Poll: Is cloning religiously offensive to you?

[Puritan]

Just a minor point about cloning, currently the clone is the exact same genetic age as the parent. Imagine cloning a 50 year old man, and then you have a baby who is physically 1 year old but genetically 50 and they begin to have all the physical symptoms of aging. This is a problem with animals (part of the reason cloning is not yet popular for preserving excellent specimines of certain animals like racehorses or cows) and it would definately raise problems for human cloning above and beyond the excellent argument against cloning from the sanctity of human life. Honestly, beyond a cult which believes cloning is the key to eternal life there is little support for cloning as it simply isn't viable with current methods. We can clone, but doing so is a waste of resources as cloning doesn't create a truly young version of an animal or a human, which would be the whole point of cloning. Far more work is being done on genetic manipulation and other biotechnologies, which open up entirely new ethical discussions.

[Heart of Sword]

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.

Ooo, good point.

[Kaligraphic]

No, cloning is not religiously offensive to me.

[Arnobius]

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?

That does not follow. The end result is the same, but the way taken is not. If I were to say "If is OK to limit family size through Natural Family Planning, then it is OK to limit family size by abortion," that would be wrong. Christianity has long taught that one can not do direct evil so good may come about it. Unfortunately it is a lesson we tend to forget.

[Arnobius]

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.

Yes, life can only come from God, and that is a good point. Regardless of how they come into the world, they are still human beings with the dignity thereof.

However, someone who did not believe in souls or in God, could very well think of a clone as a thing.

[Lynx]

remember the sheep they cloned? dolly? remember how prematurely old she was? well that's because of telomeres. they're junk DNA at the end of your chromosomes that dont code for anything, they're just there so if your cell loses a few nucleotides at the end of the DNA during mitosis (cell division) it's ok. Lose them all and you start losing pieces of the code. dolly's telomeres were shorter then they should have been for her age, so she prematurely aged.

Of course there's an enzyme that can put telomeres back on, and actually it's found in cancer cells but that's besides the point.

genetic manipulation isn't always bad, it just depends what you're doing with it. i myself have worked with causing bacteria to take up foreign DNA in one of my labs. the experiment was successful.

ya know, there are some diabetics who are allergic to insulin made by animals. but by making bacteria take up the gene to create HUMAN insulin, we can cause bacteria to make human insulin, and these people have no allergic reaction to it since it's human and not animal. is that wrong?

the fields of molecular biology and biochemistry need to be explored further so that we can make discoveries to help people. i'm not saying that we should go around cloning people, but the science of genetics itself, not necessarily cloning, needs a lot of further investigation, so that many can benefit.

[Rogie]

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

Hello, a little reminder: Let's not get into that, okay? This issue is touchy enough, as it is, let's not compound it with another debate-laden topic.

Thanks.

[Pent]

I don't see why people think a clone would not have a soul or spirit. It would be basicly an identical twin...unles twins don't have souls! lol. jk.

[dreamhacker]

Well, I'm against it. I don't know what God does about it, if he would give cloned people a soul, but anyways it just feels wrong, like I also think it feels wrong to medle too much with genes and such =\

Anyways, I don't believe we'll ever be able to clone humans. I hope we will never try, but if it we do there is a big chance some problem we didn't think of pops up

[Lynx]

Anyways, I don't believe we'll ever be able to clone humans. I hope we will never try, but if it we do there is a big chance some problem we didn't think of pops up

we have the technology, but it's a matter of legality and morality, and the only way it would ever be legal would be if extensive extensive extensive EXTENSIVE animal testing was done beforehand to catch potential problems.

[Nate]

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.

Whoa! Slater and I agree on something! Somebody mark this down. XD

No, I don't see cloning as playing God. Simple reason. To create a clone, you have to have inherently organic material. Another living thing. Like Slater said, you need DNA to clone. God created us from DIRT. Stuff that is NOT inherently alive or organic. That is a pure miracle that can only come from the Creator Himself. As much as humans try, we will NEVER succeed in pulling off a stunt like that. Thus, it isn't really playing God at all.

And yes, I don't see why a clone wouldn't have a soul. I see no support for the belief that it wouldn't, I see it only as mere speculation.

That said, I don't think cloning is a viable option, nor do I support it, but I don't see it as the great evil most people claim it to be.

[desperado]

I look at it this way, the clone would be a genetic duplicate of the target of the process but the individual would start from birth and would go through lifes experiences, that person would end up being a totally different person due to there life being different, the only thing the same would be there genes, would almost be like having an almost exact older brother or sister.

Now what does scare me a bit would be altering genes or infusion of genes that would drastically alter the human body, such as altering a embryo so that the human would have eyes that would have similar designs to cat eyes and could see better in the dark.

That is treading on thin ice, altering humans to make them disease resistant or live another 40 years? yeah thats fine.. But when you start to alter the human race to the point that it isn't quite human anymore then you open a whole new can of worms, would almost be like creating an perfect ai, or any new intilegent as we are being. One your playing God two you just opened up a whole entire new oppresion/slavery as possibility/ rascisim of the earlier American years but worse all over again.

