Human cloning & Souls

S

SpicySamosa

Thirsty for Truth
Registered Senior Member
In a BBC report today, Professor Christopher Higgins, director of the Medical Research Council's Clinical Sciences Centre in London, says:

The fact it [cloning of human embryos] can be done begins to move us away from some of the mysteries surrounding human beings; things like the existence of a soul, which frankly is pure imagination.
Click to expand...

I'm not up to speed with this whole human cloning debate, so can someone explain to me how he may have come to such a conclusion?

It would seem that a birth is a birth, whether done inside a human or a test tube, done naturally or otherwise. If two humans share the exact same DNA, so what? Does that prove there is no soul? I don't think so!

If he thinks the matter is simply one of biology, then he should really be able to bring a dead body back to life and guarantee that all human embryos will not be still born.

Please share your knowledge and thoughts.
 
but people die when there body is no longer able to function, so unless you can replace that part within seconds of death then you haev nothing, after about 5 minutes of death the barin has degraded to a point where bodily function can no longer be controlled, that is why they dont ressucitate people after 3 minutes.

and would you not consider ressusitation bringing someone back from the dead: their body has stopped functioning, their brian is inacnive, they are dead, and if they can be teated fast enough, then they can be russusitated to restore life
 
vslayer said:
but people die when there body is no longer able to function..
Click to expand...

Not always.. people can die even though they are perfectly fine physically. Also, people whose bodies and minds do not function can still remain alive.

Do you think that if a person dies, you can simply replace their malfunctioned body part within 3 minutes and they'll be fine? So, in theory, people should live forever as long as they can keep renewing their aging body parts?


and would you not consider ressusitation bringing someone back from the dead:
Click to expand...

Yes, but only if it can be done at any tiem afetr the person has deceased. I believe that once the soul has left the body, there is no way to bring a body to life, unless the soul returns. If life can be given to a few pounds of flesh and bone, then let's see somebody do it.
 
SpicySamosa said:
....so can someone explain to me how he may have come to such a conclusion?
Click to expand...

He cannot. You are correct in questioning the quoted statement as no such determination can be made by science. I find it disappointing when scientists get carried away and start drawing conclusions that extend beyond what their research can determine. Science deals with the physical. If you cannot measure it, it isn’t science. Hence, the soul is something totally outside science as it is an abstract concept that has no physical basis. In the same way, the concept of ‘God’ is outside science. Science can make no judgment one way or the other as to the existence of a god(s). He may have been trying to allude to the idea that the more we discover and understand the natural mechanisms that underlie human biology, the less we will need to rely on concepts like ‘soul’ and ‘God’ as emotional crutches.
<P>
 
Cloning and the question of 'souls' look like two trains headed for a collision.

If man can clone a human from a cell without benefit of sperm or egg, is he engaging in the act of creating life? If the answer is "yes", the gods have become irrelevant and this thing called 'soul' becomes a moot issue. On the other hand, if the clone possesses a 'soul', it must have come through the DNA.
 
HHmm, an experiment suggests itself:

Get an adult. Clone a new baby from them. Invite all the people who believe in souls to tell which one is behind the curtain at the end of the room. Or something. If they believe in souls they must have some way of sensing them, right?

Or alternatively, clone a baby from a newborn, so the ages wont be so far apart.

Of course, it is also incumbent upon those who believe in souls to try and prove it scientifically to us. Has anyone tried that yet?
 
Herc, the whole question of cloning and souls will go down in history like that argument about angels dancing on the head of a pin. :rolleyes: Absolute silliness!

But mind you, somewhere, sometime, some folks will try to make a very serious argument about it. Some things to "consider": :confused:
  • If the cells come from one nation and the lab procedure occurs in another, what's the clone's nationality?
  • Should a clone get a Green Card?
  • Should a clone be allowed to vote?
  • Can a clone get a driver's license or Social Security card?
  • Can a clone hold public office?
  • Would you let your daughter marry a clone?

:D
 
SpicySamosa said:
So, in theory, people should live forever as long as they can keep renewing their aging body parts?
Click to expand...

if you can find a replacement for a brain then yes, for it is this organ which often leads to old age death
 
As I've mentioned before, stem cell cloning doesn't mean that a child was born, it's mearly the use of an embryotic state to create clone "cells".

