Would a human clone have a soul?

[blue_ladybug]

Then they lie, and here is proof:

Human Cloning | Popular Science

And what about this?

Humans Have Already Been Cloned

From the article:

There is no evidence that scientists are experimenting
with cloning humans, with or without federal money...

 

[blue_ladybug]

And now they're playing around mixing human and animal DNA ..

 

[renewed_hope]

This is a fascinating question.

I could be wrong, but in my limited understanding, isn't a clone pretty much a man-made genetically identical twin of another human being? Except that this "twin" would be produced through "scientific" means rather than "naturally".

I would think, and I could be wrong, that this would also be in the same category as babies/human beings who are produced through something like in vitro fertilization? Seeing as the fertilization is completed in a lab rather than in the womb... Do babies produced by these methods have a soul?

Personally, I consider these children to most definitely be "real people", and yes, I most certainly think they have souls.

I read an article a while back about two famous fashion designers who called in vitro babies "artificial' children, and not "real", which caused an uproar among their wealthy client base (many of whom who had children produced by this method.)

Human cloning among us almost seems to be an inevitable future, and I'm always interested in sci-fi movies that make predictions about its impact on society--including the thought that many in society will reject cloned human beings on the grounds that they are not "real".

I come from a country that very adamantly believes people like me are "not really human beings either", simply because I am adopted and have no "roots" (biological family that claims me and is "honorable").

These people firmly believe that I do not have a soul, either.

I just dont understand how anyone can put babies that were conceived using invitro and those that were cloned in the same category. In many instances invitro is using sperm and an egg and allow the two to fertilize and insert it into the womans uterus and when these two attach to the uterine wall the baby grows and develops which is how a child conceived normally is. Cloning in my opinion is a whole different ball of wax because it would be done after the fact and not before and God did not have the opportunity to create this little life.

 

[blue_ladybug]

Seoul, I never said that I've seen or met a cloned human.. lol.. I only see the general public too, but I don't look in their eyes to see if their pupils match their irises or not.. lol

 

[Prov910]

I just dont understand how anyone can put babies that were conceived using invitro and those that were cloned in the same category. In many instances invitro is using sperm and an egg and allow the two to fertilize and insert it into the womans uterus and when these two attach to the uterine wall the baby grows and develops which is how a child conceived normally is. Cloning in my opinion is a whole different ball of wax because it would be done after the fact and not before and God did not have the opportunity to create this little life.

But aren't in vitro fertilization and cloning similar inasmuch as nothing man made is created in either procedure? We've merely figured out a way to skip a few steps and help nature along in conceiving a new human being. A clone would not contain any flesh that is man made. The clone was just conceived in a manner different from a procreated human, or a human born from in vitro fertilization.

 

[renewed_hope]

But aren't in vitro fertilization and cloning similar inasmuch as nothing man made is created in either procedure? We've merely figured out a way to skip a few steps and help nature along in conceiving a new human being. A clone would not contain any flesh that is man made. The clone was just conceived in a manner different from a procreated human, or a human born from in vitro fertilization.

They are completely different....invitro is using an actual sperm and egg most typically from the people wanting to try and use this to get pregnant

 

[seoulsearch]

I just dont understand how anyone can put babies that were conceived using invitro and those that were cloned in the same category. In many instances invitro is using sperm and an egg and allow the two to fertilize and insert it into the womans uterus and when these two attach to the uterine wall the baby grows and develops which is how a child conceived normally is. Cloning in my opinion is a whole different ball of wax because it would be done after the fact and not before and God did not have the opportunity to create this little life.

The reason I put in vitro and cloning into the same category is because I was looking at what the end result produced--a human being.

The original question was whether or not a clone would have a soul, and so my focus was on the end and not as much the means.

Because the cloning process would result in a full human being (only in my own opinion), then yes, I believe clones would have souls because the process itself produced a real human being.

However, to some, clones would not be real human beings and therefore, they believe they would not have souls. My example (stated in another post) was that there are people in society now who don't those produced by in vitro to be fullly human either because the fertilization was done artificially, and performed outside of the womb.

I understand, though, that people are going to have wide and varied opinions about this, and what I stated is only my own.

 

[Prov910]

They are completely different....invitro is using an actual sperm and egg most typically from the people wanting to try and use this to get pregnant

So whether or not a person is human depends on what portion of their mother's flesh was used to conceive them? Mmmmmkay.

