AudreyGrace Posted May 29, 2011 Share Posted May 29, 2011 In my genetics class, we just finished studying DNA cloning, Dolly the goat, etc. The question arose regarding the morality of cloning humans. If, in the future, humans are ever cloned, would that person have a soul as we see it? I guess the bigger question is, when humans start playing God in that extreme, how does the soul manifest in the body? I can't really think of a better way to ask the question I'm trying to, so I hope you all understand what I'm trying to say. Regardless, what are your thoughts on the issue? Would they have souls and be religious beings even if they were not created by God? Or, although cloned, are they still in a sense brought to life by God? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xSilverPhinx Posted May 29, 2011 Share Posted May 29, 2011 [quote name='AudreyGrace' timestamp='1306638388' post='2247214'] In my genetics class, we just finished studying DNA cloning, Dolly the goat, etc. The question arose regarding the morality of cloning humans. If, in the future, humans are ever cloned, would that person have a soul as we see it? I guess the bigger question is, when humans start playing God in that extreme, how does the soul manifest in the body? I can't really think of a better way to ask the question I'm trying to, so I hope you all understand what I'm trying to say. Regardless, what are your thoughts on the issue? Would they have souls and be religious beings even if they were not created by God? Or, although cloned, are they still in a sense brought to life by God? [/quote] Identical twins are clones... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AudreyGrace Posted May 29, 2011 Author Share Posted May 29, 2011 [quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1306638808' post='2247216'] Identical twins are clones... [/quote] twins are clones by nature, and at least from the Christian perspective, how God intended it in the womb. In the context of this issue, twins are not considered clones. I'm talking about unnatural cloning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sylvanna Imbris Posted May 29, 2011 Share Posted May 29, 2011 I've wondered about this too... It seems that Catholic thought on human beings is that the soul animates the body and that death is the separation of the soul from the body. So I guess it could go one of two ways; either the cloning doesn't work because God doesn't give a soul and so the cloned body cannot live, or God creates a soul for the clone and it becomes a full human person. I'm inclined to say that God would let it happen, since cloning is in some ways similar to IVF... just my thoughts... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xSilverPhinx Posted May 29, 2011 Share Posted May 29, 2011 (edited) [quote name='AudreyGrace' timestamp='1306641436' post='2247231'] twins are clones by nature, and at least from the Christian perspective, how God intended it in the womb. In the context of this issue, twins are not considered clones. I'm talking about unnatural cloning. [/quote] Well, unnatural cloning as is when genetic material is taken from an already adult cell and replanted in another cell and womb is not exactly 'cloning' in the purest sense. Adult cells, since they're the result of numerous divisions themselves, have already accumulated errors and so the cloned result would be slightly different than it would if it had been a natural clone. There are also all the things that might chemically interact with the developing bunch of cells in another animals's womb which also would cause it to distance itself further from the original donor. What if somebody took naturally developing totipotent cells (which are the cells that have the potential to become any type of cell) before it started gaining any differentiate shape and split it into two or more bunches. That would replicate naturally occurring cloning. Would the results in that case have souls? I think that it's important that you first define what a soul is. What's an example of something that doesn't have a soul and why? Edited May 29, 2011 by xSilverPhinx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Groo the Wanderer Posted May 29, 2011 Share Posted May 29, 2011 [img]http://www.rockingchicagoland.com/uploads/clones.jpg[/img] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AudreyGrace Posted May 29, 2011 Author Share Posted May 29, 2011 [quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1306643387' post='2247241'] Well, unnatural cloning as is when genetic material is taken from an already adult cell and replanted in another cell and womb is not exactly 'cloning' in the purest sense. Adult cells, since they're the result of numerous divisions themselves, have already accumulated errors and so the cloned result would be slightly different than it would if it had been a natural clone. There are also all the things that might chemically interact with the developing bunch of cells in another animals's womb which also would cause it to distance itself further from the original donor. What if somebody took naturally developing totipotent cells (which are the cells that have the potential to become any type of cell) before it started gaining any differentiate shape and split it into two or more bunches. That would replicate naturally occurring cloning. Would the results in that case have souls? I think that it's important that you first define what a soul is. What's an example of something that doesn't have a soul and why? [/quote] I understand the imperfections of "cloning" as mentioned. The underlying idea of the question at hand is when scientists take it into their own hands to create a human through the cloning process. I think Sylvanna Imbris hit the spot in regards to the created being having a soul, comparing it to in vitro fertilization. A spiritual soul: [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14153a.