Clones?

I don't know why it wouldn't have...the clone would be a human being.

Sue

 

The answer would have a wild implication on those who would like to harvest organs from clones. At what point would a cultured human body part have a soul? How many parts of a human then would be needed to call it a human or to have care or place for the ‘soul’. All of this points back to the word of God that tells us we are knit in our mothers womb not a test tube. Psm 139:12-17. Man’s medical ability has far over stepped the boundary of Gods sovereign direction, this thing called a clone is a monster to all social life and a true harold of the end times. Not that man can subvert the sovereign direction of God, but that we see that man is outside the boundary of Gods written word.


Ken ><KJV>

 

I do not agree with cloning and all cloning will be illegal after the Senate passes the law. It has already been passed in the House.

I was merely answering preacher's question.


Sue

 

Yes. People are souls, no matter if their origin is from cloning science or from natural conception.

 

Believer:

I just said that!

You just said it better.

 

A clone can only be an imatation of God's creation. How can an imatation of the real thing have what the real thing has that makes it special and set apart from other created things. A clone is man playing God, God is not going to give it a soul and bless man's attempts at being a god.

 

Since a clone is a duplicate of the cells that God created, that's a tough call. I don't believe that other than in a science fiction movie, human beings will ever be cloned in their entirety. Personally I think it's a great bit of medical advancement for people who have body parts that are failing to be able to clone a new part to take it's place. But then you have to consider too if that would be messing with God's design that our bodies will eventually fail.

My opinion? Gosh, I don't think I can be completely for or completely against. I'm in awe of the possibilities though.

Laurenda

 

The supposedly cloned babies have not come from both male and female but were from skin cells from the 'mother'. Supposedly, the skin cells are shocked with electricity (like the Frankenstein monster story) and that caused the dna to replicate. There is no egg and fertilization!!

Remember, too, that the skin cells these cloned babies were supposedly created from are 30 plus year old cells so this cloned child is born old. Just like Dolly the sheep, that was recently put to sleep, they will age very quickly and die very early from diseases that affect old people.

IF this is how this is done... and if the clone is an exact replica.... has science created the being? But again, like the joke goes... first, get your own dirt.


Honest opinion here.... I think this is so outside God's will that clones will NOT have souls. BUT... that is an uneducated opinion and I have no scripture or scientific proof to back up my thoughts.

Diane

 

Yes. Twins are clones that occur naturally, and they have souls.

 

If a clone did not have a soul, then why should we be against cloning. If there is no soul, then all the clone cells that did not make it to the point of living on its own would not be considered killing, as in abortion, or as taking life as described in the Bible. And if they did not have a soul, they could be made for organ harvesting, we could take the so-called "life" of one and not be actually taking life. If they had no soul, they would not have an eternity, nor would we have to witness to them or give them the Gospel, because they would cease to exist after they die.

I believe that if the human clone were to become a reality, then they would have a soul. Would God allow reproduction of a human in this way? If He doesn't, then there will never be a human clone, which would also prove that animals don't have souls either.

 

Yes. Twins are clones that occur naturally, and they have souls. </font>[/QUOTE]Twins are not clones. They had at one time shared a cell, but when the cell split, they became individuals.

 

Twins are not clones. They had at one time shared a cell, but when the cell split, they became individuals.

Twins are indeed clones, having been cloned by natural processes. Their dna is identical.

 

People don't "have" souls, they ARE souls.

Just think. If clones don't "have" souls, then I could legitimately raise them and use them for slaves, prostitutes, and medical experiments!

 

Even though their dna is the same, that doesn't explain why they are different. I don't think they have discovered all the reasons of why there are still differences in identical twins.

 

Even though their dna is the same, that doesn't explain why they are different.
Because from conception on, neither twin is subject to the exact same environmental exposures. Even something as minor as dietary habits will have an effect on overall height, build, health, and stamina.

An artificial clone is defined as having the same dna as its host. Since a clone would have environmental exposures different from the donor, it, too, would appear and act slightly different than the donor.

 

What about non-identical twins? Is there DNA the same? I think they can have different blood types. I'm asking because I really don't know.


Sue

 

No, fraternal twins do not share the same DNA. They come from separate eggs and sperm. They just happen at the same time.

Basically, if I were cloned tomorrow, the result would be a 26-year-younger-than-I twin.

 

Even identical twins have different fingerprints.

 

Thank you for clearing that up. I thought they had different DNA but did not want to state it as fact because I was not certain.


Sue