Ramifications of Cloning

[ScottP]

First of all I am new to this board and I joined today for the specific purpose of posting this message. I am a believer and have accepted Christ as my savior. As a believer I feel that God allows believers to come to certain conclusions as he sees fit.

What I have to say may just be my opinion but it is something that I have had in my mind for a while and seem to keep coming back to and I feel compelled to talk about it. This may be God speaking to me telling me to tell others or may be something I just can't let go of...you be the judge.

I have been reading the Left Behind series of books and I am now in the 7th book "The Indwelling" which may also be affecting my thoughts on this subject. Combine this with all the latest news on cloning and you may see where I am coming from.

I have come to the belief that the Beast spoken of in the book Revelation will be a human clone. Why? Think about it. A clone is not a God made person but a man-made person. This likely means they will have no soul and thus no conscience. This means that a clone could be a great deceiver and have no remorse for what he is doing. During the time of the indwelling what would be easier to control? A body with or without a conscience?

Also take the following scripture from Revelation 13, chap. 16-18:

16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.

God's creatures are not numbered but man's creations are...serial numbers. If they serial number their clones and name them numbers then the beast will be number 666.

I have also read news stories that claim at least 3 women are currently pregnant with cloned human embryos though hard evidence of this has not been provided. If I am right I guess we have about 40 - 50 years or so until the tribulations begin. Unless of course they also develop a way to accelerate growth.

Why do I tell you this I do not know other than I felt compelled to. I would like to know what others think of this and welcome any comments or criticisms.

Scott

 

[seebs]

I have no idea why a clone would have any less of a soul than a twin, or a test-tube baby. There's nothing magical about genetics. Twins are clones.

 

[ScottP]

Identical twins are not clones. They are two halves of the same egg. Even still they are fertilized by two different sperm and thus have different DNA, it may be close DNA but not identical. Further still they are natural and not "man made" and would not be numbered as a clone might be.

Test-tube babies are still un-altered embryos. Their DNA is created naturally. A clone is man altered DNA.

They (scientists) are working on methods of "growth acceleration" which could lead to a clone being an adult in just a few years. If they perfect this and start growing them completely in labs and not in wombs it could very well end up this way.


Scott

 

[Kristen]

WELCOME ScottP

I have moved your thread to the Science, Creation & Evolution Forum as it would be better suited there.

 

[mac_philo]

It's premature to comment on the rest of this argument before you convince us all that your first premise is true:
'A clone is a man-made, not god made, baby.'

This must be argued for. In both instances, human behavior creates a new organism. You've simply decreed that this difference exists. Saying that the 'clone' has no soul is illegal, too--you're begging the question that the clone is somehow different.

Why is a clone radically different from a standard human? The human behavior that brings about the 'normal' human is 'natural,' right? Sexual reproduction?

I can't think of any other real difference, and that isn't strong enough. Identical twins approximate the level of identicalness between a clone and a doner, so we already have a 'natural' equivalent. Taking sexual reproduction out of the equation is not so radical.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by ScottP
Identical twins are not clones. They are two halves of the same egg. Even still they are fertilized by two different sperm and thus have different DNA, it may be close DNA but not identical. Further still they are natural and not "man made" and would not be numbered as a clone might be.

Uh, no. Identical twins are *EXACTLY* the same DNA. They are what happens when, right after the first cell division, the two cells separate. Identical twins are, in fact, a kind of clone. "Clone" is a word with a precise, technical, meaning in biology, and identical twins are an example of that meaning.

A clone is not "altered" DNA in any way; it is *EXACTLY* the same DNA as the original; that's why it's called a clone.

I don't buy the "man-made" thing; what exactly is it to say that a given baby is or isn't "man-made"? If we take an egg, and a sperm, and put them together, we've "made" the resulting zygote - whether or not we did it in a test tube.

I think your view is dangerous, because it implies that we could have humans that some would deny have souls. Denying that people have souls is a dangerous business.

 

[ScottP]

Seebs,

You do make very valid points. It maybe that the initial womb grown clones do indeed have souls as they will still be born of women in hospitals as are other children and also have normal names.

Scientists are in fact also working on two other possibilities. One is "growth accelerated" clones. This is where they want to clone an adult and rapidly grow that clone to be the same age as the original. The other is the ability to grow them completely in labs in incubator type things. This would be as far from natural as one can get.

This type of clone will more than likely end up being used for military purposes as an expendable soldier and for "polititian replacements". Since they are grown completely in labs will also likely initialy have numbers for names.

Other than this possibility I can't see a person ever having a number for a name.

Scott

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by ScottP
Seebs,

You do make very valid points. It maybe that the initial womb grown clones do indeed have souls as they will still be born of women in hospitals as are other children and also have normal names.

Scientists are in fact also working on two other possibilities. One is "growth accelerated" clones. This is where they want to clone an adult and rapidly grow that clone to be the same age as the original. The other is the ability to grow them completely in labs in incubator type things. This would be as far from natural as one can get.

This type of clone will more than likely end up being used for military purposes as an expendable soldier and for "polititian replacements". Since they are grown completely in labs will also likely initialy have numbers for names.

Other than this possibility I can't see a person ever having a number for a name.

Ever watch _The Prisoner_?

To the best of my knowledge, "growth-accelerated" clones are, for now, pure science fiction.

That said... The best possible response, I think, from a Christian perspective, would be, if we ever have such people, to treat them as full-fledged humans, with souls, and the capacity for salvation. One of the primary justifications that allowed slavery to continue was the belief that blacks were "less human" than whites.

