It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.



page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 30 2002 @ 09:23 PM
Realizing this would certainly have to be moved to this forum anyway, I put it here to begin with.

What do you guys think?

posted on Nov, 30 2002 @ 09:42 PM
the words " world", "brave" and "new" spring to mind.
And, perhaps, the feeling that "progress", technically, is rapidly undermining all attempts at coherent morality: how do "right", "wrong","good", 'bad" have a chance in the face of such "advances"?

posted on Nov, 30 2002 @ 11:08 PM
The words "fraud", "false hope for desperate couples", "raking in tons of money" were the ones that came to me. I realize that I'm a skeptical beast, but this doctor had made many claims in the past -- claims that I'm not sure have been substantiated (enabling a 60-plus year old woman to become pregnant was one of them. Who in their right mind would DO such a thing (I'm thinking of the bone loss from pregnancy compounded on osteoporosis and a number of other health problems.)

I can't say he's a fraud, because I haven't researched his background and I'm not sure the medical establishment has passed judgement. But there's something Darn Fishy about this.

posted on Dec, 1 2002 @ 09:46 AM
Hmm...if this clone is produced...what does this mean for the soul? Does the baby get the same soul as the adult version of herself? Or does she get anentirley new soul? If it's a new soul...where does it come from? Did it exist prior to the baby, or does god make a new one?

This clone is a very important point in human history...go for it!

posted on Dec, 1 2002 @ 10:02 AM

It took longer than I thought it would to get to that point, JamesG. Thanks.

posted on Dec, 1 2002 @ 12:22 PM
sorry...been playing everquest

posted on Dec, 1 2002 @ 12:39 PM

If we are able to clone a sentient, functioning, compasionate person... does it imply there is no such thing as a soul?

posted on Dec, 1 2002 @ 02:45 PM
Who's to say this clone won't work? We've gotton better at it now...

Why does the soul come into question with clones? Easy... A clone is a near replica of an individual with 1% difference comming from the egg donor... Since this is a replica of someone....what happens to the soul?

posted on Dec, 1 2002 @ 03:55 PM
If the environment you live is different you have your own life, as well do you have your own soul.

Experiences are experiences, that you would react to the same under different conditions but never experienced those conditions. Does not mean that by experiencing those condition are you the same from an original (which never had the same experiences). That you are not the same makes you an individual, the rest
is truthfully irrelevant.

posted on Dec, 1 2002 @ 05:06 PM
Toltec has it right...

IMO the soul isn't tied to the body or the dna. In fact, it doesn't have anything to do with the body besides inhabit it...

So a clone would be a different person with a different soul. Like a twin, like I said before...

posted on Dec, 1 2002 @ 05:17 PM
Agreed, Bandit, and that is the religious aspect of the question. If a clone is a replica of another instead of a naturally occuring baby, would God (running with the assumption of His existence) provide a soul, or would it be soul-less. If it is without a sould, what would be the repercussions? Would it be an asocial animal that appears human, may even function as one, or what?

If one assumes there is no God to begin with, I suppose the soul aspect is moot and no need for debate or speculation.

Also, is the attempt to clone humans immoral? If so, why? Is that trying to play God, or is it a viable method of cultivating organs for those in need?

posted on Dec, 1 2002 @ 05:32 PM
Weird... TC and I agreeing on something...

posted on Dec, 1 2002 @ 05:44 PM
How could you prove or disprove if it did/didn't have a soul?

Frankly, I think that's a dangerous (and, speaking as a parent, a "mean-spirited") call. The reaction of the public in general could turn a normal little baby into a sociopath.

Imagine yourself, born from an artificial process, labeled as "lacking a soul" by everyone around you. Just think how you'd feel and what you'd grow up to be if people passing on the street spit at you (even as a baby or toddler) and screamed and threw things. If you, as a teenager, got hate notes from strangers about being a "soulless monster."

Abraham Lincoln said, "If you look for the bad in people expecting to find it, you surely will. " (sources say this quote was made up for the script of the movie, "Pollyana." However, it's pretty good wisdom.)

This exact same debate came up for the first "in-vitro fertilization." Very religious people declared that babies born by this method would be soul-less... which is part of the reason that doctors didn't reveal who they were or where they were. The amount of harrassment that these children might have gotten would turn even the best-tempered baby into a nasty, psychopathic monster.

You don't even know the signs of when something does or doesn't have a soul. How can you pass judgement on a baby when you don't even have a definition of what it is you're judging?

(p.s. For the record, I think the doc is not telling the truth.)

posted on Dec, 1 2002 @ 06:50 PM
You appear to be asking these question from a standpoint of righteous defense, and I assure you, there is no attack going on here. You've beome the one to judge, and misjudge at that, as we are asking questions, looking for opinions and thoughts of others to see what is the best angle.

Your question of how would one tell if the child had a soul or not is a very good question. If it indeed were soulless, would it be aware of tauntings anymore than a dog or cow? How would it respond or react to its surroundings? Without the soul, how would it know right from wrong? Or would it simply have nothing needing saving, nothing for good and evil to vie over?

[Edited on 2-12-2002 by Thomas Crowne]

posted on Dec, 1 2002 @ 07:10 PM
Essentially TC consciousness which has the freedom of will has a soul. Although we could always weigh them at there time of death.

posted on Dec, 1 2002 @ 08:14 PM
nah it has no soul only the original person does. God didn;t make clones

posted on Dec, 1 2002 @ 08:34 PM
God made the Universe the clone is part of Gods creation.

posted on Dec, 1 2002 @ 08:50 PM
but is it his will??

posted on Dec, 1 2002 @ 08:53 PM
Sin, misery and death were not part of God's creation but are the result of rebellion against Him. The atom is God's creation, the atom bomb, I dare say, is not. All that is done by man is not done with God's blessing or approval.
I fear that line of reasoning holds little water. But at least we do have lines of reasoning going! We'll get to the bottom of this before the clone is here.

[Edited on 2-12-2002 by Thomas Crowne]

posted on Dec, 1 2002 @ 09:06 PM
I would say that God created much smaller components of life TC than the atom.

If a conscious thinking being cannot experience reality as an individual then it does not have free will. So if Junior looks at a painting which its host did at the same age and repeats verbatim what the host said. As well as reacts in exactly the same way to every stimulus the host is exposed to (I mean exactly) then we have a problem. Otherwise he is an individual. Also like I said, we can always hide a scale on his or her death bed and see if they loose any weight, then we can talk about the will of God intelligently (a signed release would be better especially if they make any decisions which point to independent thinking).

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in