normal testtube baby to everyone including the parents until someone noticed the resemblance to the original and compared the DNA. So making them 2nd class citizens would not work very well.
The only difference between a clone and a normal child is the source of the genetic material. They take 9 month of pregnancy inside a mother and about one and a half decade of rearing before they are usefull for anything. If you want soldiers or slaves, making them the natural way would be cheaper and easier.
|
To any insufficiently advanced person technolgy becomes indistinguishable from magic. |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 01/04/2003 : 17:22:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lars_H
Exactly who claimed that clones don't have any souls. I have heard plenty of religious guys say that cloning was wrong and evil, but nobody outright said anything bad about the victims/products of cloning.
The Catholic Church, for one.
quote:
The slave thing does not strike me as very likely either.
I don't know how likely it is, but I have no doubt the ideas exist. I wouldn't rule out genetic manipulation at all.
|
I believe that, as a species, human beings define their reality through suffering and misery.
-Agent Smith |
|
|
|
NubiWan
Skeptic Friend
USA
424 Posts |
Posted - 01/06/2003 : 00:19:33 [Permalink]
|
Sorry Lars_H, confess after seeing some strong arguements here, against the existence of a "soul," made the assumption that yas would say clones wouldn't have a soul either. Not so? Was very interested in seeing where your identity question would lead, thou.
|
 |
|
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 01/06/2003 : 01:42:58 [Permalink]
|
I did read up on the pope's stance on souls and clones. And I stand corrected. Apperantly a papal panel 5 years ago decide that clones have no souls. Since life and having a soul beginns at conception and clones are not conceived naturally they don't have souls.
However now that there was a chance that there actually might be a human clone. Most of the arguments from catholic clerics I have heared were about dignity of man and the destruction of extra embryos created in the process. They apperantly have realised that blaming the product of the sinful process could be a bad PR move.
It will be interesting to see their position once it has been done for real (An event I expect to happen not soon, but within my lifetime.) |
To any insufficiently advanced person technolgy becomes indistinguishable from magic. |
|
|
|
Deborah
Skeptic Friend
USA
113 Posts |
Posted - 01/06/2003 : 07:25:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lars_H
I did read up on the pope's stance on souls and clones. And I stand corrected. Apperantly a papal panel 5 years ago decide that clones have no souls. Since life and having a soul beginns at conception and clones are not conceived naturally they don't have souls.
However now that there was a chance that there actually might be a human clone. Most of the arguments from catholic clerics I have heared were about dignity of man and the destruction of extra embryos created in the process. They apperantly have realised that blaming the product of the sinful process could be a bad PR move.
It will be interesting to see their position once it has been done for real (An event I expect to happen not soon, but within my lifetime.)
I think this came up before in a thread long ago when Dolly was in the news, but if the Catholic Church wants to deny a clone has a soul , then I have some questions, not necessarily directed to you Lars. What is their stance on children conceived through alternative means today? For example, children conceived through artificial insemination and invetro fertilization? How about test tube babies? And although conceived naturally, what about identical twins, do they have souls? :) I could care less what the Catholic Church thinks up until the point where people might be discriminated against due to being tagged "without a soul". |
|
|
|
Kilted_Warrior
Skeptic Friend
Canada
118 Posts |
Posted - 01/06/2003 : 11:15:56 [Permalink]
|
| Another thing that would affect the clone's personality is the chemicals that it is exposed to while in the mother's womb. What the original mother ate and drank would affect that child's development, but the clone would not be exposed to this kind of risk. The human personality is so complex that it would be impossible to have two people that are exactly the same. |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 01/06/2003 : 11:37:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kilted_Warrior
Another thing that would affect the clone's personality is the chemicals that it is exposed to while in the mother's womb. What the original mother ate and drank would affect that child's development, but the clone would not be exposed to this kind of risk. The human personality is so complex that it would be impossible to have two people that are exactly the same.
Indeed. Even things like the location on the endometrium where the embryonic implant occurs affect its development. Twin studies have shown that one twin may be physically healthier than the other because one embryo had a "better" implant location in the uterus. |
I believe that, as a species, human beings define their reality through suffering and misery.
-Agent Smith |
|
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 01/06/2003 : 11:39:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kilted_Warrior
Another thing that would affect the clone's personality is the chemicals that it is exposed to while in the mother's womb. What the original mother ate and drank would affect that child's development, but the clone would not be exposed to this kind of risk. The human personality is so complex that it would be impossible to have two people that are exactly the same.
