Posted on 12/26/2002 6:02:33 PM PST by HAL9000
Birth of a small girl obtained by cloning, according to the sect of the raéliens
Friday December 27, 2002 - 1h49 GMT
MIAMI (the United States), 26 déc (AFP) - the scientist Frenchwoman and member of the sect of the raéliens Brigitte Boisselier affirmed Thursday evening with the AFP to have put at the world a baby obtained by the technique of the cloning.
The baby, a small girl, came in the world "today" (Thursday) by Caesarean. "Ca they passed very well", was restricted to affirm Mrs. Boisselier, president of the company of human cloning Clonaid, joined by telephone in Miami (Florida, south-east of the United States).
The effort of the raéliens to put at the world the first cloné baby having been realized in the greatest secrecy, it was not possible, in the absence of a scientific publication in the code of practice, to obtain for the moment an unspecified independent scientific confirmation that the baby was well a clone.
Questioned on the circumstances of this birth, it scientific Frenchwoman refused to give further information immediately more, in particular the birthplace.
"I prefer not in saying more for the moment", has it says, by adding that it would make a public presentation Friday in Florida.
It did not specify either if it would introduce the baby at this occasion.
November 27, Mrs. Boisselier had indicated to the AFP that this birth was awaited by an American couple.
If this birth were confirmed of independent scientific source, it would be about the first baby obtained by the discussed technique of the human cloning and whose birth will have been publicly announced.
Well, of course not. They don't know what they're doing... they're bugs. But they are constantly mutating, and sometimes they get lucky.
So far as I know, susceptibility to specific pathogens has been determined both experimentally and empirically to be genetic. Most people are familiar with the stories of fields of genetically-identical corn that get wiped out when the right corn disease comes along.
Species of snails exist in which both sexual and asexual females are present in the same environment. Drop the right parasite into a lake with them, and huge numbers of the clone asexuals die; a much smaller number of the sexually-reproducing snails die. Genetic variation in the latter group protects the group from annihilation. These experiments have been done; there's no question about it.
That's nonsense. That would require a kind of "learning" that takes place as one is exposed to various disease organisms to propagate back into the gamete cells. That does not happen. As we had agreed earlier, identical twins do not necessarily possess the same immunities (unless they are exposed to the same pathogens). What is a clone, but another form of identical twin?
Not so. Otherwise something like a smallpox plague would kill everybody. But that isn't what happens. Some people die, some get sick but live, and a small number don't seem to get sick at all. If people's immune systems were really identical, we would see identical (or nearly identical) results. But we don't.
In fact there is some evidence that we seek sexual partners on the basis of differences in immune systems. There's an interesting experiment written up here. This adds to the idea that the purpose of sexual reproduction has to do with confounding parasites, by scrambling the combination to the immune system's locks every generation.
This generalization is incorrect. Many people do not fear the unknown, for two reasons, it is stupid to fear what you do not yet even know is to be feared and because there are plenty of known things to fear. Supposing that everyone fears the unknown, just because you do, is like the theif who thinks everyone steals, just because he does.
Just for the record, I am not an athiest and do not belong to anything. I'm not a joiner.
If it is arrogant to have an opinion, that puts us in the same boat.
Hank
Personally, I am convinced that mortality is part of human life in this world, and science will never change that. I have seen the benefits of science, however. I am alive today because of medical science, once saved by antibiotics, and once from a universally fatal auto-immune disease until it was discovered how to cure it with steroids.
What I see is a real dividing line between those who do not believe it is possible for science to create evil, since it only seeks for truth and those who afraid of anything they do not understand. It is true, all knowledge can be used for good or evil, but it is not science or research that determines that. (Take the atom for example.)
Those who are afraid of science and its discoveries believe it is possible to violate the laws of God and that their God is unable to determine the fate of the world. If God has determined to allow this thing, you are not going to stop it. If God has determined to disallow it, you needn't worry.
Hank
I did not mean to imply human beings are relieved of their responsibility, only that ultimatley, even though directly the result of human choices and actions, the outcome cannot violate divine law. It is one of the problems with a forum that no discussion can be in depth, but also makes for more interesting discussions.
My whole point has been that our choices should never be made out of fear of the unknown, and that we should never be afraid of learning new truth. The application of that truth is another matter altogether, and can, as you pointed out, be used for good or evil.
Hank
What people believe and hold sacred is important to preserve, I mean their right to believe those things and to speak out plainly about what they believe, and even to try to convince others, so long as no coercion is used.
Whether what some people hold sacred, even if they happen to be correct, should become the force of law is another question altogether. Personally I do not agree anything anyone believes that does not have plain objective evidence for its defense should be used to prevent research.
In the case of fetuses, for example, their status is extremely quetionable, not just from a theological point of view, but from a natural one. How would judge the status of the fetus in the following FR link, for example?
Jordanian doctors remove 'fetus' from baby.
I know this is a rare event, but for those who say whenever a fetus is destroyed it is murder, these cases are the total refutation, just as identical twins refute the argument that a human being begins at conception.
Hank
Do you discern between soul and spirit? If so, what discernible features have you found?
Yecch.
Sometimes. Do you?
