Human Cloning

[AudreyGrace]

In my genetics class, we just finished studying DNA cloning, Dolly the goat, etc. The question arose regarding the morality of cloning humans. If, in the future, humans are ever cloned, would that person have a soul as we see it? I guess the bigger question is, when humans start playing God in that extreme, how does the soul manifest in the body? I can't really think of a better way to ask the question I'm trying to, so I hope you all understand what I'm trying to say. Regardless, what are your thoughts on the issue? Would they have souls and be religious beings even if they were not created by God? Or, although cloned, are they still in a sense brought to life by God?

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='AudreyGrace' timestamp='1306638388' post='2247214']
In my genetics class, we just finished studying DNA cloning, Dolly the goat, etc. The question arose regarding the morality of cloning humans. If, in the future, humans are ever cloned, would that person have a soul as we see it? I guess the bigger question is, when humans start playing God in that extreme, how does the soul manifest in the body? I can't really think of a better way to ask the question I'm trying to, so I hope you all understand what I'm trying to say. Regardless, what are your thoughts on the issue? Would they have souls and be religious beings even if they were not created by God? Or, although cloned, are they still in a sense brought to life by God?
[/quote]

Identical twins are clones...

[AudreyGrace]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1306638808' post='2247216']
Identical twins are clones...
[/quote]

twins are clones by nature, and at least from the Christian perspective, how God intended it in the womb. In the context of this issue, twins are not considered clones. I'm talking about unnatural cloning.

[Sylvanna Imbris]

I've wondered about this too...

It seems that Catholic thought on human beings is that the soul animates the body and that death is the separation of the soul from the body. So I guess it could go one of two ways; either the cloning doesn't work because God doesn't give a soul and so the cloned body cannot live, or God creates a soul for the clone and it becomes a full human person.

I'm inclined to say that God would let it happen, since cloning is in some ways similar to IVF...

just my thoughts...

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='AudreyGrace' timestamp='1306641436' post='2247231']
twins are clones by nature, and at least from the Christian perspective, how God intended it in the womb. In the context of this issue, twins are not considered clones. I'm talking about unnatural cloning.
[/quote]

Well, unnatural cloning as is when genetic material is taken from an already adult cell and replanted in another cell and womb is not exactly 'cloning' in the purest sense. Adult cells, since they're the result of numerous divisions themselves, have already accumulated errors and so the cloned result would be slightly different than it would if it had been a natural clone.

There are also all the things that might chemically interact with the developing bunch of cells in another animals's womb which also would cause it to distance itself further from the original donor.

What if somebody took naturally developing totipotent cells (which are the cells that have the potential to become any type of cell) before it started gaining any differentiate shape and split it into two or more bunches. That would replicate naturally occurring cloning. Would the results in that case have souls?

I think that it's important that you first define what a soul is. What's an example of something that doesn't have a soul and why?

Edited May 29, 2011 by xSilverPhinx

[Groo the Wanderer]

[img]http://www.rockingchicagoland.com/uploads/clones.jpg[/img]

[AudreyGrace]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1306643387' post='2247241']
Well, unnatural cloning as is when genetic material is taken from an already adult cell and replanted in another cell and womb is not exactly 'cloning' in the purest sense. Adult cells, since they're the result of numerous divisions themselves, have already accumulated errors and so the cloned result would be slightly different than it would if it had been a natural clone.

There are also all the things that might chemically interact with the developing bunch of cells in another animals's womb which also would cause it to distance itself further from the original donor.

What if somebody took naturally developing totipotent cells (which are the cells that have the potential to become any type of cell) before it started gaining any differentiate shape and split it into two or more bunches. That would replicate naturally occurring cloning. Would the results in that case have souls?

I think that it's important that you first define what a soul is. What's an example of something that doesn't have a soul and why?
[/quote]

I understand the imperfections of "cloning" as mentioned. The underlying idea of the question at hand is when scientists take it into their own hands to create a human through the cloning process. I think Sylvanna Imbris hit the spot in regards to the created being having a soul, comparing it to in vitro fertilization.

