Will Human Clones Have A Soul?

capt_buzzard · Post by **capt_buzzard** » Thu Aug 26, 2004 9:21 am

Every living thing....it...has a Spirt/Soul.

Okie · Post by **Okie** » Tue Feb 07, 2006 9:42 am

Chris wrote: Human clones will become a reality one day. Will these beings have a soul?
I thought King George outlawed human cloning. But if in fact cloning does happen then yes, of course they will have a soul. If they are in fact clones they will be exactly the same. If one were to do bodily harm to a clone they should have to pay the same price as one does now for battery or murder. The brain is the soul. If it has a brain it has a soul.

The movie Total Recall used the plot that one could just go to a "travel agent" and have memories implanted in ones brain for a vacation any place they wanted and they would feel the same as if they had actually gone there but without spending the time and money and effort to really go there. I think it could happen.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Feb 07, 2006 9:46 am

burntandbleeding wrote: I believe a soul is who you are, spiritually, not chemically. I believe that even if a person was cloned a million times, each clone would still be an individual as far as how they thought and acted. I believe that the longer the clones were alive, the more of "individuals" they would become due to the ever-increasing number of variables in each of their lives. I think that everyone can agree that the things that happen to us over the course of our lives mold who we are. As children, we are more prone to view the world as we are told to, due to our lack of experience. As we grow and develop, we change, we begin to seperate ourselves from the structure that ruled our childhood. We gain more and more individuality as we gain more and more personal insite into our world. Individuality is the foundation of our souls, it's who we are, what we think and believe. Since a perfect clone would be no different than a natural-born human, I think they would be the same way. So yes, I believe that clones will have souls.
OMG. Mark the calendar. I agree with B&B! :yh_dance

Okie · Post by **Okie** » Tue Feb 07, 2006 9:48 am

jwolf7722 wrote: i think human cloning is a horrible idea. the last thing we need is more people in this world.
Then why is it that our government here is pushing marriage so much. and trying to stop marriages that cannot produce children as in gay marriage. and why does our government try to stop birth control pills and abortion and condoms. Bush went to Africa and told them not to use condoms. a place where AIDs is rampant. He lives in a dream world if he thinks he can tell young kids with raging hormones to just say no to sex.

SOJOURNER · Post by **SOJOURNER** » Tue Feb 07, 2006 9:54 am

The Bible teaches that a person is characterized as a "living being" (Gen 2:7) with a transcendent component called spirit or soul. The spirit is the part that lives on after the body dies. Also according to the Bible, the body without the spirit is dead (James 2:26). It is therefore reasonable that once we are physically alive we are also a living soul.

Would a clone, then, have a soul? The answer is yes. Unquestionably, a child created by any means, whether natural or artificial, is still completely human. For example, would anyone hold that a child conceived by in vitro fertilization is deprived of a soul?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Feb 07, 2006 10:16 am

Okie wrote: Then why is it that our government here is pushing marriage so much. and trying to stop marriages that cannot produce children as in gay marriage. and why does our government try to stop birth control pills and abortion and condoms. Bush went to Africa and told them not to use condoms. a place where AIDs is rampant. He lives in a dream world if he thinks he can tell young kids with raging hormones to just say no to sex.
That's dispicable! I searched quickly but couldn't find it. Where'd you find it? I mean it's one thing to be against infanticide, but to encourage them to not use condoms?!?

But I don't want to go off half-cocked & unarmed, so if you could give me the link, I'd really appreciate it.

Okie · Post by **Okie** » Tue Feb 07, 2006 10:25 am

Accountable wrote: That's dispicable! I searched quickly but couldn't find it. Where'd you find it? I mean it's one thing to be against infanticide, but to encourage them to not use condoms?!?

But I don't want to go off half-cocked & unarmed, so if you could give me the link, I'd really appreciate it.
Read this article and go down far enough to read about African nations. Bush wanted them to stop giving them condoms but the took it even further and went around taking back those they had already given out.

http://hrw.org/backgrounder/hivaids/condoms1204/2.htm

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Feb 07, 2006 11:00 am

Okie wrote: Read this article and go down far enough to read about African nations. Bush wanted them to stop giving them condoms but the took it even further and went around taking back those they had already given out.

http://hrw.org/backgrounder/hivaids/condoms1204/2.htm
I'll be darned. You're right.

I find it odd that HRW would be concerned about it. I wonder how condom use fits into human rights abuse. That's what they say they're about:

Human Rights Watch is dedicated to protecting the human rights of people around the world.

We stand with victims and activists to prevent discrimination, to uphold political freedom, to protect people from inhumane conduct in wartime, and to bring offenders to justice.

We investigate and expose human rights violations and hold abusers accountable.

We challenge governments and those who hold power to end abusive practices and respect international human rights law.

We enlist the public and the international community to support the cause of human rights for all.

Human Rights Watch is an independent, nongovernmental organization, supported by contributions from private individuals and foundations worldwide. It accepts no government funds, directly or indirectly.

This is the primary reason I say that gov't shouldn't be involved in charity, and shouldn't be expected to be our moral authority. All charities should accept not government funds, directly or indirectly.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Feb 07, 2006 11:02 am

Sorry about the yelling at the last. I tried to change the font/bold, but couldn't.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Feb 07, 2006 12:34 pm

Far Rider wrote: The human is uncloneable.Yeh, and the heart holds the soul.

I'm keeping this one. I figure I can pull it out of the mothballs before Sixyearsleft has left.

Okie · Post by **Okie** » Tue Feb 07, 2006 1:08 pm

Accountable wrote: I'll be darned. You're right.

