|
|
 |
|
Clones are their own soul, just like you.
They are no more soul-less than say identical twins. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Clones have souls of their own. They may have the same DNA and same everything to the genetic
template but they have an individuality all of their own and are completely different in this sense.
You wouldn't say identical twins are soulless - that's natures way of cloning. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
No clones are not soulless.
Technically you are recreating what already exists, which might i point out to unintellectual human
beings on the opposite side, has a soul.
If you make a clone animal it needs to live.to live it needs a brain. With a brain it can love. It
can make memories. It someone hits it, next time it sees that person it'll run away.
With its brain it can remember which animals are they're "family" so they can love them.
Doing so, that proves the clones are most definitely not soulless. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
In fact, you owe me respect. A human will be exactly the same as us if it is a test tube baby.
It's the same logic, as a sperm fertilises an egg and a baby is born, with a conscience and a mind
of its own, just like us. Hence, the metaphor otherwise known as a soul, is present. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
As a scientist I suppose I would look at the soul as a metaphor for consciousness. All data,
empirical data on the subject suggests that test tube babies and cloned animals have the same level
of understanding and perception of self as any other animal of their species. So to convert the
metaphor back they have as much soul as anyone does.
On a different tack, I’m curious since you consider these acts unnatural and against god, does
that mean that a child of rape or even perhaps of an unwed mother is that child bereft of soul as
well? What about surrogate moms, does that qualify as the sin of hubris? |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
It's impossible for a living being to have no soul. But I disagree with cloning and test tubing too. |
| |
 Mark  12 Jun 2008 23:26
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Let us look at Frankenstein. According to them, God is a creator, making the creator of
Frankenstein God. So if God gave us souls, and the creator of the monster Frankenstein is a God
like character, Than it stands to reason that clones (creations) have souls.
Further more, the real God is the giver and taker of life. If he doesn't want the clones to work,
than they won't live. This question is delving into deeper questions that lead to many different
questions. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
No such thing as a soul, therefore it's an irrelevant question. Of course, since *EVERYTHING* is
soulless, I suppose technically it may be true, but in the context in which it was asked, rational
people have to come down against it. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
First prove souls exist. You can't. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
It's actually an interesting debate. I believe that since it is life, and human life if it is a
clone then i believe it would have a soul too. I don't think that the particular way in which a
human is made matters so much as the existence. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
There is no way to tell if a clone would or would not have a soul. It has never happened yet. I
think cloning is wrong for other reasons, but on this one I am totally against you. Nobody could
know if clones have souls or not. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
What a horrific viewpoint to take. I'm assuming that you're an uneducated christian. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
So since test tube babies can think like any other human, have morals like any other human, and
worship like any other human we assume that they must not be the same as you are since they weren't
a nature birth? |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I think personally a soul is the presence of the greater being inside us all. That being said, I
don't think the great spirit would deny anything, clone/test tube or no, a soul. The presence of a
soul is in and for everyone. Besides, during the Middle Ages, people thought women didn't have souls
either, so it's really a matter of personal opinion and interpretation. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
They are genetically duplicated animals. That's all. The soul is kind of a religious/spiritual
thing, and therefore can't be cloned, as it's not physically a part of the genetic makeup.
So... Yeah. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Every living this has a soul, just because man cloned something doesnt take away the sanctity of its
live. Even rocks have souls. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Clones are not soulless unless you think that the soul is linked to our DNA. IF that is true, which
of the identical twins does not have a soul since they both have the same genetics? |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Since a "soul" is in essence undefinable it is impossible to truly debate. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I perhaps see where you are coming from, but this cannot be the case at all. A 'soul', if it exists
at all, is a completely different entity to our genetic makeup.
There's no reason as to why this should be any different in the case of animals. The existence of a
soul should not be determined by the genetic information of an organism.
Indeed, if this was the case, it would possibly mean identical twins - who have identical genetic
information, and are, therefore, essentially 'clones' of one another - also possess no souls; for
every individual, except identical twins, to possess a soul would, of course, be ridiculous. |
| |
jsh4 19 Feb 2008 22:59
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I do not agree to the point. This topic will arise many arguments. Every human being has the soul so
the clones. If we consider the topic to be true, it means that the test tube babies are soulless.
But according to our real life survey we see that test tube babies are proved to be equally
potential to the normal babies. Although there is no such logical clue in support of the existence
of soul, but there is soul what every human being can realize. If a normal baby could feel the
presence of soul, a test tube baby also feels the same. This belief upon soul normally depends on
one’s religious view. So what I feel that God is the creator of every human being, be it a test
tube baby or a normal baby. And God does not forget to put the soul in anyone’s body. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
So what this argument is basically saying is that if a test tube baby has no soul does that mean you
agree with abortion? Because abortion to the christian faith is wrong
The Didache, an important Christian document from the first Christian century, states simply:
`You shall not kill the foetus by abortion, or destroy the infant already born.' |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Their real, but it pretty much depends on your overall religious stand point. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
No way! |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
No, I'm sorry I don't agree with this at all. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
If an animal does not have a soul, it is not alive. I believe that all animals have a soul
regardless of how they were conceived or born. I also believe the same thing for test tube babies.
Every living, breathing person and animal has a soul. The soul only leaves the body upon death. The
soul does not care how the body was conceived. Clones and test tube babies are gifts from God just
like every other human being or animal is. God is the grand creator of every life. So even though
the life started in a test tube or as a clone, I believe that God still created it. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Scientists (as a general) don't believe in souls. Not even in human souls, set aside the question of
the souls of clones. Your argument has no basis in science. From a religious perspective, there is
no scripture available today that speaks about human cloning. So whatever we say would be
conjecture, until science discovers the secret of the soul. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
That's a really sad thing to say.
All animals have a soul, human or otherwise.
A creature or a baby have no say in how they come into the world and to say they are soulless,
seems to me to lack soul.
How can any one be so blase about this?
It's a world full of soul out their. Luckily the majority of people are good an | | |
