Replies

I am talking about a clone, Godzilla. One created by scientists out of body cells.

Duh james, yet there is a common principle here - both result in a created human life.

Yet, the clone is a separate individual from the source, is it not?

Again - the analogy of the twin is still applicable since they come from the same single cell(s) that then split.

The clone needs a "new soul" to be introduced into it. Since the creation of the clone is itself a product of the whims of Man, this deity of yours (God) is thus forced to intervene and create a "new soul" for the clone.

A sperm and egg are joined in a test tube creating a new human - new life, new soul. I see nothing different here. There is no intervention, just an established process james. But then atheists don't acknowledge 'souls' now do they. All the more reason for any human clones to fear you and your kind.

I really am perplexed why you ask this. I don't know what was lost in the translation, but if it has escaped you, my way of showing why I find belief in supernatural entities to be irrational is by admitting for the sake of argument the existence of the said entity, temporarily, and then bringing about a real, undeniable absurdity that results from its characteristics.

I do this to point out the hypocrisy of your strawman because you structure it with the intent to fail. Yet I've already pointed out that there would be no inconsistencies for this clone to have a soul and spirit any more than for a twin to have a soul and spirit too. Therefore you need to clarify the foundational 'theology' you are 'representing' with your examples james.

I hope I have clarified your doubts.

Nope, only reinforced the bias attached to you challenges.

Duh James, yet there is a common principle here - both result in a created human life.

Duh, no, Godzilla. You fail to recognise the difference. Cloning involves one gamete and one body cell (somatic cell) whereas normal fertilization involves two gametes. Read, Godzilla, read!

Again - the analogy of the twin is still applicable since they come from the same single cell(s) that then split.

Not if intermediary genetic modification is performed. Then, the "clone" doesn't share the same genetics. I bring this about because this is within the realms of possibility - already done with bacteria spliced with human genes to produce human insulin.

A sperm and egg are joined in a test tube creating a new human - new life, new soul. I see nothing different here. There is no intervention, just an established process James.

Ah, no again, Godzilla. Producing a clone does not involve the fusion of a sperm and egg. Just a somatic (body) cell and a single gamete (sex cell).

I do this to point out the hypocrisy of your strawman because you structure it with the intent to fail.

The isolated tribal is not a strawman. The individual is real, living and breathing, existing even today.

Here's one aiming an arrow at you, Godzilla:

Yet I've already pointed out that there would be no inconsistencies for this clone to have a soul and spirit any more than for a twin to have a soul and spirit too.

See above, Godzilla. The inconsistency arises from the fact that the clone is a product of an unfertilised gamete and a somatic cell, both of which are components you agree you have no ethical issues in performing research with. A twin (identical) is formed when the blastocyst cleaves into two. Although the genetics are similar, they needn't necessarily be so for the clone, which is where the contradiction I point out, arises. Clones are not the same as twins, Godzilla. They usually don't even have comparably similar life-spans. Clones tend to die faster.