[Nate]

I look at it this way, the clone would be a genetic duplicate of the target of the process but the individual would start from birth and would go through lifes experiences, that person would end up being a totally different person due to there life being different, the only thing the same would be there genes, would almost be like having an almost exact older brother or sister.

OH. Good point, desperado. I had intended to address that, but forgot. A human being is SO much more than their genes or DNA. Life experience makes us who we are too. Environment plays just as much of a role in shaping who you are as anything else.

For example, if I was cloned, my clone would not have the wonderful and supportive father that I had growing up. Nor would he have two annoying younger brothers. Or lots of other things I had growing up. If I was cloned, it's more than assured that that he would be nothing like me, aside from appearance. He would be practically a completely different person, just similar in appearance.

[Steeltemplar]

This subject reminds me....anyone ever see the movie Gattaca, in which a normally born man struggles in a world where nearly everyone else was the product of genetic engineering? (Good movie, PG-13 since I think it had some sexuality)

[ChristianKitsune]

I really think of it as playing God and interfering where we shouldn't interfere....

Same with the animals. God Created them...not man...it's the same concept...

[White]

If God Wanted Humans Doing What Only He Can Do, He's Give Us His Powers...

But Since He Aren't Gods, This Shouldn't Even Be An Issue...

Cloning=Offensive Period.

Your Bro In Christ,

Sam/White

[Mithrandir]

But Since He Aren't Gods, This Shouldn't Even Be An Issue...

I'm guessing you meant, "we" in that sentence?

Wow. We have a lot of different thoughts and feelings on the matter, but everyone appears to be courteous. Well done!

My thinking has been echoed by some of the other members here. God wouldn't be much of a God if he allowed us to "Play God." To expand... The experiment with Dolly (the sheep) was only one part of a far reaching set of experiments. We didn't go directly to the x-ray machine. We took a detour through which experimenters such as the Curies pretty much "failed" at their attempts to tame radiation. Ultimately, we're better off as a society because of it. I think the sheep cloning thing is similar. You can't throw the baby out with the bath water, in my opinion.

I also do not believe the real legal and ethical battles will be faught over sentient clones. Precident will have to be set well before that. For example, we can take a few cells from a baby and "grow" an extra arm (in case one is maimed in a horrible accident) or a spare kidney. Those aren't the areas where I see questions on a legal and ethical front. I think the battles will be fought when an infant clone is made from a baby and not allowed to "wake up" (keep the brain from developing), for use as spare parts should the baby develop cancer or lose a limb, or whatnot.

I don't think CAA is a good place to expand on this topic, though; PM me if you disagree.

[Kat Walker]

Creating more human beings through cloning, particularly for experimentation purposes, is flat out sick and wrong. If you've ever seen "The Island", you know what I mean. x.x;

I don't believe, however, that a cloned person is any less human than a naturally born person. That's what makes cloning so objectionable in the first place.

[Dante]

The bodies design does not determine the soul of the individual, so an Adolf Hitler clone raised by good parents under the right circumstances, is just another human being who happens to have an art talent from his genetics, he is not necessarily destined for a life of wickedness.

Furthermore, cloning can not create a perfect genetic match with DNA being used, it is impossible, as a consequence, you can't perfectly "clone" someone, you can only closely approximate their genetics. Just my two cents, but I enjoy the disagreement, as it gives me further insight into the thoughts of others.

Pascal

[SonicRose]

Well, God's so ingenious, even Cloning could well be very impractical. The first cloned sheep developed a chronic problem that the sheep it was cloned from suffered with. In essence, the DNA even has a memory of how old it is. There are, today, rare cases of children whos' DNA is on a high speed clock, and they age like the family dog, at 7 or more years per year of life.

Ethically and Morally, I think it's wrong; stick with what God did.

But even in addition to that; it's just... impractical.

I agree with frwl, a human clone would have a God-given soul. He allows a lot of things for His purposes, even if he doesn't condone it.

[TrigunX89]

I don't know if I find it religiously offensive, but I do find it most terrifying. I don't mind if it's fiction, but in real life it needs to stop.

[mitsuki lover]

Technically speaking identical twins are ipso facto clones of each other.I see this as the opposite of abortion.With abortion you are tyring to kill life,but with cloning you are trying to create it.There might be some cases where cloning might in fact be necessary such as the case where a couple are unable to concieve and they don't want to undergo any of the other options avaible to them.I think it should be considered a viable alternative as long as it is used wisely.

[Puritan]

I just ran into this news story that puts an interesting twist to this thread. It turns out that scientists recently published the results of an experiment to essentially "clone" organs like Mithrandir was talking about, and it appears that in their initial experiment this worked perfectly. While not the typical idea of cloning, this did involve growing organs outside the body and is definitely a type of cloning, albeit simply an organ rather than an entire individual.

[Mithrandir]

Thanks for the link, puritan. I do, however, think we'd probably better keep that discussion to PM. It's a bit to volitile on the main boards.