A spiritual soul: [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14153a.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14153a.htm[/url]
[size=2][font="Arial"][quote]The soul may be defined as the ultimate internal principle by which we think, feel, and will, and by which our bodies are animated...[/font][/size][size=2][font="Arial"]That our vital activities proceed from a principle capable of subsisting in itself, is the thesis of the substantiality of the soul: that this principle is not itself composite, extended, corporeal, or essentially and intrinsically dependent on the body.[/font][/size][font=Arial][size=2][/quote] [/size][/font]
[font="Arial"][size="2"]
[/size][/font]
[font="Arial"][size="2"]A can of tomato juice doesn't have a soul. It cannot think, react, will it's own decisions. It has no direct and necessary spiritual force for survival and when it's physical properties go rotten, that's it. The tomato juice will not exist forever in another realm of fruit existence. What it is physically, it is totally, and nothing more. [/size][/font]
[font=Arial][size=2]
[/size][/font]
[font=Arial][size=2]
[/size][/font]

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='AudreyGrace' timestamp='1306708945' post='2247522']
I understand the imperfections of "cloning" as mentioned. The underlying idea of the question at hand is when scientists take it into their own hands to create a human through the cloning process. I think Sylvanna Imbris hit the spot in regards to the created being having a soul, comparing it to in vitro fertilization.

A spiritual soul: [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14153a.htm"]http://www.newadvent...then/14153a.htm[/url]

[font="Arial"][size="2"]A can of tomato juice doesn't have a soul. It cannot think, react, will it's own decisions. It has no direct and necessary spiritual force for survival and when it's physical properties go rotten, that's it. The tomato juice will not exist forever in another realm of fruit existence. What it is physically, it is totally, and nothing more. [/size][/font][/quote]

Okay, thanks for a definition, it was more or less what I thought people referred to when they speak of a [i]soul[/i] in the [i]spiritual[/i] sense, sort of a form of consciousness that either does live on after the body dies (theism and other supernaturalisms) or ceases to exist when the body dies. Though the word "soul" is rarely used in the second sense because it lacks those supernatural connotations.
[size="2"] [/size]
Yeah, I think the comparison Sylvanna Imbrismade is valid, because after all a person is a person, whether conceived naturally or not. There are other ethical issues involved, though and I now seriously wonder how a person cloned in a lab would fare in a hypothetical society because of all these questions surrounding it...

[stevil]

Theolically speaking, it would start getting real interesting once human DNA is spliced together with animal DNA. We might get talking pets, or people as strong as an Ox.

I'm guessing that non human animals don't have souls, so that scenario might get one confussed.

[MithLuin]

I'm probably going to get this wrong, but it is my understanding that animals do have a natural soul (animus, perhaps?) whereas humans have a supernatural soul (ie, one that would survive death). I'm more than a bit hazy on the details, though, so I will stand corrected if I've totally botched this.

Part of the reason I'm so confused is because of the translation issues surrounding the idea of soul/spirit.

Humans have souls, regardless of how that person came to be. If they didn't, they'd be dead, so....yeah.

The real issue with 'cloning' - as in Dolly the sheep and similar experiments - is that you are taking an adult cell and forcing it to become an embryo again, so introducing all sorts of aging/disease issues into the newly created 'clone'. That's one thing if you're trying to breed farm animals, but when you do that to a human being, the ethical issues go through the roof. There are reasons no one is funding that research. ... yet.

[img]http://sethspopcorn.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/CloneTrooper.jpg[/img]

(This is, incidentally, the basic approach taken by the Cloners in Star Wars - they begin with an adult Jengo Fett and then make a bunch of new humans from that starting material.)

[FutureSister2009]

I will admit that I do wish cloning existed at times but I know it's against our Catholic belief. But there are certain people I do wish I could clone though.

[Amppax]

[quote name='MithLuin' timestamp='1306761926' post='2247634']
I'm probably going to get this wrong, but it is my understanding that animals do have a natural soul (animus, perhaps?) whereas humans have a supernatural soul (ie, one that would survive death). I'm more than a bit hazy on the details, though, so I will stand corrected if I've totally botched this.

Part of the reason I'm so confused is because of the translation issues surrounding the idea of soul/spirit.

Humans have souls, regardless of how that person came to be. If they didn't, they'd be dead, so....yeah.

