Human cloning: it's the soul, stupid

Regardless of whether a cloned human being was actually born as claimed, our society should use this disturbing report constructively by hastening our ethical evaluation of human cloning.

If the Raelien cult's claim is false, it's only a matter of time before it happens. After all, the Raeliens are not the only ones engaged in this horrifying enterprise. A fertility clinic in Italy and an embryology laboratory in Kentucky also claim to be close.

Brigitte Boisselier, president of Clonaid, the human cloning company engineering this process, appears to be right out of "The Addams Family" or "Munsters" TV series. And the Raelien cult, with which Boisselier is associated, believes that the human race was begun by extraterrestrials some 25,000 years ago. But we shouldn't let the comical aspects of this insanity overshadow its grave implications.

In all seriousness, just who do we think we are? Are we so self-absorbed as a species; have we become so coarse, so vulgar, so narcissistic that we can't recognize that our scientific capacity exponentially exceeds our moral maturity? Shouldn't we come to grips with where we've put God in this equation?

While we may have made scientific advancements of godlike proportions, there is one of God's prerogatives we'll never have the remotest license to, and that is His authority over our souls. We should fear His judgment as we erect the ultimate Tower of Babel in usurping His sovereign power to create humankind by duplicating babies as if from a Xerox copy machine.

When are we going to take the time to have this moral discussion? A perfect illustration of how casually we've approached this subject is that the one body claiming to have authority over the legality of cloning is the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA). I didn't know whether to laugh or cry when I read that this paragon of unelected bureaucracies, the FDA, contends that it is the body that must approve any procedure aimed at human cloning.

The more scientific advancements we make, the greater will be the temptation to ignore their moral consequences, because these advancements will bring seductive promises of ever-increasing benefits to the human condition.

Our opinions on this issue will emanate from our respective worldviews. Since I am a Christian I won't presume to speak for others, but my understanding of the Bible compels me to conclude that human cloning is utterly violative of God's law. Other Christians may disagree.

The Bible reveals that God created us in His image and that He desires a personal relationship with us. We cannot attain a relationship with Him without humbling ourselves and surrendering to Him. By creating human life through cloning we have done just the opposite in the grossest imaginable outworking of human pride and the greatest conceivable affront to God. We have not only put other gods before Him; we have made ourselves those gods.

The Clonaid group says its purpose is to achieve immortality by creating carbon copies of humans, then "uploading" the contents of the original person's brain into the clone. Nothing better demonstrates their contrasting worldview.

Aside from the fantastic notion that they can upload brain contents and personal experiences from one brain to another ala Arnold Schwarzenegger in the movie "Total Recall," how are they going to create a true continuity of consciousness? What happens when two identical beings coexist? How do they avoid the pain and horror of repeated physical death in their little immortality scenario?

Much more significantly, they are neglecting that little detail we refer to as the soul. Cloning advocates such as Clonaid can't possibly believe in the biblical concept that God creates unique human souls in His own image. Even assuming they can precisely duplicate a human being physically, what about his spiritual aspect? Will he/it have a soul? This is humanism at its most obscene. We are just masses of tissue to be manipulated and reformulated at will -- our will.

When the God of the Bible tells us through the prophet Jeremiah, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart," I think He's referring to our souls, our essences, not our yet to be fully formed brains. It is a chilling thought that His Jeremiah statement may not apply to beings that He did not form in the womb but that human scientists did.

We better quit ignoring these pressing moral issues, because we can be sure that science is not going to wait for us to catch up.

A fourth justification might be more ulterior. Fallen angels, demons, or evil spirits as a group of beings identified throughout human history and prehistoric from Divinely inspired Scripture have been understood to be disembodied in some fashion. There are also records of demonic possession and influence of other persons and animals.

Considering the origin of the idea from the Raelian movement, and unabashed testimony of the same, it seems as though there is some preoccupation with cloning from the domain of evil spirits.

Since those same persons are asociated with malevolent deception, it seems as though the topic is ripe for their manipulation.

You make outstading points, and from a human perspective, it seems foolish to attempt to clone. Yet, I am not surprised that some persons may exist who seek to manufacture replacement human body parts, maintain/secure personal relationships, and biologically engineer their children.

Here are some others,...perhaps variations on the topics you bring to mind.

Manufacture standing armies.
Provide a new meaning to 'double agents'.
Sex Toys.
Slavery.
Creation of new classes or manipulating class numbers.
Voter Fraud.
Space travel.
Sports advantage/rigged games and wagering.

I don't know about the Tower of Babel association.

I understand the perspective of the Roman Catholic Church with regards to In Vitro Fertilization is that since the act omits a human act of conception coincident with sexual relations, that it counterfeits His process for procreation and omits the bodily love between husband and wife. The omission of that familial love is discernible and sufficient to establish a more safe doctrine to avoid and condemn such behavior.

Such a position might also read into Scripture a bit. He may have created all things and the soul might be more closely asociated with the biological functioning of the brain and its association with the spirit.

Certain fleshly and natural aspects of the soul might implicitly be created in the clone as a side effect/consequence of God's creation already. This is more of a study of functionality or function of functions as possible worlds, rather than a deduction.

I do not think it will have a human soul.

The key to understanding the issue lies in Thomistic/Aristotelian philosophy. The human soul is the substantial form of the human body. If a living human body exists then it must have a substantial form or soul.

The soul is an unnecessary reification of the abstract concept of our identity & consciousness.

My soul is my identity and it is through the soul that I am conscious of myself. Otherwise, what is my identity? My identity cannot be my thoughts because I would have as many selves as discrete thoughts. Is my self a scanning-mechanism in the brain? Then I would have as many selves as discrete acts of scanning, et cetera, ad infinitum.

In a sense, cloning is the ultimate form of masturbation -- a self-centered act of pleasure, utterly devoid of passion, and ultimately narcissistic.

I think you have succinctly captured the essence of cloning.

Well this is limitation of current technology and science.

True, but it's sufficient reason to condemn attempts at human reproductive cloning as unethical for the present.

When the bugs are worked out of the process for other mammals (which will probably happen in a few decades), then the more fundamental issues will have to be addressed.

The key to understanding the issue lies in Thomistic/Aristotelian philosophy. The human soul is the substantial form of the human body. If a living human body exists then it must have a substantial form or soul.

That's a great article you linked to! A very clear introduction to Aquinas' concept of the soul. I'd agree with his first argument where he basically says that the soul is the "form", or functional organization of the animal. Here he's clearly borrowing from Aristotle.

But the article is correct, IMO: His theory as a whole breaks down, because this concept of the soul contradicts the Christian doctrine that the soul is a separate entity from the body that survives bodily death in some supernatural dimension. There's no way you can integrate these two concepts coherently.

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.