[GhostontheNet]

Alot of aversion goes into the concept of genetic manipulation, dubbed "playing God" for tampering with the natural order of the creation. Frankly, however, dig out a biology textbook, and you'll find mankind has engaged in systematic genetic manipulation for centuries, maybe even millenia with the tools of extended campaigns of selective breeding or "unnatural" crossbreeding of flora and fauna, producing fat idiot chickens and turkeys that that can't fly (anybody ever met anyone who has tried to hunt wild turkeys?), canines with very round baby faces not very useful to themselves, dozens of varieties of apples and all manner of artificial fruits (not to be confused with artificial flavors, which is more chemistry), much less agressive pigs without tusks not terribly resembling the boars notorious for turning their hunters into the hunted. We live everyday with the consequences, for good or ill, of various freaks of nature we ourselves have transformed from their original created state dramatically, many so much so that they could not survive in their natural state. For whatever reason, God seems to allow us to base our much of our infrastructure on tampering with the original state of His creation. The only difference with modern and developing techniques is that they have a wider range of efficiency for man's desires in genetic tampering without the gradualism that everybody doesn't even bat an eye at, though naturally, efficiency at doing what depends upon the infrastructures in question. Some melodrama is stated over whether a clone would have a soul, but I see little reason to assume any difference between a "clone" and an "original", I look at Dolly and what I see is another sheep with different circumstances of birth, living like a sheep. I see little reason why if Dolly could live like a sheep why God should just decide "No, I won't give this one a soul because they weren't born in a flesh incubator and feeding mechanism, but in a metal one". In the words of J.C. Denton out of context "That doesn't sound like our Father." Besides which, though the church argued greatly about the "test-tube babies" and whether they counted as human or had souls, but in the end, the children produced in this way turned out so ordinary the question isn't really debated much anymore because they could see the image of God in them too as much as anybody else. And that is indeed what makes a "human", as Genesis had always told us, it was the image of God, that is the breath of God that makes us human, whether one happens to be a black, white, asian, full-cyborg, lizard-man, neandrathal, or a disembodied corpse. The dominion God gave us over all creatures was and is to be used for good and not ill, though we retain the potential to cause ill, and even secular biologists know this in their bones because they fight tooth and nail to save species of plants and animals from extinction although this runs counter to evolutionary progression, especially in the punctuated equilibria school. As with all technologies, a brand now scope of good or bad possibilities comes into play, with some measure of both actually materializing, while others don't, but in the end, life goes on.

[Slater]

Indeed, and that's related to some stuff I was thinking... God gave us the ability to understand the principles on which our universe is founded, and how to manipulate these things to our own benefit (aka technology). Indeed, we in America have tons of food because we have "cloned" certain strains of corn, wheat, etc that is good. So what if we took cloning a step further and made the next generations superior...? I don't know. Therein lies a lot of moral and ethical questions and stuff.

[Warrior4Christ]

As demonstrated by several movies (Sixth Day and The Island (as mentioned earlier) come to mind), big problems are created by human cloning. There's too much power given to too few people. Not only that, but a human is more than physical body parts. It has a spiritual side (soul) as well, and I would think the clone would be lacking this spiritual dimension.

So, yes, human cloning is wrong.

As for animal cloning... well, I'm not too sure. It's probably not really worth the effort for large scale cloning anyway.

[desperado]

I see this and I think a lot of people immeaditly jump to "oh its the island all over again", but in all honesty that kind of thing doesn't need to happen, you have an entire black market of taking poor people off the streets harvesting them or selling them into slavery (yes slavery is still quite big in certain parts of the world) It would be much cheaper to grab bum A kill and harvest him then grow person C.

What we need to think about is cloning for the sake of getting another person and such. Its not to harvest for they dont need to do that because they are getting very close to growing the parts needed and not the whole body, which would be very very much cheaper then growing the full thing and tossing the parts not needed out (aka the island).

So people need to not jump to that conclusion, its mainly not about growing to harvest its growing for growing. They would have a soul, and they would be a copy of the parent, but with a different personality.

[termyt]

That does not follow. The end result is the same, but the way taken is not. If I were to say "If is OK to limit family size through Natural Family Planning, then it is OK to limit family size by abortion," that would be wrong. Christianity has long taught that one can not do direct evil so good may come about it. Unfortunately it is a lesson we tend to forget.

I am not sure of the moral differences between organ transplants and genetic manipulation. Are you saying using genetic manipulation to preserve life is akin to killing people to preserve population balance? I was under the impression abortion was wrong because it destroyed human life. In my example, genetic manipulation is used to preserve life. If abortion and genetic manipulation are both wrong because the violate some natural order ordained by God in regard to the way the body is supposed to work, then I would also say that organ transplants and even cancer treatment are wrong for the same reason.

While I agree that doing evil for the sake of good is still evil, I do not see the connection between genetic manipulation and evil in your post. Tools are neither good nor evil and because a tool can be used for wicked purposes does not invalidate its existence.

[Steeltemplar]

I do believe that a cloned human would have a soul. However, for that reason, I think it is further compelling to not allow cloning to happen. How would one feel growing up as a clone, not as a product of your parents' love for one another? Personally, I think that would be a difficult and traumatic thing.