If the Christians of the world treat all humans alike, whether they were born through sex or experiments, we will be much less likely to see them thought of as "expendable", or as "replacements" for the people they are clones of.

I think, thus, the best thing to do is assume that God, in His wisdom and compassion, will bless all humans with souls, however they come to be, and treat them accordingly.

I can think of no better way to make an inhuman monster than to treat an apparently-human life form as though it were not a person.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Other than this possibility I can't see a person ever having a number for a name.

You obviously never saw the Prisoner on BBC or its re-runs on American Public Television.

"Who's in charge?
Number 2
Who's number 1?
You are number 6.
I am not a number! I am a free man!"

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by seebs

Ever watch _The Prisoner_?

Dang it! you beat me to it!

 

[ScottP]

Unfortunatly I missed it, "The Prisioner" that is. I'm not saying that we should treat them differently or make them feel inferior. I do think that the military might consider something that they made as expendable. I'm saying that if a clone suddenly rises to power and unites all the governments as one then be ready to be raptured.

Scott

 

[seebs]

Fair enough. Still, I don't think I'd particularly care whether it was a clone or not; I'd be pretty nervous anyway.

 

[chickenman]

some people have been watching too much science fiction, I can only assume you've seen "attack of the clones" - growth accelerated clones for military purposes is pure science fiction. A clone is fundamentally no different to an identical twin, so if identical twins have souls, clones have souls. I am an atheist, and I am very much against reproductive cloning, mostly because I fear for the quality of life of a cloned human being. The people who want to do the cloning are invariably doing it for selfish reasons (this includes widows who want to clone their husbands and raise them, its just sick), and a consideration of the clones well being doesn't seem to come into it.

 

[No gods]

Originally posted by ScottP
Identical twins are not clones. They are two halves of the same egg. Even still they are fertilized by two different sperm and thus have different DNA, it may be close DNA but not identical. Further still they are natural and not "man made" and would not be numbered as a clone might be.

I have to ask: Where do you get your information? This is so wrong it is laughable! Identical twins are have identical DNA. ONE egg is fertilized by ONE sperm. The resulting ONE fertilized egg then splits into TWO separate zygotes which then begin to divide over and over again to form a fetus. Each of these fetus' have EXACTLY the same DNA.

Test-tube babies are still un-altered embryos. Their DNA is created naturally. A clone is man altered DNA.

So what are test tube babies that have received "gene therapy" to correct a hereditary genetic defect? Altered and unnatural by your definition. Actually, a "natural" conception is the MOST altered of all DNA unions to form a human. The 46 pairs of chromosomes from each parent split in two. One of each pair joins with one of each pair from the other parent. 50% Altered!

A clone, however, is an exact copy of someone's DNA without being altered in any way!

They (scientists) are working on methods of "growth acceleration" which could lead to a clone being an adult in just a few years. If they perfect this and start growing them completely in labs and not in wombs it could very well end up this way.

Hmmm... did you go to see the new Star Wars movie or something?

Growth acceleration and incubated human clones are, at this point in time, science fiction.

You know, there were rumors that some crazy scientists were trying to clone some dangerous, extinct animals by combining their fragments of DNA with frog DNA. I wonder what ever happened to those scientists.....

 

[ScottP]

Everyone is mentioning the StarWars movie, and yes I have seen it but that is not what spawned this thought. It started with a news story about the first successful clone of a cat. Then I saw that there are claims that at least 3 women are CURRENTLY pregnant with clone embryos. See here:
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/SciTech/reuters20020423_558.html

Now for the "growth acceleration": It can already be done with perch: See Here and "MetaMorphix believes that it can accelerate growth rates in certain species by about 12 percent" See Here

If they can do it with animals it's only a matter of time before they can do it with people. Incubation is just the next logical step.

As far as Science Fiction goes I seem to have read somewhere that people once thought the world was round and that flying was impossible not to mention space travel..

Scott

 

[mac_philo]

Well, now you've changed the topic to things we probably all agree on. What you've just said isn't evidence for the (bizarre) assertion that clones are soulless harbingers of the apocalypse.

Whether or not we think it is logical that cloning and growth acceleration will be used on human donors is completely removed from that bigger, weirder issue.

 

[unworthyone]

De'ja'vu (Is that right?)

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by No gods I have to ask: Where do you get your information? This is so wrong it is laughable! Identical twins are have identical DNA. ONE egg is fertilized by ONE sperm. The resulting ONE fertilized egg then splits into TWO separate zygotes which then begin to divide over and over again to form a fetus. Each of these fetus' have EXACTLY the same DNA.

So? It's still not the same thing as cloning.

When you clone a creature, you take DNA from a relatively mature (or even very mature) creature and insert it into an egg. The fact that the DNA is taken from a mature creature causes all sorts of problems because that DNA is not in the starting state as it needs to be for proper embryonic development. That's at least one reason why clones go bahooties after a while.

None of this has to do with a "soul", but you are gravely mistaken if you believe that identical twins are the same thing as cloning.

 

[chickenman]

ntpeterly is actually right (as much as it pains me to say it) the DNA is from older cells, possibly with shorter telomeres, and it can also be damaged. Its not exactly the same, but for the argument about souls, if identical twins have souls, then so do clones

 

[Oliver]

Originally posted by unworthyone
De'ja'vu (Is that right?)

If you meant "is the spelling right", then "déjà vu" would be better, but I'm not sure you can do it (or at list how) with an american keyboard