I find it odd that HRW would be concerned about it. I wonder how condom use fits into human rights abuse. That's what they say they're about:

This is the primary reason I say that gov't shouldn't be involved in charity, and shouldn't be expected to be our moral authority. All charities should accept not government funds, directly or indirectly.
Yep. Abstinence just isnt gonna happen. and we stipulated that 33% of the money we give for the AIDs prevention program must be spent on abstinence only programs. I suppose its like the bus stop benches I see has abstinence only signs on them. And they want to teach that in schools too. Maybe they are already. And abstiince until married rings. I think that is such a waste of funds. And with AIDs so widespread its a shame we are wasting money on this.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Feb 07, 2006 2:52 pm

Okie wrote: Yep. Abstinence just isnt gonna happen. and we stipulated that 33% of the money we give for the AIDs prevention program must be spent on abstinence only programs. I suppose its like the bus stop benches I see has abstinence only signs on them. And they want to teach that in schools too. Maybe they are already. And abstiince until married rings. I think that is such a waste of funds. And with AIDs so widespread its a shame we are wasting money on this.
I think we are wasting money on charity, full stop. It's not the role of gov't. That's the role of charities ... and churches. Whatever happened to separation of church & state?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Feb 07, 2006 2:53 pm

Far Rider wrote: Left the planet? or just not here on FG?:sneaky:
You'll have to ask Six about that. :p

Okie · Post by **Okie** » Tue Feb 07, 2006 3:35 pm

Accountable wrote: I think we are wasting money on charity, full stop. It's not the role of gov't. That's the role of charities ... and churches. Whatever happened to separation of church & state?

The line is getting blurred. Part of Bushs campain was he wanted to give money to Faith Based Charities. And he is. And the people he is appointing to the Supreme Court are gonna give favor to church laws. I am speaking about the birth control thing for one. The Catholic church does not believe in any birth control except rythym method. And they carry a lot of votes. So anyone for birth control or abortion is going against the Catholic Church. But abortion is not just objected to by the Catholics, its objected to by many protestants.

Just after Katrina hit FEMA sent a lot of house trailers down to the gulf. People are using them now but Jerry Falwell asked if the chruches can just have them after they get housing built for these people I fell these were bought with tax payers money and should be sold at auction if thye are not needed. Some people do not believe in the Protestant way and some do not believe in God at all so why should their tax dollars go to the protestant church.

And the schools are being asked to teach Intelligent Design which is almost the same as saying God created it. That is not science. Its called Faith. But they are wanting it taught as science.

I saw Jerry Falwell on tv a few weeks ago and he was on a talk show and he actually was embarassing some standup comedian. Not sure who it was not but seems it was Dennis Miller. He was making off color remarks and he even mastubated the microphone. He is the same guy who made such a stink about Tinky Winky being gay. How can a puppet be gay?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Feb 07, 2006 4:08 pm

Okie wrote: The line is getting blurred. Part of Bushs campain was he wanted to give money to Faith Based Charities. And he is.

That's our job, not gov't.

And the people he is appointing to the Supreme Court are gonna give favor to church laws.

No such thing.

I am speaking about the birth control thing for one. The Catholic church does not believe in any birth control except rythym method. And they carry a lot of votes. So anyone for birth control or abortion is going against the Catholic Church. But abortion is not just objected to by the Catholics, its objected to by many protestants. That's a pretty good stretch, imo.

Just after Katrina hit FEMA sent a lot of house trailers down to the gulf. People are using them now but Jerry Falwell asked if the chruches can just have them after they get housing built for these people I fell these were bought with tax payers money and should be sold at auction if thye are not needed. I agree 100%

Some people do not believe in the Protestant way and some do not believe in God at all so why should their tax dollars go to the protestant church. Or any other charity, or any other nation? I agree. Give me back my money and I'll decide which charities and churches to give it to.

And the schools are being asked to teach Intelligent Design which is almost the same as saying God created it. That is not science. Its called Faith. But they are wanting it taught as science. I disagree, but that's a whole nuther thread in here somewhere.

I saw Jerry Falwell on tv a few weeks ago and he was on a talk show and he actually was embarassing some standup comedian. Not sure who it was not but seems it was Dennis Miller. He was making off color remarks and he even mastubated the microphone. He is the same guy who made such a stink about Tinky Winky being gay. How can a puppet be gay? I can't speak to this last part. Not sure I can get rid of the visual now. :-5

...

Alfred · Post by **Alfred** » Sat Mar 04, 2006 3:57 am

L4DD13 wrote: Is there any proof that humans have a soul?

no there isn't, hence its a matter of faith and not science.

if a clone is an exact replica of DNA then whatever made the origional human an individual will be there in the clone, at least naturally who knows what the nurturing proccess can do.

so if a clone is exactly the same as the origional human and has a soul then that would mean that whatever the religions define as a soul would be a genetic or biological component. then it becomes a matter of science.

until that far off day...who knows.

the truth is out there peoples.

weeder · Post by **weeder** » Sat Mar 04, 2006 4:54 am

The concept of cloneing humans is too horrifying for me to contemplate. I guess it will happen , the very same way we propagate plants. From cuttings, or tissue cultures. No one can tell the cutting plants from the host plant. They are weak and require daily care to get them going. The ones who survive, are fine. If a genetic study was done on the cuttings... I wonder if we would find they were lacking something. I guess we would only know that the cloned humans didnt have a soul once they started to exhibit psychotic behavior. Then it will be too late. How would we get rid of them?

Alfred · Post by **Alfred** » Sat Mar 04, 2006 7:48 pm

what makes you think that any being without a soul would exhibit psychotic behaviour?

but if they did exhibit psychotic behaviour they would be terminated just like many other criminals with souls are.

weeder · Post by **weeder** » Sat Mar 04, 2006 8:11 pm

Thats exactly what I was afraid some one would say..