Cloning
 

What's up.

I just saw the movie "The Island", and, although it's extreme, I could see something like that happening if we started cloning. Or at least, something going horribly wrong. To me, it seems just.... weird and unnatural :-/

The main point I wanted to bring up in this thread is, if a clone is made, does it recieve a soul? I believe it would, because just because it wasn't concieved and has the same genetic material as someone else, it would still have a soul. My mom, however, believes that it would not have a soul.

Where does everyone else stand on this subject?

Cloning could be used to save people and make people live longer. Should we clone or not? Do you believe it is right?

I'd like to say I believe cloning is alright, but something deep down inside of me tells me it's unnatural and there's a side to it we have yet to unleash.

Judging from the information we currently have, cloning seems alright, but I'd like to stick with the traditional way of populating the earth :)

This is an interesting subject. I'm not educated on the subject at all, so I'm very open to being corrected on it, however, I do have some initial thoughts. For one, I don't really see anything wrong with cloning in and of itself. *shrugs* I do think the Lord would put a soul in them if He honored giving it life. If He did not, I think the clone would not come alive. If cloning is used merely for medical purposes, I see even less issue with it. What I do have issue with is the fact that we live in a sinful world and cloning won't always be used for beneficial and loving reasons. If the technology becomes advanced enough, a country could use the technology to turn out tons of militant fighters or some crazy conspiracy type use of the new ability. It could be very dangerous in this world we live in... so, in the world we live in, I'm against cloning overall.

Married Mark

Animals do not have souls, and they are alive. I believe something without a soul would have no conscience or sense of morality, and perhaps lack intelligence. Like a dog, or some other animal. And yes, I believe the clone would have a soul, too.
Yes that's my problem with it as well. Seems like something that could get way out of hand in today's society. Thanks for your input, Mark :)

Wow, I figured this would be way more controversial :-/ WHERE IS EVERYBODY!?

It's only been up for 12 hours, and most normal people are asleep during most of those 12 hours. So chill, brosef. This topic has been gone over many times before, so I wouldn't expect an immediate profusion of responses.

I just dont think cloning is somthing that should be done

only God desides who lives and dies.

I mean, we are Creating people here. it just doesnt seem right, like we are trying to outdo God. :nope:

( and about the soul thing, can we give someone a soul? NO, so i dont think we should be making people )

We create people when we have sex. Just because someone has the same genes as someone else doesn't mean they don't have a soul. I still think it shouldn't be done, just because :-/

So are you saying that God wouldn't allow human cloning work? If not, then your remark is basically irrelevant. :)

When you clone someone, you're just infusing zygotes with specific chromosome sets. The process of sperm fertilizing egg and growing into a developed child still takes place, so I don't see anything that would suggest that the child wouldn't have a soul.

I mean, I just don't see where the basis or logic for this question comes from, I suppose. Do identical twins have 'less soul' than other human beings because they share the exact same chromosome sets?

Cloning still relies on the sexual process, regardless of the fact that it takes place in a laboratory.

Anyone who indeed thinks clones don't have souls while "normal" humans do is going to have a hard time proving a negative, or even finding a foundation upon which to form any semblance of an argument.

I don't like it. Of course, I think cloning humans simply to harvest organs is a disgusting principle. As for the advantage of having a compatible kidney or liver donor, I think that's a nice side-effect, but hardly think it alone justifies cloning. It seems degrading to conceive a human solely with the intent of possibly using it for a spare-organ donor. The last thing we need is a negative perception of a category of humans as "second-class" simply because they're clones.

Ya we have babies through sex. I dont think that doing what they do in a lab is what God intended even if it IS a human egg and sperm. :stare:

You think having sex in the bed of a truck is more plausible by God, and he would somehow allow that embrio to have a soul?

What im saying is that God made it that way. Its kinda awkward to type this, but ya, we are supposed to have sex to reproduce. Cloning is a copy of that.

Its kinda a morph of sex. So if cloning is ok, is homosexuality ok? No.

Ok, I see where you're coming from, but I still think they'll have souls. No matter how they are concieved, they will have souls. I'm still against cloning, just because it doesn't seem like everything will turn out like it seems like it will.

"So if cloning is ok, is homosexuality ok?"


What does cloning have to do with homosexuality?

A way of getting around men and women conceiving children? That's my best guess. If I'm right, that arguement is irrelevant and I don't see what it has to do with anything else here.

Man does not give life, God does. A clone is a living being and thus has been given life by God. Placing genes together to form a human is what we already do, but it is God that designs their innermost parts.

Yessss- thank you, lightknight. I couldn't have said it better. We're "creating life" the same amount when we have sex as when we clone.