Human Cloning

[Sylvanna Imbris]

[quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1306788959' post='2247772']
personally i reject all science, but that is just me

[/quote]

What are you trying to say? I'm being serious... I enjoy science and scientists can do amazing things, yet I know that just because a scientist can do something doesn't mean they should. I love being a scientist, but my faith is more important to me. My science "skills" aren't good enough to do any of this type of research myself, but I'd like to know if it is morally OK to support others who [i]can[/i] do this type of research.
The Church does (or at least faithful theologians do) occasionally give this kind of guidance, such as with the embryonic stem cell research vs. adult stem cell research debate. I was just wondering if anyone had heard anything about cloning and DNA modification from a Catholic viewpoint.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[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?[/quote]
Controlling transformation, which is a normal aspect of prokaryotic sex, is not comparable to introducing transgenes into human beings.

Genetic engineering of human beings is morally off-limits, I know that much. But I imagine there are applications that are okay. I mean, let's say you could introduce the gene for human insulin into a bacteria and develop a production method that lowers the cost of insulin for diabetics (just making this up but I'm sure there are plenty of real-life analogs to this). We're just talking about bits of information, we aren't talking about human beings. Right?

[Amppax]

[quote name='Sylvanna Imbris' timestamp='1306796906' post='2247821']
What are you trying to say? I'm being serious... I enjoy science and scientists can do amazing things, yet I know that just because a scientist can do something doesn't mean they should. I love being a scientist, but my faith is more important to me. My science "skills" aren't good enough to do any of this type of research myself, but I'd like to know if it is morally OK to support others who [i]can[/i] do this type of research.
The Church does (or at least faithful theologians do) occasionally give this kind of guidance, such as with the embryonic stem cell research vs. adult stem cell research debate. I was just wondering if anyone had heard anything about cloning and DNA modification from a Catholic viewpoint.
[/quote]

I'm just being a smart arse... I'm avoid studying all things mathematical and scientific if I can But on cloning and DNA modification, my first thought would be that it would be condemned, as IVF (aka test tube babies). I'm almost positive that it is not allowable, I could be wrong however. Here is an excerpt from a website ( church teachings on controversial topics) about cloning from a Catholic view:

[quote][b]Human Cloning[/b]Human cloning is an example of a teaching that is not explicitly defined by either Church Tradition (teachings of Christ and the Apostles) or Holy Scripture. Rather, the current teachings are a matter of interpretation of Scripture’s portrayal of humans as dignified sons and daughters of God. There is not yet an explicit [i]ex cathedra[/i] declaration from the Church regarding the issue of cloning. However, that does not mean that Catholics are free to decide their moral position on the matter without consideration of the Church’s statements and encyclicals.

The ancient teaching of the Church regarding sex is that it has two primary purposes that cannot be separated without incurring grave sin. Sex is ordered for the [i]procreation of children between two married spouses[/i] and it is also intended to [i]unify husband and wife in matrimonial love (CCC 2360 and Humane Vitae, 12)[/i]. Cloning violates the marriage act by separating procreation of children from the unifying act of love between husband and wife. Additionally, cloning often involves the creation and subsequent destruction of large amounts of fertilized eggs. This is contrary to the dignity of the human person. Humans are not tools for science or a means to an end no matter how well intentioned the action (such as cloning people to create an organ donor of “spare parts”). The Church states in the encyclical letter Donum Vitae:

[i]Medical research must refrain from operations on live embryos, unless there is a moral certainty of not causing harm to the life or integrity of the unborn child and the mother, and on condition that the parents have given their free and informed consent to the procedure. It follows that all research, even when limited to the simple observation of the embryo, would become illicit were it to involve risk to the embryo's physical integrity or life by reason of the methods used or the effects induced (DV 1:4).[/i]


[i] [/i]It is probable that the Church will issue an encyclical directly addressing the morality of human cloning if the current public debate continues to rage.[/quote]


So there you go about cloning seems pretty clear that it would be forbidden.