 

[maxwel]

One of the reasons I'm so interested in this subject is that, as an adoptee, I've come to find out that one of the reasons these things even become possible is because some people are desperate to have children... But it HAS to be "THEIR OWN" children, and they will go to any means to get that.

People like this are part of why these types of boundaries get pushed so far.

I can't judge or fault anyone for what they're going through. But I've encountered adoptees who greatly resented the fact that they never had a biological relative and would go to any length necessary to finally have a their own biological child.

Conversely, I have also known people who are so repulsed by the idea of adopting a child that is "not their own" that they would rather have one grown in a lab--just as long as it was "theirs."

Seoulsearch,

I appreciate your unique perspective, and your unique concerns.

However, though procreative problems may be one reason for cloning, I don't think it is the primary issue driving this forward on the human level.

 

[seoulsearch]

Seoulsearch,

I appreciate your unique perspective, and your unique concerns.

However, though procreative problems may be one reason for cloning, I don't think it is the primary issue driving this forward on the human level.

No worries, Max.

I agree that yes, the origins have many issues, of which these are only a few.

 

[TwoinSand]

Would a human clone have a soul?

Dolly the sheep made the news over 20 years ago. I think it is very likely that humans have been cloned by now. Oh, don't get me wrong. I'm not some sort of conspiracy nut. I just think that human cloning would be such an incredibly lucrative--albeit unethical--activity that some gov't or well heeled private organization somewhere has secretly been working on this. Granted, humans are *much* more difficult to clone than, say, sheep or cats or mice. But two decades is a long time to solve even the most difficult of problems. So I'm guess that somewhere in an out-of-the-way laboratory, there is a living human clone. Does he or she have a soul?

Every human has a soul. Even humans in the womb have souls.

 

[oldethennew]

it may have eyes, but it could not see what was before its nose - for the eyes were
always closed in Spiritual matters...

 

[seoulsearch]

I was trying to think of the other movie this thread reminded me of:

I haven't seen the entire film, as I think it was released in the UK and I've only seen clips but have read the synopsis and a few reviews.

In it, the main characters are sweethearts from childhood, but before they can marry, Tommy is tragically killed. If I remember correctly, he was also an only child, so you can imagine the grief this causes his parents.

With the parents' consent, Tommy's DNA is cloned and Rebecca volunteers to carry the child. I know this is just a work of fiction, but in this case, the fertilized clone is placed into a surrogate mother's womb (very much like in vitro, I think?), and Rebecca raises the boy as her son (and also names him Tommy.)

The movie explores some really interesting and important themes about grief and lost love (how far would you go to "get your loved one back", even if it's just a replica), as well as prejudice (when the mothers of the second Tommy's classmates find out he is a clone, they forbid their children to talk to him.)

They don't believe he is really human, let alone that he might have a soul.

But personally, I would believe both about anyone like this I encountered.

I know it's just a movie and so the way they did things might not be completely scientifically accurate, but the social themes they were willing to explore here were quite fascinating.

 

[Sully]

https://worldnewsdailyreport.com/david-rockefellers-sixth-heart-transplant-successful-at-age-99/


David Rockefeller gets 7th heart transplant....

 

[ROSSELLA]

Thanks for the Rep comment, SK!

 

[Siberian_Khatru]

I was trying to think of the other movie this thread reminded me of:

Eva Green goes for some far out roles...

Thanks for the Rep comment, SK!

You earned it!

---

Maybe we can take the discussion a step further: What do we think of, I don't know... a soul being "transferable"?

Technology has made some strides in attempting to replicate individuals. By taking scans of the physical body and recording speech and thought patterns, computers can recreate a sort of digital image doppelganger; it looks, sounds, and even interacts nearly identically to the subject.

Let's take a very mature state of that technology and couple it with cloning: Now we have a [hypothetical] mimic of a person, not just down to the DNA, but even to the finer details like... sense of humor, reasoning, nervous ticks, etc. Would that "replica" contain a unique soul (if one at all)? Or would it be a copy in both the physical and the metaphysical?

 

[kstout6]

Well, when they tested Dolly, they said that the clone was about 98% the same as Dolly, meaning that there was still a ton of differences left. The results are similar to an identical twin.

Yes, they have souls. They can never get 100%.