Why would a clone not be exposed to those kinds of risks? Unlike what many bad SciFi shows might have led you believe, clones are not grown inside vats, but female humans. If you take the mother or a relative of the mother of the original and don't expose her to any extreme enviromental factors, sou should not get that much of a difference. Same goes for all the other pre-natal factors that are not encoded in the DNA like the mitrochondians and stuff.
If you are carefull you will get someone who is only slightly less like the original than an identical seperated at birth would have been. |
To any insufficiently advanced person technolgy becomes indistinguishable from magic. |
|
|
|
Dr Shari
Skeptic Friend
135 Posts |
Posted - 01/07/2003 : 17:16:22 [Permalink]
|
| We could not use a clone to replace our bodies because the have a cloned embryo that needs years to mature to the point that it would do us any good and by then would have been granted rights as human being and it would murder to use them. To clone a human is strictly a matter of ego. |
Death: The High Cost of Living
It is easier to get forgiveness then to get permission! |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 01/07/2003 : 18:28:04 [Permalink]
|
They apperantly have realised that blaming the product of the sinful process could be a bad PR move
Er...umm...Lars, they already do that with normal sex. They call it original sin and baptise infants to forgive them being born of it.
They even had to come up with a place called "Limbo" early on because unbaptised babies went to hell and it became a scandal when the post partum mothers of these poor infants would normally commit suicide to go to hell with them. |
-------
I learned something ... I learned that Jehovah's Witnesses do not celebrate Halloween. I guess they don't like strangers going up to their door and annoying them.
-Bruce Clark
There's No Toilet Paper...on the Road Less Traveled |
|
|
|
Kilted_Warrior
Skeptic Friend
Canada
118 Posts |
Posted - 01/07/2003 : 21:42:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Why would a clone not be exposed to those kinds of risks? Unlike what many bad SciFi shows might have led you believe, clones are not grown inside vats, but female humans. If you take the mother or a relative of the mother of the original and don't expose her to any extreme enviromental factors, sou should not get that much of a difference. Same goes for all the other pre-natal factors that are not encoded in the DNA like the mitrochondians and stuff.
Yes, but the new mother would have to eat EXACTLY what the original mother had eaten for her entire life leading up to it. She would have to have the same blood, same blood sugar level, the same amount of alcohol in her blood, the same everything, which would be virtually impossible. |
|
|
|
walt fristoe
SFN Regular
USA
505 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2003 : 15:08:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lars_H
The Raelians claim to have cloned the first human being. Since they also claim a lot of other unlikely stuff and won't show us any evidence few people are inclined to believe them.
Many people however have taken the raelian anouncement as their cue to comment on the idea of cloning in general. Most of them tell us that it should be illegal. Few can explain why. And many of those who do, base their explanation on fiction (ranging from the Twilight Zone to the Bible) not facts.
What do you think about the human cloning?
I never even heard of the Raelians until this cloning farce hit the news. I suspect this is the sole reason for their announcement.
I wonder how many new members they've gained since they went public with the "news"? Anyone heard any numbers on this? |
"If God chose George Bus of all the people in the world, how good could God be?"
Bill Maher |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2003 : 21:56:52 [Permalink]
|
I believe the idea of human cloning is fundamentally flawed. Let me explain. Most human life arises from a desire for a couple to have a family (children). There are strong forces at work within men and women to bring this about. Sometimes the motives are wrong, of course, and some children come into the world unwelcomed by their parents. But the purposes for cloning are dubious. Consider that one motivation is to bring about human life for a purpose other than for that life to thrive, grow, and prosper in this world. It is to use that life for the sake of others, to the detriment of the cloned individual. Kind of reminds me of slavery. Is there a "need" for cloning? Is human kind unable to reproduce by natural means? Not hardly. So what's the point, other than to use a "soulless" human life, as some propose that it would be, in order to harvest the organs or other tissue. By dubbing the clone soulless, people would not be guilty about abusing the clone or killing it for "scientific" purposes. Again, a lot like slavery where "negros" were considered soulless beings, and abused by many owners.
Thus, I am troubled about the entire idea, just as I am troubled about slavery and another similar phenomena, abortion. |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2003 : 05:04:04 [Permalink]
|
Doomar, I was under the impression that most scientists are only trying to clone individual cells or organs for transplants. I am sure there are some who want to clone a whole person, but I doubt that's common.
Regarding cloning people, why do you feel that clones would be thought of any less than "natural grown" humans? First of all, it would be impossible to tell the difference, right? |
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
