I dont want to hear from anyone who doesn't think we have souls. I am trying to have a serious spiritual discussion. If clones are without souls, we have a whole new market for organs, and blood, and stemcells. We may even be able to transplant a brain into the clone of your body if your body is too damaged. But then would your soul move too?
2007-04-06 03:05:48 · 22 answers · asked by tlcbaotou 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
God says he knew you before you where "born"
i personally don't know but i would think that since god knows of you before you are "born" that who ever has life has a soul
including those that could be "cloned".
2007-04-06 03:16:28 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Don't believe in this sci-fi-stuff. Cloning someone is nothing else but a twin brother to him (might not look even the same, the clone calf had different markings than her 'sister/mother'). They have the same genetic material, but that's what twins have, too. They will be totally different people, because they will have a different life and are younger, of course, because they are born naturally in a whomb. There are so many babies made in vitro today, if they have souls, then a clone has one too.
2007-04-06 03:13:24 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is no such thing as a soul. What you suggest is abominable. To create another human being for the express purpose of harvesting parts is disgusting. If you want to make yourself feel better by believing that they don't have 'souls' I'd say you have a problem. It seems your superstition has made you morally maladjusted.
Why would we clone an entire human being to harvest a liver when we could just use stem cells (embryonic or otherwise) to grow liver cells to repair a damaged liver? The idea of a brain transplant is just silly. Why would you transplant a brain into another body when you could use the same research to simply repair the damaged body?
2007-04-06 03:17:48 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Your question illustrates that it is believers in souls who are the dangerous ones, not the non-believers.
People are people, clones or not, and clones would be entitled to all the rights and respect that naturally born, un-cloned persons have, whether they have souls or not. People have these rights and dignities today irrespective of the soul question, and are accorded them even by people who don't believe in souls.
Insisting that a person is not a person if they don't have this soul and are therefore fair games for being killed for their organs is a very un-spiritual, criminal, and evil mentality.
It would be the people who don't believe in souls that would be more "spiritual" and less evil minded.
2007-04-06 03:17:20 · answer #4 · answered by sonyack 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
That is a question I have been thinking about as well. I don't think that clones would have souls. That is scary. How would we tell them from real people with souls? We would have to mark them in some way. And then come up with laws regarding clones' rights (or lack of rights). Seems it would be very complicated. And then, what if I'm wrong and they actually do have souls and we've been treating them as sub-human? Maybe it would be safer to assume that clones do have souls and treat them as equals...
2007-04-06 03:10:31 · answer #5 · answered by mystery_me 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
What exactly do you think a soul is? What properties does it have? What part of 'you' resides in the soul?
If it's postulated that consciousness, or awareness, or sense of self resides in the soul, it's difficult to see how this can be reconciled with the complete oblivion which accompanies general anaesthesia. How could a straightforward chemical, injected into the bloodstream, anaesthetise a soul so that it effectively ceases to exist during this time? If consciousness, in the form of a soul, were some kind of supernatural faculty, it would seem implausible that it could be completely disabled by a chemical.
How about some of the other things which we regard as essential parts of what makes a person what they are? How about love, compassion, reason, empathy, memory, conscious thought, character, 'spirituality' and so on? Well, there is really no plausible doubt that all these things are properties of the physical brain - We can alter all of these properties very simply with alcohol or other drugs, and observe how they change in people who have suffered significant brain damage. Previously placid people become uncontrollably violent, intelligent people become imbeciles, and so on. Stimulate the brain artificially, and the subject reports corresponding mental activity, e.g. 'religious experiences'. We can see from brain research that all these things - thought, emotion, sensation, character traits and so on - are correlated with activity in the brain, and some things can be identified with specific areas of the brain.
So, if all these faculties and characteristics of what we regard as the 'person' reside in the physical brain, as seems to be undeniably the case, and they all cease when the person dies, then what is left to be attributed to a 'soul'? As far as I can ascertain: Nothing. If there is no part of us that can continue after death, then there is no 'afterlife'... and if there is no afterlife, then most of religion is null and void.
2007-04-06 03:10:30 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 2⤋
There's no such thing as a soul, so of course they wouldn't.
It's ridiculous to say that you don't want to hear the correct answer and then say that you're trying to have a serious discussion. If you don't want to hear the right answer, don't ask the question.
Look at this answer below:
"That is a question I have been thinking about as well. I don't think that clones would have souls. That is scary. How would we tell them from real people with souls?"
She's close to understanding, but not quite able to make the leap. Here it is: you can't tell a person with a soul from a person without a soul because there's no such thing as a soul, and people who believe in souls can't even agree on what it is they think they believe in.
And those below who point out that belief in souls leads to abominations are dead right.
2007-04-06 03:09:59 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
Clones would have souls. They are human beings too. Even though they would resemble another person they would be there own individual. They would have there own feeling and be able to think for themselves. They wouldnt always look exactly like the person they were cloned from because their DNA structure would be totally different from the person they were cloned from. It would be wrong to kill them even for medical reasons watch the movie the island and see how terrible it was. You couldnt do that to people because yes they have a soul and yes they have feelings.
2007-04-06 03:12:52 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
the soul is simply the blood and body of a man, it's the spirit or the energy that makes it alive, so even a clone is a soul and has a spirit
2007-04-06 03:32:31 · answer #9 · answered by Lexpressive 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No more or less than the rest of us. Clones will be the same as identical twins. Do you believe that both twins have souls? I remember hearing very similar foolish arguments 25 - 30 years ago about test tube babies.
2007-04-06 03:11:06 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