It's always there. Always been there. Even before the first living thing first did whatever living things do.
Here's a few issues which seem valid IMHO, and please pardon my lack of knowledge.
1) God formed man from dust (the body), made the soul (mind and consciousness) and created the spirit (def'n of spirit is key here).
2) Many Scriptural passages relating to the soul relate to the identification of person in humans. Issue of soul might be more appropriate with respect to artificial intelligence, but we do make a leap of faith by identifying the soul with entirely a function of the material world which might be manipulated by man.
3) The spirit. Also referenced in cases of being breathed into man as some passages with regard to the soul, but there also is an interesting feature of the spirit which is repeated throughout much of Scripture. To those who aren't believers, spiritually discerned things will appear foolish.
Some doctrinal positions hold that the spirit is unique for each person/man, and is breathed into humans upon physical birth or separation from the womb by God Himself. This doctrine s also the basis for some Christians to perhaps ethically disagree with abortion so as not to encourage scarred attitudes towards life, but do not categorize abortion as the murder of a person since the spirit has not yet been connected or created for the person. I'm uncertain as to the ramifications, but it appears to be a valid doctrine,...(granted in conflict with many beliefs, but nevertheless, I find it to be well founded in Scriptural basis,...other Scriptural doctrines might clarify and reverse such a position but regardless it's seems valid, perhaps very sound.)
Some care might need to be taken in understanding the meaning of life and death in many Scriptural references to the topic. Frequently, death isn't so much identified with non-being as we may be scarred into accepting from our materialistic and humanistic worldly systems, but instead with regards to the spirit, death is frequently associated with a separation from God.
A person who has lost his saltiness, might be involved into the sin unto death, but that death might not be physical. it might be spiritual death or separation from God, to the point that the person is longer an asset to perform up to his royal inheritance in God's royal family.
Laws might exist in society to keep mankind from killing off one another and criminal laws exist to insure many physical aspects of life endure.
Even amongst Christians, these distinctions might be read about in Bible Studies but if not placed in an appropriate walk of faith and belief, become dead works.
It's funny,...I can write a bit about this issue, but I also recognize that this same message is predominant throughout so much of Scripture, yet unless understood through faith, the topic isn't even understood by those who accept a person named Jesus existed and exists, heralded as the Messiah, but without this understanding of the Spirit, so much of Scripture appears dead.
I can take this to another extreme.... say the Gnostics. Though heretical, consider the basis of their belief. They considered Scripture more from a purely spiritual domain to the extent of ignoring materialism. To the scientist of today, gnosticism is nothing short of superstituion or magical sorcery associated with superstition. However, many gnostic bases probably observed phenomenon such as dreams, visions, and miracles and studied the relationship of belief, faith with materially miraculous events.
Denial of the basis which led to errantly consider gnoticism is just as ignorant as a scientist ignoring sound test datum. This may seem like greek to many, but it's simply another attempt to lead one to consider the spirit and the domain of the spirit is only rightfully understood as provided by God from the Holy Spirit. Scripture is quite emphatic about not falling victim to deceiving spirits nor to abet in witchcraft or sorcery. The study of the spirit per the Holy Spirit through Christ is the safest approach on this domain.
Back to the debate regarding human cloning.
The major problem I observe arising is first the identification of human with the body and perhaps with personality associated with the soul or mind. This is a fairly inaccurarte description, yet the spirit and association with the soul is also an identification for the person of man in Scriptural terms. Nowhere is the spiritual association with a person clarified in this new endeavor. Far from being innocuous, a second issue arises.
Within the spiritual domain, we are cognizant of deceiving spirits, evil spirits, disembodied fallen angels, and judgment already made upon them, yet a final delivery to the Lake of Fire not yet complete. We understand that man as described in Scripture, if obedient and faithful to Him, is now gifted by an indwelling of the Holy Spirit and while filled, unable to be demon possessed.
If we are unable to describe the conditions and scope of the spirit within man, then how would one be able to ensure the spirit is also cloned or provided to the clone? Or is the clone simply dead in the spirit, separated fro God and then becomes a secondary issue regarding legal rights of that beast. Is the clone simply a material automata from biomass as opposed to a robot or is it appropriate to confuse the clone as identical with man?
Simply blundering into the fray by labwork seems at best premature and perhaps a gross blasphemy.
I've become much more perceptive of situations where the spiritual influence seems to abound, but only by remaining faithful in Him through Christ. As soon as one steps outside that path, arrogance or some lunatic fringe selfishness will arise.
I've witnessed some bizarre phenomenon which I either considered from lack of faith as any possible explanation or ignorance to avoid its consideration. The more I consider those events, the more I realize that without faith or remaining in fellowship in Him in all things, one can be deceived by most miraculous events.
Going back and rereading Scripture and closely considerig the miracles and then realizing that somewhere those eyewitnessed accounts and reality meet, have been reported, and have always been there, just conveniently ignored, overlooked or nonchalantly accepted without consideration,...in faith.
I tend towards accepting today that the material universe is only a portion of what reality has in store for all of us. My scarred soul reveals itself. So much of what is real is ignored by too many including my scarred self. IMHO, Ignorance of the spirit ignores an important portion of our eternal and present destiny.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.