The real issue with 'cloning' - as in Dolly the sheep and similar experiments - is that you are taking an adult cell and forcing it to become an embryo again, so introducing all sorts of aging/disease issues into the newly created 'clone'. That's one thing if you're trying to breed farm animals, but when you do that to a human being, the ethical issues go through the roof. There are reasons no one is funding that research. ... yet.

[img]http://sethspopcorn.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/CloneTrooper.jpg[/img]

(This is, incidentally, the basic approach taken by the Cloners in Star Wars - they begin with an adult Jengo Fett and then make a bunch of new humans from that starting material.)
[/quote]

This thread just got 20% cooler

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1306746578' post='2247621']
Theolically speaking, it would start getting real interesting once human DNA is spliced together with animal DNA. We might get talking pets, or people as strong as an Ox.

I'm guessing that non human animals don't have souls, so that scenario might get one confussed.
[/quote]

That is really interesting.

What do you guys feel about transgenics?

[quote name='FutureSister2009' timestamp='1306763300' post='2247636']
I will admit that I do wish cloning existed at times but I know it's against our Catholic belief. But there are certain people I do wish I could clone though.
[/quote]

What do you guys feel about cloning organs?

[Sylvanna Imbris]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1306746578' post='2247621']
Theolically speaking, it would start getting real interesting once human DNA is spliced together with animal DNA. We might get talking pets, or people as strong as an Ox.
[/quote]

Anybody know what the Catholic position is on this?
I took a biochemistry class in college and we took pieces of DNA from a bacteria and put them into a different bacteria... the DNA pieces were small, so all that happened was that the new bacteria made proteins that are usually only found in the first bacteria.

Where would you draw the line on something like this? I can see that you wouldn't want someone trying to make a hybrid between a human and some other animal, but what about making small modifications to a person? For example, if someone is lactose intolerant you could potentially give them the DNA they'd need to make the enzymes for processing lactose...but then where do you draw the line, size of the DNA piece???

I'm thinking about a situation where these modifications are made to a living person, not where a new person is created in the lab using the modified DNA

(hope I'm not hijacking your thread Audrey!)

[Amppax]

[quote name='Sylvanna Imbris' timestamp='1306784940' post='2247745']
Anybody know what the Catholic position is on this?
I took a biochemistry class in college and we took pieces of DNA from a bacteria and put them into a different bacteria... the DNA pieces were small, so all that happened was that the new bacteria made proteins that are usually only found in the first bacteria.

Where would you draw the line on something like this? I can see that you wouldn't want someone trying to make a hybrid between a human and some other animal, but what about making small modifications to a person? For example, if someone is lactose intolerant you could potentially give them the DNA they'd need to make the enzymes for processing lactose...but then where do you draw the line, size of the DNA piece???

I'm thinking about a situation where these modifications are made to a living person, not where a new person is created in the lab using the modified DNA

(hope I'm not hijacking your thread Audrey!)
[/quote]

personally i reject all science, but that is just me

[Sylvanna Imbris]

[quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1306788959' post='2247772']
personally i reject all science, but that is just me

[/quote]

What are you trying to say? I'm being serious... I enjoy science and scientists can do amazing things, yet I know that just because a scientist can do something doesn't mean they should. I love being a scientist, but my faith is more important to me. My science "skills" aren't good enough to do any of this type of research myself, but I'd like to know if it is morally OK to support others who [i]can[/i] do this type of research.
The Church does (or at least faithful theologians do) occasionally give this kind of guidance, such as with the embryonic stem cell research vs. adult stem cell research debate. I was just wondering if anyone had heard anything about cloning and DNA modification from a Catholic viewpoint.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Sylvanna Imbris' timestamp='1306784940' post='2247745']
Anybody know what the Catholic position is on this?
I took a biochemistry class in college and we took pieces of DNA from a bacteria and put them into a different bacteria... the DNA pieces were small, so all that happened was that the new bacteria made proteins that are usually only found in the first bacteria.

Where would you draw the line on something like this?[/quote]
Controlling transformation, which is a normal aspect of prokaryotic sex, is not comparable to introducing transgenes into human beings.

