Human Cloning -a means to an end?

Mickeroo

If the mods think this would be better off in the Christianity forum feel free to move it

I was just thinking about the whole cloning humans thing and if it was ever be carried out succesfully(assuming it already hasn't in some secret bunker :P).

If the experiment resulted in a fully healthy and articulate human being, complete with personality,emotions and all, would this be conclusive proof of the non-existence of a soul?

cavedave

Identical twins are human clones. So no as far as i can tell having identical genetics does not mean you have the same soul.

fitz0

It could also be said that such an experiment would prove that a soul is a byproduct of the body. Its not somethign that exists independant of the body, therefore it can't survive the body's death.

Overblood

Mickeroo wrote: »

If the experiment resulted in a fully healthy and articulate human being, complete with personality,emotions and all, would this be conclusive proof of the non-existence of a soul?

What is your reasoning for this? How would it be conclusive evidence of the non-existence of a soul/spirit?

Dades

Cloning only deals with physical matter.

Unless I'm mistaken, the (Christian) soul is not tangible in such a way, therefore is not subject to, well, any rules. I have no idea about other faiths' concept of a soul.

Similar recent discussion from a sci-fi perspective here!

fitz0

Dades wrote: »

Cloning only deals with physical matter.

Unless I'm mistaken, the (Christian) soul is not tangible in such a way, therefore is not subject to, well, any rules. I have no idea about other faiths' concept of a soul.

Similar recent discussion from a sci-fi perspective here!

But then would the cloned body just be a doll? Or can it function without a soul to guide its moral compass?:p

MrPudding

Presumably the soul would be magically added to the body at the time of creation of the clone, in a similar manner to how it is added to our bodies at the moment of conception. God knows everything guys, a simple stunt like human cloning is not going to fool him, if we are capable of cloning a human it is by his grace and he will damn well stick a soul in it if he feels like it.

It would prove nothing.

MrP

Mickeroo

Overblood wrote: »

What is your reasoning for this? How would it be conclusive evidence of the non-existence of a soul/spirit?

Hypothetically if the soul was real then only you should have it and a copy of you should be an intarticulate brain-eating zombie :P

kiffer

For the purpose of this thread what definition of soul are we using?

Coriolanus

Considering the twists and turns the religious take to justify everything else, I don't think the existence of a "perfect" clone would phase them.
It might cut into resistance to human cloning, if they were forced into granting the clone full human status by whatever measure they were using though.

I can think of better reasons for pushing ahead with such research. Myself I won't rest easy until I have a backup body sitting in the garage incase of emergencies.

MrPudding

Nevore wrote: »

Considering the twists and turns the religious take to justify everything else, I don't think the existence of a "perfect" clone would phase them.
It might cut into resistance to human cloning, if they were forced into granting the clone full human status by whatever measure they were using though.

I can think of better reasons for pushing ahead with such research. Myself I won't rest easy until I have a backup body sitting in the garage incase of emergencies.

Exactly. I work in IT, single points of failure are an abomination and should be stamped out. I demand fully redundant infrastructure to live in.

MrP

DapperGent

Woody Allen wrote:

I don't want to achieve immortality through my work, I want to achieve it through not dying.

.

seamus

Cloning isn't the same as you see in sci-fi movies where you have a big vat of goo which magically spawns a fully-grown human. They basically take an egg and replace its contents with those genetically extracted parts of the full-grown organism.

After that, gestation and maturity take place as normal, so it effectively proves or disproves nothing more than that it can be done. However, were a human clone to be grown in this way and to develop as a human, it would conclusively disprove any Church's assertion that the soul is created or "gifted" at conception since in these cases, fertilisation does not actually take place.

Of course, they'll just move the goalposts and claim that the soul is only gifted when implantation takes place or some similar nonsense.

Zombrex

Mickeroo wrote: »

If the experiment resulted in a fully healthy and articulate human being, complete with personality,emotions and all, would this be conclusive proof of the non-existence of a soul?

Yes, if "soul" is defined as having certain properties that it must come from natural birth and that a human cannot posses emotions without it

But no one has ever defined what a "soul" is. It is one of these wishy washy terms that religious people like so much because it gives comfort, but doesn't mean anything in any tangible way.

conlonbmw

Wicknight wrote: »

But no one has ever defined what a "soul" is. It is one of these wishy washy terms that religious people like so much because it gives comfort, but doesn't mean anything in any tangible way.

Thats the great thing about fiction.

dvpower

MrPudding wrote: »

Presumably the soul would be magically added to the body at the time of creation of the clone, in a similar manner to how it is added to our bodies at the moment of conception. God knows everything guys, a simple stunt like human cloning is not going to fool him, if we are capable of cloning a human it is by his grace and he will damn well stick a soul in it if he feels like it.

It would prove nothing.

MrP

Wouldn't that indicate God's (tacit) support for human cloning?

MrPudding

dvpower wrote: »

Wouldn't that indicate God's (tacit) support for human cloning?

I meant it would prove nothing with respect to a soul.

MrP

seamus

I think what dvpower meant is that if a clone were to live (and therefore have a soul), then by a believer's standards, God has implicitly approved of the cloning mechanism by virtue of providing that soul.

