Replies

Now, we have "artificially-occurring" cloning, with man stepping into the role of God. The question is: Who supplies the soul?

One school of thought asserts that the soul is formed at the point of conception. While the technique may change in the future, I believe that the current cloning process uses an egg that has been previously fertilized (and thus has a soul) after which the genetic material is removed and replaced with that from the clone DNA donor (being a "true" clone only if the clone DNA donor is also the egg donor, since otherwise there will be differences in mitochondrial DNA).

It would seem reasonable to assume that the clone retains the previously existing soul, since all that has happened is a "DNA transplant" (and in the same way that a person who gets a kidney transplant and a heart transplant and a lung transplant and as many other organs as can be named doesn't lose any of his soul, neither would the new child, regardless of the extent of the "transplant").

Of course, using this logic the "clone" is the victim of medical malpractice, in the same way someone who was the recipient of an unnecessary organ transplant would be, unless the DNA transfer was absolutely necessary to prevent or correct some otherwise inevitable genetic disease.

I believe there is a very simple way to express this:
- It is God alone who gives life.
- God has NEVER been surprised by a life that appears.
- If this so-called cloning process results in a new life, it is because He allowed it, for whatever reason.
I don't believe God condones cloning, but only God can give "life." That said, it would seem that it obviates the question of the soul...yes, this new baby has a soul.

There are within Christian tradition (Roman, Protestant, Orthodox) three views of the origin of the individual soul.

FIRST: Preexistence. This view as taught by Origen, maintains that souls of mankind had a conscious state in some sort of previous state. This condemns them to be born into bodies in this life. (almost sounds like reincarnation)

SECOND: Traducianism. This view teaches that the soul is generated by the two parents in the same manner as the physical charistics of the individual.

THIRD: Creationism. This is the majourity view of all of the churches. Creationism is the view that the soul is created by the direct and immediate agency of God, and is infused into the person at conception.

Of those three views, i personally favour Traducianism, as it avoids a messy problem of Creationism, namely if the soul is created by immediate agency of God, and is indued with original sin, QED, God is the source of sin! By a traducian understanding, a soul corrupted by original sin is the responsibility of the parents who were also corrupted by original sin. It also explains better the Incarnation, if Jesus had no human father, he could not have had a human soul corrupted by sin.

This leads back to the issue of the clone. If there are not two zygotes (egg and sperm) is there a soul? i think not. i fear the thought of human clones. Without a soul, what do we have? An amoral, unrestrained, reasoning sociopathic person. Since cloning does not necessarily require a fertilised embryo, one should be afraid, very afraid.