Clones have souls?

If you believe the soul is from the father at the beginning of life, then a clone would have no soul.

A clone is physical reproduction, not spiritual.

 

Urg.

If a clone doesn't have a soul, then one of a set of identical twins does not have a soul.

 

Very good point.

Also, I don't see how a human body can even run without a soul operating ones mind.

 

I think what exsentric is alluding to is that a clone got it's start in a lab, not a womb as those born of God. Therefore, only those born of the womb have a soul.

Man is playing God by creating life in a lab. Man is also playing God by performing abortions, only God should determine when life begins and when it ends.

I think it's only a matter of time before God steps in and say's enough is enough.

 

That means that people who were conceived in vitro do not have souls, which definitely makes no sense.

A clone would be conceived in vitro like a "test tube baby" and then transplanted into the uterus, so they would be born normally anyways. Besides, why is the location of gestation so important? If we find some way to gestate babies in bottles, will we be abolishing the soul? I don't think so.

 

bruren777
There are allready people out there whose life started in a lab (and Petrel beat me to it and stated the point better as well). They get transplanted into a human womb relatively quickly, but still...

 

Infertility and cloning are not the same. If a child passed away and the parents desparately wanted their child back, does it make it right to make a clone?

What happened to accepting God's will for what it is and not trying to play God.

There is only one of us, even identical twins are different. Finger prints are not alike, personalities are not the same, etc.

The movie "God Send" comes to mind.

 

Infertility and cloning are not the same. If a child passed away and the parents desparately wanted their child back, does it make it right to make a clone?

Sure, why not? All cloning does is reproduce the genetic material. We are far, far more than our genes.

 

Because I am already me, so why should there be a second me?

IVF is the fertilization of an egg and sperm which is implanted back into the mother, not man's replica of an already born human.

Again, what happened to God's will. You die, you die. You have one life, not two, three, four or more because parents or anyone can't accept death.

If the person already accepted Christ, then how can they accept him again, I mean a clone is just two or more of the same person. Twins are not clones.

 

Interesting speculation.

A theory about a theory AND theology about the abstract. Sounds like solid Bible to me.

 

Nice talking point. Do you also oppose medical treatment for the sick, as well as the death penalty and all forms of warfare?

 

What's your take?

 

I can't see God blessing man's attempt to play god/creator. A clone is man's imitation of what God created to be unique. A false imitation of God does not come from God, nor is blessed by God. Satan in the garden, the pharaoh's men imitating what Moses (God through Moses) did, come to mind.
Twins formed in the womb are a part of God's creation, chosen to be twins by Him. Each as unique as anyone else, with their own soul.(as seen in scripture). There is absolutely no reasonable comparison.
A human clone would be an abomination, with no soul, and likely no consensus.

 

Nice talking point. Do you also oppose medical treatment for the sick, as well as the death penalty and all forms of warfare? </font>[/QUOTE]I can't see how that has anything to do with it.
How can normal medicine be compare with cloning a human. It doesn't.

 

I don't consider IVF "playing God". I consider it an alternative to infertility.

I don't consider abortion "playing God" either. I consider it murder.

If creating life is playing God, we had better not procreate at all.

The real issue is that a lot of people want you to think clones don't have a soul. Because if that's the case, they are just flesh and organs that can be grown and stored for the time when you need their organs, blood, bones, etc... There would be no ethical problems with growing humans for parts if they didn't have a soul. But clones do have a soul.

 

The 6th Day with Arnold is interesting. One of the scientists had a sick wife and he probably cloned her half a dozen times and she still ended up dying. You clone someone, you clone everything, even genetic mishaps.

 

If what you are creating is, indeed, human beings then the lose of life before success is a horrendous example of wanton endagerment and reckless homicide. If what you are creating is without a spirit then you have succeeded in producing a true human animal and we are quite bad enough with a spirit. I don't think it is a good idea to have literally pure psychopaths inflicked on society. Our own home grown psychopaths are quite enough, thank you.

 

Because I am already me, so why should there be a second me? Hey if there were more of me my wifes honey do list would be next to nuthin!!!

And being self employed I could hire fifty of me for one wage and I would only need workers comp on me. If I lost a limb or one of me died my premiums wouldn't go up. Just think of the money I would save on taxes...lol

 

Haha, like Multiplicity. That was a funny movie.