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14153a.htm[/url] [size=2][font="Arial"][quote]The soul may be defined as the ultimate internal principle by which we think, feel, and will, and by which our bodies are animated...[/font][/size][size=2][font="Arial"]That our vital activities proceed from a principle capable of subsisting in itself, is the thesis of the substantiality of the soul: that this principle is not itself composite, extended, corporeal, or essentially and intrinsically dependent on the body.[/font][/size][font=Arial][size=2][/quote] [/size][/font] [font="Arial"][size="2"] [/size][/font] [font="Arial"][size="2"]A can of tomato juice doesn't have a soul. It cannot think, react, will it's own decisions. It has no direct and necessary spiritual force for survival and when it's physical properties go rotten, that's it. The tomato juice will not exist forever in another realm of fruit existence. What it is physically, it is totally, and nothing more. [/size][/font] [font=Arial][size=2] [/size][/font] [font=Arial][size=2] [/size][/font] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xSilverPhinx Posted May 29, 2011 Share Posted May 29, 2011 [quote name='AudreyGrace' timestamp='1306708945' post='2247522'] I understand the imperfections of "cloning" as mentioned. The underlying idea of the question at hand is when scientists take it into their own hands to create a human through the cloning process. I think Sylvanna Imbris hit the spot in regards to the created being having a soul, comparing it to in vitro fertilization. A spiritual soul: [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14153a.htm"]http://www.newadvent...then/14153a.htm[/url] [font="Arial"][size="2"]A can of tomato juice doesn't have a soul. It cannot think, react, will it's own decisions. It has no direct and necessary spiritual force for survival and when it's physical properties go rotten, that's it. The tomato juice will not exist forever in another realm of fruit existence. What it is physically, it is totally, and nothing more. [/size][/font][/quote] Okay, thanks for a definition, it was more or less what I thought people referred to when they speak of a [i]soul[/i] in the [i]spiritual[/i] sense, sort of a form of consciousness that either does live on after the body dies (theism and other supernaturalisms) or ceases to exist when the body dies. Though the word "soul" is rarely used in the second sense because it lacks those supernatural connotations. [size="2"] [/size] Yeah, I think the comparison Sylvanna Imbrismade is valid, because after all a person is a person, whether conceived naturally or not. There are other ethical issues involved, though and I now seriously wonder how a person cloned in a lab would fare in a hypothetical society because of all these questions surrounding it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevil Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 Theolically speaking, it would start getting real interesting once human DNA is spliced together with animal DNA. We might get talking pets, or people as strong as an Ox. I'm guessing that non human animals don't have souls, so that scenario might get one confussed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MithLuin Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 I'm probably going to get this wrong, but it is my understanding that animals do have a natural soul (animus, perhaps?) whereas humans have a supernatural soul (ie, one that would survive death). I'm more than a bit hazy on the details, though, so I will stand corrected if I've totally botched this. Part of the reason I'm so confused is because of the translation issues surrounding the idea of soul/spirit. Humans have souls, regardless of how that person came to be. If they didn't, they'd be dead, so....yeah. The real issue with 'cloning' - as in Dolly the sheep and similar experiments - is that you are taking an adult cell and forcing it to become an embryo again, so introducing all sorts of aging/disease issues into the newly created 'clone'. That's one thing if you're trying to breed farm animals, but when you do that to a human being, the ethical issues go through the roof. There are reasons no one is funding that research. ... yet. [img]http://sethspopcorn.