|
|
 |
|
There's no such thing as a "soul" it's just a spiritual thought. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
We dont know. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
So if a test tube baby isn't "meant to be" then what about a baby conceived in rape? Does that
child have a soul just because it was nurtured by a womans body and not a laboratory?
BTW finsch not jumping on your coat tails just saw that post and had to comment, and since the
Vick-ster didn't address the issue of rape I believe it is worth repeating. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Give me proof of a soul...
Did Hitler have a soul? Does Charles Manson? Does George W?
Do animals? Just what is the SOUL thing you're talking about?
Could you define it for me? Could you define it without any religious references?
I'm betting your response will sound more like "free-will" than a soul. So if that is the case,
then anything that is not born from a womb is incapable of free will...incapable of deciding
anything for itself. Is that what you're saying?
So let's say you have identical twins...which one has the soul?
Identical twins is the idea source for cloning. A perfect duplicate of the original...
So, do identical twins just share 1/2 a soul each? Or is one soul-less and damned?
Do you think before you talk...or do you just hear what you say only after you say it? |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Don't think so! They are human also, as is the original. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
There is no such thing as a soul. Has anyone seen a person's soul leave their body? |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
First, define your definition of "soul." My definition of "soul" is anything living that has
emotions. Since clones are living and have emotions, I say they do have a soul. I also believe
that you gain a soul the moment you are born, and since clones are also born, they have souls in my
opinion.
What about nature's clones, twins? Don't they have a soul?
Let's also realize that cloning shouldn't be happening in the first place. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
It’s been over 2000 years its time to move on to a more educated way of thinking. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
While you make a point in which is not at libetry to pull you down but what if you really want a
baby and you can have one? Is that really a soulless creature? That is what i wish you to answer me |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Test tube babies are not souless animals. This point has no evidence and where in any religion does
it say "thou shall not create test tube babies"? |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
It's interesting how wrong you can be, and yet at the same time still manage to breathe. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I'm guessing that you are religious in some way as you've mentioned the world 'soul.' If every human
being has a soul than a clone has a soul for the plain and simple reason: A clone is an EXACT copy.
Whatever is charcteristic of the one being cloned is characteristic to that of the clone. Anyway,
why am I discussing this, there is no soul, it doesn't exist. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
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. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Sign In
For and Against Recent Activity