[Amppax]

Ok now a serious response to the original debate. My thought would be that clones would have souls, as a souls is given to us by God, not our parents. Thus, the very fact of being a human being would involve a soul, meaning that clones would have souls. However I hope this is never an issue, although i'm sure it will be. To me, cloning is a little to much of a playing God thing, i'm personally really uncomfortable with the idea.

[Sylvanna Imbris]

[quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1306801231' post='2247857']
To me, cloning is a little to much of a playing God thing, i'm personally really uncomfortable with the idea.
[/quote]

I quite agree with you. Cloning takes all the moral problems involved with creating a person in the lab (similar to IVF) and adds the issues that xSilverPhinx mentioned.
I do think that what Laudate_Dominum suggested is interesting, but I wonder how far it can be taken...but that's a topic for another thread.

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1306800621' post='2247847']
I mean, let's say you could introduce the gene for human insulin into a bacteria and develop a production method that lowers the cost of insulin for diabetics (just making this up but I'm sure there are plenty of real-life analogs to this). We're just talking about bits of information, we aren't talking about human beings. Right?
[/quote]

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1306800621' post='2247847']
Controlling transformation, which is a normal aspect of prokaryotic sex, is not comparable to introducing transgenes into human beings.

Genetic engineering of human beings is morally off-limits, I know that much. But I imagine there are applications that are okay. I mean, let's say you could introduce the gene for human insulin into a bacteria and develop a production method that lowers the cost of insulin for diabetics (just making this up but I'm sure there are plenty of real-life analogs to this). We're just talking about bits of information, we aren't talking about human beings. Right?
[/quote]

Transgenic bacteria that produce insulin for humans already exist. It's where almost all (or all) commercial insulin comes from.

What about introducing human genes into people who lack them or have broken versions? It wouldn't be anything Frakensteinian I think, because it would still be genes found in abundance in the human population, even if not in individuals.

[elizabeth09]

I am against human all cloning because it is against the Catholic teaching and it is wrong to clone humans.

[Amppax]

[quote name='elizabeth09' timestamp='1306815013' post='2248011']
I am against human all cloning because it is against the Catholic teaching and it is wrong to clone humans.
[/quote]

agreed, but we're not debating the validity of cloning, we're debating whether they would have souls, if a person were ever to be cloned.

[stevil]

[quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1306815327' post='2248018']
agreed, but we're not debating the validity of cloning, we're debating whether they would have souls, if a person were ever to be cloned.
[/quote]
Is there any way to conclusively know if a living creature has a soul?
Would these tell tale signs be present in a clone? If not, why not?

Edited May 31, 2011 by stevil

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1306813751' post='2247992']
Transgenic bacteria that produce insulin for humans already exist. It's where almost all (or all) commercial insulin comes from.
[/quote]
Yeah, I thought that was the famous first success story of the technology, but I wasn't positive atm and didn't feel like looking it up.

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1306813751' post='2247992']What about introducing human genes into people who lack them or have broken versions? It wouldn't be anything Frakensteinian I think, because it would still be genes found in abundance in the human population, even if not in individuals.
[/quote]
Just speculating I'd guess that many therapeutic applications are morally acceptable. I mean, if it effectively amounts to repairing a defect, or curing a disease, then why not? But I imagine specific treatments and applications would have to be examined in all their particularity. There are some obvious slippery slopes. I don't think there are clear-cut lines between things like "repairing defects", and engaging in Khan-style genetic engineering. I don't really know though. What are the fundamental ethical principles to begin with? I know the work being done on aging is far more complicated than this, but imagine if you could reprogram the aging process to stop at a given point. Would this be unethical? Might it rather be one of the greatest achievements of humanity? If the latter then why not all out Khan-style genetic engineering? (By Khan-style I mean to refer to the Star Trek mythos in which a race of super humans was engineered, etc.)

