Poll: Is cloning religiously offensive to you?

[rocklobster]

Because cloning does come up in quite a few anime titles, I thought I'd put this question to you. I think it is, but I want to see what others think.

[Heart of Sword]

I doubt this thread will stay open. However, it might if everything stays civil, so let's be nice, okay? ^^;;

No, I don't think it's wrong to clone animals, but I do think it's wrong to clone humans because the human would be treated differently by society, but the animal wouldn't.

As for it being religiously offensive...God said that He "knits us together in our mother's womb", so...yeah, cloning humans is religiously offensive to me.

God is very deliberate in creating humans...I think we should leave that up to Him. (He said let the land produce living creatures; I'm not sure if He directly creates animals.)


-------

[Warrior 4 Jesus]

Cloning humans and/or animals is playing God. I don't agree with either. I voted Yes.

[bigsleepj]

Cloning, as long as you don't physically alter the genetics of the animal isn't really wrong (our denomination's stance) and admit that there can be benefits to this. However physically altering the genes and characteristics of an animal and / or human cloning is, as W4J pointed out, playing God.

[Heart of Sword]

But does God directly create animals? He said "let the land produce living creatures". I'm not sure if He's as deliberate with animal creation as He is with human creation. (He said He knits us together in our mother's womb.)

[White Raven]

The thing about cloning that upsets me is that I have seen it pitched to animal lovers.
They say that you can bring back a dead pet. And that the clone will be exactly like the dead one.

In my mind this is so sad. For someone to use grief to make money, it is just not right.

A dead loved one is dead, they cannot be brought back. No matter how much we wish. No matter how much some pretend.

[Heart of Sword]

I agree with ILoveArt on that one. Also, it might look like the pet, but it's still not him/her.

[White Raven]

I agree with ILoveArt on that one. Also, it might look like the pet, but it's still not him/her.

Exactly, it would be more healthy to move on and mourn in the normal manner. Then living in a fantasy where your beloved pet is not dead.

I know what that is like. my dog died the same day that I moved to PA from KS.
In my mind and in my heart I didn’t deal with it. Because at the time it was to painful.
But in the end it got to me.
It took a year and me getting a another dog to face facts.
Now I don’t fill so sick about it.
I had to face reality in order to heal.

[Steeltemplar]

I am unsure about cloning animals. There is no theological basis against it as far as I know of (anyone who has a verse they think would cover it, please feel free to point it out). And if it is not immoral, then it might become an important tool for society at some point in the future.

Human cloning, however, I believe to be absolutely wrong. A human life is sacred and, it is my belief, should only be the product of the union of a man and a woman within the bounds of matrimony. Cloning would be an extreme violation of this sanctity.

[Shao Feng-Li]

I think it as playing God.

[gungrave]

I personally dont think its religously offensive.....Just wrong.
Cloning animals...I can undrstand they would want to but they could do without the billions of dollars and just breed XD but cloning humans...that might rip a hole into the vortex of life and suck everything else in, because, thats playin god

[uc pseudonym]

I suppose that I will allow this to remain open for the time being. However, I don't really see how the discussion can continue very far without becoming an argument (hence why I am not posting). As soon as this becomes argumentative it will be locked.

[Destroyer2000]

Ah, cloning humans or animals would be playing God, no? Cloning animals might be a quicker way than breeding, however...

Altering the genes of something would not be considered playing God if you don't try to create an entirely new race, would it? Say...the so called 'cure' for cancer. They say that if they can alter the genetic coding that causes cancer then they could stop it. Would that be cloning or playing God? Would giving a person a prostetic body part be playing God? I'm not trying to be argumentive, just bringing up a few questions of my own.

[Cap'n Nick]

I think it would be unethical to clone a human with the current technology. As far as I've heard all of the things we've cloned have had less than stellar lives. But, if the technology could be made safe, I see no intrinsic moral problem with it. Playing God? A cloned being, even an altered one, doesn't exist in some atheistic netherworld where God has no say in what goes on. If cloning is all it takes to escape God's plan then he wasn't much of a god to begin with.

[dragonshimmer]

I'm not entirely sure that I feel that animal cloning is wrong. As far as human cloning...I'm a bit wishy washy on that as well. God is the one that creates us, and when He does, he gives us a soul. He gives us a soul and a mind with which to make decisions about how to live our lives. I think that having a soul is what makes us human, sets us apart from animals. Therefore, if a human clone were created by man, it wouldn't have a soul. It'd be a shell, almost more like an animal, if you will. Still capable of feeling, I believe, but lacking a soul, which to me, makes it not exactly human. As long as it were treated well (like an animal and having animal rights) maybe it wouldn't be so bad.

I dunno. That's just just my thought. I don't plan on ever endorsing the process or supporting it either way and I have no control over it, so it's not something I think too much about.

[Destroyer2000]

Well, if God didn't want cloning, or if it was seriously contradictory to what he wanted, he would not allow the technology to exist would he? Or at teh very least, work.

