Cloning - Page 3

Why is it that when everybody begins to develop some fabrications of intelligence they suddenly deny their God? Now, I don't know how many people believed in God to begin with but I would assume that many of the people in the world grew up with some learning of the knowledge of a God. So for all of you who believe or possibly have notions that an afterlife does exist do you think that these clones will be going on to some sort of afterlife? Are they just like robots programmed from the cells of other humans? Do they even have a soul? I guess the main question is do you think that mankind is suitable to play God especially with such a Godlike activity like creating human beings, and souls to fill them?

First off, we aren't all Christians.

Secondly, humans 'play god' every day in their bedrooms.

Whether we make people with our God-given privates or our God-given brains is irrelevent.

I never implied that everyone was Christian at all(not only Christians believe in an afterlife). I was just wondering if when you clone a human being the newly presented clone will inheret a spirit?

I don't see why not. Its a clone. Its the exact same thing as a human being. The only difference is it wasn't made in bed, which is irrelevent (except insofar as the cloning was imperfect leading to problems of disease as opposed to lack of a soul).

There is no reason why God would not give a clone a soul.

I guess I see your point, I just don't think that it is the same thing. For one a clone is not a God made creature, and for two a clone would be a replica of another person. If these clones do have a soul then we better make sure we know exactly what we're doing before we start cloning complete human beings. As said before Dolly the sheep had a very short life expectancy. If we cannot make the body in a Godlike manner, than I don't think that we should be allowed to fill that body with one of his souls.

"And, YES, I love technology...but not as much as you, you see...but I STILL love technology...Always and forever..."

"I guess I see your point, I just don't think that it is the same thing. For one a clone is not a God made creature,"
That distinction I find arbitrary. They are the same, making a kid with you dick is as man-made as you get.

"and for two a clone would be a replica of another person."
Its not a perfect replica only a genetic replica. This distinction is even less valid because we have lots of identical twins and, as far as I know, there are no twins which are soulless freaks because they're a so-called replica.

"If these clones do have a soul then we better make sure we know exactly what we're doing before we start cloning complete human beings. As said before Dolly the sheep had a very short life expectancy. If we cannot make the body in a Godlike manner, than I don't think that we should be allowed to fill that body with one of his souls."
This I can agree with. Though be careful what you say, saying we shouldn't make clones because they might have defects is borderline eugenics. Would you support banning people with congenital defects from reproducing? Or aborting babies with genetic diseases?

No, I just don't think it's fair for us, humans, give a soul a man made body that only has for example a life expectancy of 20 years. It's not fair to the soul. God I think knows what he's doing when he gives someone a birth defect, man on the other hand would be giving someone a defect because he just can't do any better.

Birth defects are determined completely randomly. If God causes them, he is in effect acting totally randomly (conceivable).

In any case, the defective baby may grow up to be atheist, what then? The "God decided to make you defective" argument doesn't hold if the person is atheist. Religion should not ever the be justification for public policy.

for those who have trouble mixing religion and cloning - God is perfect, man was created in Gods image. if we have the abilty to clone whole humans, God is allowing us to do so.

as was discussed before, there are twins, triplets and so forth. they are all genetically identical, yet lead very different lives. and they most certainly all have souls. there are also people born in test tubes, they must surely have souls. clones would be no different. people use to live very short lives, whether we have 20 years or 100 years is irrelvant, its how we use the time we do have. i personally have a severe birth defect and my life expectencey is essentially unknown(isnt everyones?). it doesnt prevent me from functioning at all (to the best of my ability, of course).

this is a question of morality, not religious beliefs or lack thereof.

if the cloning were to help some one in need of a transplant or blood and so on yes i agree with it but if it were for bringing more ppl on earth um no its wrong to put more stupid ppl on this earth to annoy me

Sorry about bringing religion into the picture. When you're discussing a phillosophical issue is it really so wrong to bring in another phillosophy (relligion) into the picture for a little bit of contrast? We're not solely discussing enacting a cloning bill into our society, we're dissucussing whether or not people think that cloning is moral or not. Morality debates and relligion debates are very simmiliar. I think that it is a necessary point to bring up relligion when talking about social issues.
Anyways I liked the comment about if we are able to clone, then it was God who gave us that ability.
But if you so wish for me to leave relligion out of our discussions from now I on I will respectively adhere to your request.

you are right, bringing in other aspects is completely neccisary. everything is intertwined. i was simply trying to clear up some confusion in order to make the topic progressive. who am i to make demands as to where the discussion goes? speak freely by all means.

the issue of cloning, at its core... in my opinion... is solely about morality.

Cloning whole people would certainly make for a race of third class citizens, a race everyone would be able to loath with a 'clear conscious'. Is that a good thing?

As for separate body parts, I can agree with that concept. The black market for organs would certainly disappear. But I can also see substance abuse skyrocketing. What's the incentive to stay healthy, if one can just replace their liver when alcohol destroys the old one? Smoke like a factory, because you can just replace your lungs when the old ones are rotted through. And what about the military options? Millions of pre-programmed cannon fodder marching off to war.

Cloning makes me nervious.

" I think that it is a necessary point to bring up relligion when talking about social issues."
Well, we can argue about whether or not religion has a place in government legislation. I don't personally think it does... The government shouldn't force anyone to do anything, or restrict anyone from doing anything, because of religious beliefs.