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1306815327' post='2248018']
agreed, but we're not debating the validity of cloning, we're debating whether they would have souls, if a person were ever to be cloned.
[/quote]
whoops. sorry, I've been going off-topic. clones would have souls. I suspect that defining "the moment of conception" might be problematic, but I can recall reading something from the Church basically saying that God would not allow a human being to come to be without infusing a soul. So that's the general theological answer afaik.

[ThePenciledOne]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1306842791' post='2248097']
whoops. sorry, I've been going off-topic. clones would have souls. I suspect that defining "the moment of conception" might be problematic, but I can recall reading something from the Church basically saying that God would not allow a human being to come to be without infusing a soul. So that's the general theological answer afaik.
[/quote]


Plus, human beings come about in other immoral ways...(assuming that cloning is understood as immoral, I think it is but I could be wrong.) So, it would stand to reason that the cloned human would have a soul.

[Amppax]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1306830198' post='2248087']
Is there any way to conclusively know if a living creature has a soul?
[/quote]

No, I would say not. A soul is a spiritual thing, it is not a physical, concrete thing that can be placed (at least this is my understanding of this. Please correct me if I am wrong). It is another one of those things that we believe. However, the belief is that all human beings have souls (with animals not having souls, or having a different, lesser soul).

[quote]
Would these tell tale signs be present in a clone? If not, why not?
[/quote]

Thus, it would stand to reason that a clone, as far as its a human being, would have a soul. The only measurable way to see if something has a soul would be to look at its humanity.

Here is a Document from the Pontifical Academy for Life (never heard of it, but its on the vatican website) [url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdlife/documents/rc_pa_acdlife_doc_30091997_clon_en.html"]http://www.vatican.v...97_clon_en.html[/url]

probably says anything that needs to be said much better then I could.

*edited for link

Edited May 31, 2011 by Amppax

[MithLuin]

A human being without a soul = dead. So, I'd say it would be really, really obvious if the clone lacked a soul!


As for the transgenic work, I don't see anything wrong with introducing human genetic information into bacteria or yeast to produce particular proteins for the pharmaceutical industry. We most certainly are doing it already, and I have not heard any ethical condemnation of the practice.

There is a limit to the types of proteins a bacteria cell is capable of manufacturing, so the more involved ones actually need to be assembled in mammalian cells, which are harder to grow in culture. But again...we do this commercially already and have been for the past 10 years.

Genetic engineering to repair a human who is injured/diseased would be okay as well. After all, medicine is meant to address/fix problems, and gene therapy would simply be a new aspect of that. I mean, assuming we're not killing someone else to do it or something bizarre like that. But that would be putting [i]human[/i] DNA in humans. The idea of putting foreign DNA into a human being is much more problematic because of the potential side effects and problems. But it wouldn't be condemned simply for being nonhuman. After all, you can use a pig heart valve and transplant that into a human.

Playing around with mixing up humans and other species to introduce new traits is on much dicier ground, morally. I mean, I haven't heard of any transgenic research that seemed to be a problem (starting with ANDi the monkey), and I don't see people going into the whole 'Island of Dr. Moreau' or 'Brave New World' scenarios with this. But...yeah. Certainly unethical directions you could go with that.

Stopping aging (if we could achieve that) would create a huge problem. Sure, it would be amesome if we could all live longer. But the natural cycle of birth and death would be all out of whack, and we'd have a disproportionately aged population, young people wouldn't be able to find jobs, etc. Sociologically, it would be a serious issue. And economically...presumably only the wealthy would have access to this therapy at first, so it would create huge issues there. I can see it being a complete nightmare. I kinda doubt we're going to figure that one out, though, so I'm neither hoping for it nor dreading it. Aging is too much ingrained in how our cells work. Messing that up just gives us cancer, not longer lifespans.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Sylvanna Imbris' timestamp='1306641741' post='2247236']
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...
[/quote]


I think you are making assumptions about the human form being inexorably linked to the human soul. A third option is possible, that they would occur and God would not create them a Human sould, and that they would be animated only by a sensitive soul as any animal has.

I am not making a contention just observing that there are other possibilities.