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/CloneTrooper.jpg[/img] (This is, incidentally, the basic approach taken by the Cloners in Star Wars - they begin with an adult Jengo Fett and then make a bunch of new humans from that starting material.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FutureSister2009 Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 I will admit that I do wish cloning existed at times but I know it's against our Catholic belief. But there are certain people I do wish I could clone though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amppax Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 [quote name='MithLuin' timestamp='1306761926' post='2247634'] I'm probably going to get this wrong, but it is my understanding that animals do have a natural soul (animus, perhaps?) whereas humans have a supernatural soul (ie, one that would survive death). I'm more than a bit hazy on the details, though, so I will stand corrected if I've totally botched this. Part of the reason I'm so confused is because of the translation issues surrounding the idea of soul/spirit. Humans have souls, regardless of how that person came to be. If they didn't, they'd be dead, so....yeah. The real issue with 'cloning' - as in Dolly the sheep and similar experiments - is that you are taking an adult cell and forcing it to become an embryo again, so introducing all sorts of aging/disease issues into the newly created 'clone'. That's one thing if you're trying to breed farm animals, but when you do that to a human being, the ethical issues go through the roof. There are reasons no one is funding that research. ... yet. [img]http://sethspopcorn.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/CloneTrooper.jpg[/img] (This is, incidentally, the basic approach taken by the Cloners in Star Wars - they begin with an adult Jengo Fett and then make a bunch of new humans from that starting material.) [/quote] This thread just got 20% cooler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xSilverPhinx Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 [quote name='stevil' timestamp='1306746578' post='2247621'] Theolically speaking, it would start getting real interesting once human DNA is spliced together with animal DNA. We might get talking pets, or people as strong as an Ox. I'm guessing that non human animals don't have souls, so that scenario might get one confussed. [/quote] That is really interesting. What do you guys feel about transgenics?[quote name='FutureSister2009' timestamp='1306763300' post='2247636'] I will admit that I do wish cloning existed at times but I know it's against our Catholic belief. But there are certain people I do wish I could clone though. [/quote] What do you guys feel about cloning organs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sylvanna Imbris Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 [quote name='stevil' timestamp='1306746578' post='2247621'] Theolically speaking, it would start getting real interesting once human DNA is spliced together with animal DNA. We might get talking pets, or people as strong as an Ox. [/quote] Anybody know what the Catholic position is on this? I took a biochemistry class in college and we took pieces of DNA from a bacteria and put them into a different bacteria... the DNA pieces were small, so all that happened was that the new bacteria made proteins that are usually only found in the first bacteria. Where would you draw the line on something like this? I can see that you wouldn't want someone trying to make a hybrid between a human and some other animal, but what about making small modifications to a person? For example, if someone is lactose intolerant you could potentially give them the DNA they'd need to make the enzymes for processing lactose...but then where do you draw the line, size of the DNA piece??? I'm thinking about a situation where these modifications are made to a living person, not where a new person is created in the lab using the modified DNA (hope I'm not hijacking your thread Audrey!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amppax Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 [quote name='Sylvanna Imbris' timestamp='1306784940' post='2247745'] Anybody know what the Catholic position is on this? I took a biochemistry class in college and we took pieces of DNA from a bacteria and put them into a different bacteria... the DNA pieces were small, so all that happened was that the new bacteria made proteins that are usually only found in the first bacteria. Where would you draw the line on something like this? I can see that you wouldn't want someone trying to make a hybrid between a human and some other animal, but what about making small modifications to a person? For example, if someone is lactose intolerant you could potentially give them the DNA they'd need to make the enzymes for processing lactose...but then where do you draw the line, size of the DNA piece??? I'm thinking about a situation where these modifications are made to a living person, not where a new person is created in the lab using the modified DNA (hope I'm not hijacking your thread Audrey!) [/quote] personally i reject all science, but that is just me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now