I've also mentioned previously that women go through cycles of disposing of Embryo's during their periods, Those Embryo's would not naturally be a child, and therefore if a woman was to allow their embryo's use in such cloning experiments instead of flushing down the toilet, it's not causing as much controversy as some people would normally suggest. (When you think of cloning, don't think of a Baby being cloned into a second baby because thats not what cloning is about)

Cloning would only really be questionable if it did mean the creation of life artificially since such children would be seen as "monsters" (a bit like Frankenstein's monster but without the re-animation of dead tissue.) How I also mean by monster is the fact that they would be un-naturally conceived.

As for the subject of what a soul is? Well the doctor was right to suggest that souls are imaginery, however you could suggest that people develop character and an imagined soul by how they are brought up, so a soul in essence is the development of sentiency.
 
Quick little note: embryo is frequently the term used for fertilized egg. Women frequently deposit unfertilized gametes, but it also occurs that embryos terminate in various stages of pregnancy.

The other controversy that holds more sway is the degredation of DNA, leading to unhealthy clones and early deaths. In theory, with infinite amounts of telomerase (the enzyme that prevents such degredation) cells could live on forever. At least, that's the reason cancer cells don't die from age. But when you take DNA from a fully differentiated cell, cloning doesn't work. (See examples of all the attempts before Dolly). It was only when they took DNA from the sheep's mammary glands that the cloning worked at all. Even then, there were the thousands of other clones that died. Dolly was one of hundreds of attempts, the only sucessful one.

This is where it becomes a problem. If we are to count each clone as a human life, how many "lives" will have to be lost before one is actually sucessful. Only one out of hundreds of clones will make it past birth. However, now I see my arguments heading in a direction that is a completely different topic, so I will stop.
 
Stryd said:
Well the doctor was right to suggest that souls are imaginery
Click to expand...

I don't think souls exist either, but that's not proven. And I think it's general cloning, not stem cell cloning that the link refers to.

spice said:
Also, people whose bodies and minds do not function can still remain alive.
Click to expand...
No they cannot. What is it to be alive? Maybe you can sustain someones cells for a bit by use of a life support machine, but independantly they'd be dead. Indeed, body and brain are mutually dependand - the brain controls certain regulatory systems and obviously the brain needs good, clean, oxygenated blood. Without either, how can something be said to be alive?

----------

The only issue with the cloning of humans that I care about is the issue of failed attempts. It doesn't really matter to me that thousands of 'dud' embryos might have to be made in order to get a successful clone, it's the possibility of ones that develop into malformed, but concious, people from what initially appears to be a successful attempt.

With regard to their rights, I would have thought that they'd have the same rights as any one else made/born in a country.
 
Half of you people spout meaningless opinions without even knowing what you're talking about. How many of you can define "soul", "spirit", and "God"? Many of you don't even have a clear definition, yet you've already formed an opinion on it.
 
I have my definitions, but whether they reflect other peoples might be at quesiton.
 
Alpha said:
Half of you people spout meaningless opinions without even knowing what you're talking about. How many of you can define "soul", "spirit", and "God"? Many of you don't even have a clear definition, yet you've already formed an opinion on it.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes: <P>
 
Meh, I skimmed.
I have working definitions for soul, spirit, and God, but it seems most people don't.
 
OK, here's what I think. The soul is the essence of who you are. Over the years the cells in our body die and are replaced, yet we're still considered to be the same person, even though we're not made of the same physical materials we were before. That continuation is what I'd call the soul.
The spirit is some form of noncorporeal energy that's supposed to carry your soul after death, though there's no evidence for such a thing.
God is simply the creator of the Universe.

When discussing such things with most people I find they don't have a clear or consistent idea of these concepts. I find most people can't seem to distinguish between the soul and the mind. It gets a little frustrating sometimes.
 
To an atheist such as myself, the "soul" of a person refers to the summation of conscience and attitude, of the unique thought process each of us go through when drawing conclusions, making decisions or forming opinions. It's the intangible part of us that, like the physical part, makes each of us different; no religious significance, just a convenient label.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top