[Mangafanatic]

Well, if God didn't want cloning, or if it was seriously contradictory to what he wanted, he would not allow the technology to exist would he? Or at teh very least, work.

Eh, I'm not sure I can agree with this line of thinking. If I can manufacture biological weapons that kill thousands of people, I don't think we can logically assert that, if God "permits" me to make gas that works, then God condones what I'm doing.

[Destroyer2000]

True, true...I had't considered that.

[Steeltemplar]

"Playing God" is not really the issue as I see it. Cloning does not make us omnipotent nor give delusions of being deities necessarily.

The real problems arise, as I said before, with the sanctity of life. A child should be a product of the love and unity of their parents, as God intended that relationship to be. Cloning desecrates that idea by removing entirely the unitive aspect and possibly as well the parental role altogether. God intends us to reproduce in the way that He created our bodies to do so, within a marital relationship that He designed.

[TurkishMonky]

i don't really agree with scientifically altered cloning of humans, since that raises a host of questions about what rights and conditions that person will have. As for animals, i think it's a waste of time and money.

FYI, identical twins are natural clones.

[Heart of Sword]

I think it will only get locked if there's an argument, TM.

The real problems arise, as I said before, with the sanctity of life. A child should be a product of the love and unity of their parents, as God intended that relationship to be. Cloning desecrates that idea by removing entirely the unitive aspect and possibly as well the parental role altogether. God intends us to reproduce in the way that He created our bodies to do so, within a marital relationship that He designed.

I agree with that...an animal wouldn't care that it was created by scientists, because it wouldn't know. A human would. That would really rot to know that you were created by scientists, wouldn't it?

[Arnobius]

I think Steeltemplar has effectively what I would have said on the subject on the moral issues of procreation vs cloning.

I also think there is the danger of looking at the human being as a "commodity." Science always has unintended consequences, and people tend to use science commercially for shallow or immoral purposes. So I suspect that despite the lofty goals promoted by scientists, what we'll really wind up with are things such as living organ banks, designer babies, cloning human embryos for experiments and the like.

God created man for our good, but man would tend to create man for his own convenience, and I think the result would tend to be to justify things we would not tolerate being done to ourselves.

[Destroyer2000]

Yes, the clones would most likely not be considered humans; more like monsters or trash. As stated before, they would be nothing more than tools at the hands of natural born humans.

[termyt]

I don't really believe cloning is playing God. That's giving man a little too much credit. The same arguments were made about vaccines and organ transplants in the past. After all, if a man’s heart fails, then he should die, right?

God can not be thwarted and His will can not be altered. Cloning and genetic manipulation could be very real in the near future, but neither will change God's plan. Human clones are human, created by God as surely as we are. Clone simply manipulates the genetic code it does not create it or life. Life itself remains a mystery – God’s gift, it has never been duplicated by man.

If we gain the ability to manipulate genes, then it will simply be another tool in our shed. No different from vaccines, organ transplants, and chemical weapons.

[Destroyer2000]

Come to think of it, cloning would not be much different than artificial fertilization, would it?

[Kanerou]

I don't really believe cloning is playing God. That's giving man a little too much credit.

Reminds me of the joke where the scientist goes up to God and says they don't need him anymore. God challenges him to make a human, then tells him he has to get his own dirt.

I don't care so much if it's in anime, manga, etc. That's fantasy. In real life, I haven't done a lot of thinking about it. But I doubt real cloning is ever gonna happen. We're triune beings, so could we even operate without a soul and spirit? Seems like it'd be a lifeless shell.

[Technomancer]

I think AnimeHeretic hit the nail on the head with his concerns about the commdification of human life, once humans can be created to order like any other product. I don't have any intrinsic objections to genetic manipulation or even cloning. However, my concern is directed at those who would use such technologies to erode the dignity of human life.

http://www.vatican.va/edocs/ENG0141/_INDEX.HTM

[termyt]

Come to think of it, cloning would not be much different than artificial fertilization, would it?

From a certain point of view.

Is it OK to cure a congenital heart defect by transplanting a heart?
Then is it OK to cure it through genetic manipulation?

Should an infertile couple be denied raising their own children if cloning becomes a viable option?

I don’t mean to be argumentative, but those are good questions that should be considered before summarily dismissing the technology.

[Slater]

I believe that if we clone a human that such a human would have a God-given soul. Indeed, I think that it is TRYING to "play God", but a very bad job at it. God started from nothing, we start with all the hard work of things like DNA already done for us.

Life is precious, no matter how it comes about, so I wouldn't say that cloned beings are bad, evil, or sub-par to other humans, though I think the motives to human cloning probably aren't good ones.

[Steeltemplar]

Should an infertile couple be denied raising their own children if cloning becomes a viable option?

There are cetainly a great many orphaned children who could use a family. I do not see why cloning should be a better option than adoption.

This does bring up another point: Will homosexual couples then be allowed to have offspring cloned for themselves?