Genetic engineering of human beings is morally off-limits, I know that much. But I imagine there are applications that are okay. I mean, let's say you could introduce the gene for human insulin into a bacteria and develop a production method that lowers the cost of insulin for diabetics (just making this up but I'm sure there are plenty of real-life analogs to this). We're just talking about bits of information, we aren't talking about human beings. Right?

[Amppax]

[quote name='Sylvanna Imbris' timestamp='1306796906' post='2247821']
What are you trying to say? I'm being serious... I enjoy science and scientists can do amazing things, yet I know that just because a scientist can do something doesn't mean they should. I love being a scientist, but my faith is more important to me. My science "skills" aren't good enough to do any of this type of research myself, but I'd like to know if it is morally OK to support others who [i]can[/i] do this type of research.
The Church does (or at least faithful theologians do) occasionally give this kind of guidance, such as with the embryonic stem cell research vs. adult stem cell research debate. I was just wondering if anyone had heard anything about cloning and DNA modification from a Catholic viewpoint.
[/quote]

I'm just being a smart arse... I'm avoid studying all things mathematical and scientific if I can But on cloning and DNA modification, my first thought would be that it would be condemned, as IVF (aka test tube babies). I'm almost positive that it is not allowable, I could be wrong however. Here is an excerpt from a website ( church teachings on controversial topics) about cloning from a Catholic view:

[quote][b]Human Cloning[/b]Human cloning is an example of a teaching that is not explicitly defined by either Church Tradition (teachings of Christ and the Apostles) or Holy Scripture. Rather, the current teachings are a matter of interpretation of Scripture’s portrayal of humans as dignified sons and daughters of God. There is not yet an explicit [i]ex cathedra[/i] declaration from the Church regarding the issue of cloning. However, that does not mean that Catholics are free to decide their moral position on the matter without consideration of the Church’s statements and encyclicals.

The ancient teaching of the Church regarding sex is that it has two primary purposes that cannot be separated without incurring grave sin. Sex is ordered for the [i]procreation of children between two married spouses[/i] and it is also intended to [i]unify husband and wife in matrimonial love (CCC 2360 and Humane Vitae, 12)[/i]. Cloning violates the marriage act by separating procreation of children from the unifying act of love between husband and wife. Additionally, cloning often involves the creation and subsequent destruction of large amounts of fertilized eggs. This is contrary to the dignity of the human person. Humans are not tools for science or a means to an end no matter how well intentioned the action (such as cloning people to create an organ donor of “spare parts”). The Church states in the encyclical letter Donum Vitae:

[i]Medical research must refrain from operations on live embryos, unless there is a moral certainty of not causing harm to the life or integrity of the unborn child and the mother, and on condition that the parents have given their free and informed consent to the procedure. It follows that all research, even when limited to the simple observation of the embryo, would become illicit were it to involve risk to the embryo's physical integrity or life by reason of the methods used or the effects induced (DV 1:4).[/i]


[i] [/i]It is probable that the Church will issue an encyclical directly addressing the morality of human cloning if the current public debate continues to rage.[/quote]


So there you go about cloning seems pretty clear that it would be forbidden.

[Amppax]

Ok now a serious response to the original debate. My thought would be that clones would have souls, as a souls is given to us by God, not our parents. Thus, the very fact of being a human being would involve a soul, meaning that clones would have souls. However I hope this is never an issue, although i'm sure it will be. To me, cloning is a little to much of a playing God thing, i'm personally really uncomfortable with the idea.

[Sylvanna Imbris]

[quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1306801231' post='2247857']
To me, cloning is a little to much of a playing God thing, i'm personally really uncomfortable with the idea.
[/quote]

I quite agree with you. Cloning takes all the moral problems involved with creating a person in the lab (similar to IVF) and adds the issues that xSilverPhinx mentioned.
I do think that what Laudate_Dominum suggested is interesting, but I wonder how far it can be taken...but that's a topic for another thread.

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1306800621' post='2247847']
I mean, let's say you could introduce the gene for human insulin into a bacteria and develop a production method that lowers the cost of insulin for diabetics (just making this up but I'm sure there are plenty of real-life analogs to this). We're just talking about bits of information, we aren't talking about human beings. Right?
[/quote]