 

[JesusRules1]

There can only be one of us,and the saints will put off the flesh,and all spirits go back to God regardless of how the person acted on earth,and the Bible states that there are souls under the altar awaiting the rest of the saints to join them,and then Jesus will avenge them by going against the world.

The only thing that will remain of us is the soul,that is what lives forever,like the Bible says,God will not leave Jesus' soul in hell,for He would be resurrected after 3 days.We will be a soul in a glorified body.

When God created Adam He breathed the breath of life in to him,and Adam became a living soul,but there can only be one Adam that is to be judged,like there can only be one of us,not a duplicate that can be judged,so a clone would not have the soul,or spirit,and only by a male and a female having a child can it be a complete child,with all the trimmings,and not another way.Jesus is the only human who can be born of one parent and be a complete child.

A clone would not be a complete human,for it would get the physical attributes,but not anything that has to do with them being able to receive salvation from God,for God would not impart the spirit to them.

This is the way it appears to me,for there can only be one of us that is a complete human to be judged,not two of us to be judged,for it would seem like a clone could not be judged,so it would lack the qualities that a complete human has in the way of the spiritual,especially the spirit that is our connection to God,and it would seem like it would not have a soul for that is what will dwell with God,but I do not know if they would be very smart in reasoning and logic.

 

[seoulsearch]

Eva Green goes for some far out roles...


You earned it!

---

Maybe we can take the discussion a step further: What do we think of, I don't know... a soul being "transferable"?

Technology has made some strides in attempting to replicate individuals. By taking scans of the physical body and recording speech and thought patterns, computers can recreate a sort of digital image doppelganger; it looks, sounds, and even interacts nearly identically to the subject.

Let's take a very mature state of that technology and couple it with cloning: Now we have a [hypothetical] mimic of a person, not just down to the DNA, but even to the finer details like... sense of humor, reasoning, nervous ticks, etc. Would that "replica" contain a unique soul (if one at all)? Or would it be a copy in both the physical and the metaphysical?

I dig Eva Green. She's very gutsy, and I've seen a lot of her movies.

In "Womb", because the main character carries and raises the clone of her dead fiance, it also brings to light all other kinds of human feelings. For instance, she raises him as a son, but when he becomes an adult, she wishes that he could be the original person she fell in love with, and is deeply hurt when he rejects her, gets his own girlfriend, and goes his own way.

Many people would be uncomfortable with that story line but I liked it because it was raw and honest. How many people have lost a loved one they long to see again still in this life, if even in the form of someone who just physically resembles them in every way? Wouldn't most people see it as a "second chance", no matter how many years had past?

Maybe you've seen the movie Transcendence? I know it's a little different, but Johnny Depp tries to transfer himself as a computer program... (so would his would become part of cyberspace?)

There was also a recent movie, Self/Less, with Ryan Reynolds, in which an older man tries to transfer himself into a younger person. Would one soul be "kicked out", and replaced by the second?

All very wild things to think about. (I want to write about another movie as well, but I'll put that in another post to make all this easier to read.)

 

[Siberian_Khatru]

I dig Eva Green. She's very gutsy, and I've seen a lot of her movies.

In "Womb", because the main character carries and raises the clone of her dead fiance, it also brings to light all other kinds of human feelings. For instance, she raises him as a son, but when he becomes an adult, she wishes that he could be the original person she fell in love with, and is deeply hurt when he rejects her, gets his own girlfriend, and goes his own way.

Many people would be uncomfortable with that story line but I liked it because it was raw and honest. How many people have lost a loved one they long to see again still in this life, if even in the form of someone who just physically resembles them in every way? Wouldn't most people see it as a "second chance", no matter how many years had past?

Maybe you've seen the movie Transcendence? I know it's a little different, but Johnny Depp tries to transfer himself as a computer program... (so would his would become part of cyberspace?)

There was also a recent movie, Self/Less, with Ryan Reynolds, in which an older man tries to transfer himself into a younger person. Would one soul be "kicked out", and replaced by the second?

All very wild things to think about. (I want to write about another movie as well, but I'll put that in another post to make all this easier to read.)

Where do you find the free time to watch all of these?

If a clone of any capacity does, in fact, end up being an "empty vessel", I can't decide if that's a severe mercy or a severe tragedy (no soul = no judgement).