Mickeroo

kiffer wrote: »

For the purpose of this thread what definition of soul are we using?

Well the way I see it,the soul is an intangible spiritual entity,completely independent of our physical form, therefore a clone should not posess one since it's a copy of you and you only have one soul.

conlonbmw

At some stage in the future when logic overcomes stupidity we will clone people. It will not be the same person.

There will be no reason for ethical or moral discussion.

seamus

Mickeroo wrote: »

Well the way I see it,the soul is an intangible spiritual entity,completely independent of our physical form, therefore a clone should not posess one since it's a copy of you and you only have one soul.

But if the soul is indepedent of our physical self, then surely creating a copy our physical self has nothing to do with the soul, and there's no reason why the copy can't have a soul of its own.

</goalposts>

conlonbmw

Mickeroo wrote: »

Well the way I see it,the soul is an intangible spiritual entity,completely independent of our physical form, therefore a clone should not posess one since it's a copy of you and you only have one soul.

Thats hilarious. How deluded can people be.

So in theory it could go off whenever or wherever it wanted itself?

Why would it stay with you?

How would you know where it was?

How would you know it was your own soul?

What is the point of it?

Mickeroo

conlonbmw wrote: »

Thats hilarious. How deluded can people be.

So in theory it could go off whenever or wherever it wanted itself?

Why would it stay with you?

How would you know where it was?

How would you know it was your own soul?

What is the point of it?

Well you would know where it was because it IS you, the whole point of a soul is that it is responsible for your conciousness,your self awareness,personality etc. Your physical body is just a shell for it.

In His Dark Materials by Philip Pullman the soul is represented by a little animal that follows you around and talks to you, but it cant be far away from you without causing you and it great pain and anguish.

Just for the record I am an atheist and dont believe in souls.:rolleyes:

Mickeroo

seamus wrote: »

But if the soul is indepedent of our physical self, then surely creating a copy our physical self has nothing to do with the soul, and there's no reason why the copy can't have a soul of its own.

</goalposts>

Well by christian doctorine I'd imagine it would be seen as an unnatural way to create a human,which it is, so it shouldnt really have a soul i would think. It's humans "playing god" like Jurassic Park

Coriolanus

Mickeroo wrote: »

Well the way I see it,the soul is an intangible spiritual entity,completely independent of our physical form, therefore a clone should not posess one since it's a copy of you and you only have one soul.

On the presumption that you're a Catholic, you need to read the Catechism. It's pretty specific on the souls relation to the body. If a cloning was succesful, at least in my limited reading of the doctrine, then from a Catholocism the only answer is that God provided one.

Kek, atheist then. Never mind. I am consistently surprised by how little Catholics know about the official church positions on the topics they choose to argue about.

bnt

I'm guessing none of you have seen The 6th Day, then? One of Arnie's last great action movies before he went in to politics. The title refers to laws in existence at the time the movie is set (the near future), which outlaw human cloning, yet there are "bad guys" who do it on the sly for e.g. celebrities. Of course, Arnie, being the all-American (well, y'know) good guy, is going to get cloned against his will to cover up a crime, and when he finds out ... some asses are in for a whupping. :pac:

Still, it has some interesting speculation about how "short order cloning" might be done in practice, the results, and quite a bit of philosophical discussion about the pros and cons of human cloning. This comes from Arnie, from the "bad guys", and from the scientist behind the technology (Robert Duvall), who has some personal motivations that become critical in deciding how things play out. One to rent or catch on TV if you can.

Me? If it can be done, it will be done - if not in the USA or Europe, then somewhere else. I don't have a moralistic attitude towards it, but I do have concerns about the practical outcomes. (Where do morals come from anyway, if not experience? Can you really apply old morals to a completely new problem, something new to our experience?)

Coriolanus

We're far, far away from accelerated in-vitro gestation and growth though. Hell, even in Star Wars the Kaminoans couldn't achieve next-day orders.

While I found the ideas raised in Sixth Day to be interesting, they won't be practical issues for quite some time.

Húrin

Mickeroo wrote: »

If the mods think this would be better off in the Christianity forum feel free to move it

I was just thinking about the whole cloning humans thing and if it was ever be carried out succesfully(assuming it already hasn't in some secret bunker :P).

If the experiment resulted in a fully healthy and articulate human being, complete with personality,emotions and all, would this be conclusive proof of the non-existence of a soul?

By scientific standards the soul is too vague a concept to be tested like this. Such an experiment could disprove some definitions of a soul but the definition is too fluid to experiment on properly.

Húrin

dvpower wrote: »

Wouldn't that indicate God's (tacit) support for human cloning?

That's one interpretation. Another is that God would want to show love for the cloned person even if their origin was morally wrong.

MrPudding

dvpower wrote: »

Wouldn't that indicate God's (tacit) support for human cloning?

We have the ability to do a lot of things which I think god would not approve of.

MrP

Genghiz Cohen

Húrin wrote: »

That's one interpretation. Another is that God would want to show love for the cloned person even if their origin was morally wrong.

So cloned abominations get into heaven but babies that die before being baptised are off to Limo holiday camp?

Dades

*Ahem*

MrPudding

Dades wrote: »

*Ahem*

I hope god got the memo.

MrP