Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    My inclination is that a cloned child is looked upon as secondary to
    the value of the original.  Therefore, as a created being in the
    image of God, the cloned child is totally devalued.
    
    However, if individual organs can be cloned that would be wonderful!!!
    
    -Jack

    Jack,
    
    does this mean an identical twin is less valued than a singleton?
    
    In that case is it birth order, or what that counts?
    
    My take on it is I don't really think a second meg in the world would
    be all that great, I have one child close enough to be my clone
    already.  I seriously doubt that many people are going to want carbon
    copies of themselves, but you never know.  Anyway a second me would
    grow up in a different era with different parents, different religions,
    different life experiences, so she wouldn't really be me.  Since I
    can't very well share my soul, (although I have thought about buying a
    new one at times >;-) ) I would imagine that god(dess) would, in Hir
    infinite wisdom, provide my clone with her own.  
    
    meg

    Meg:
    
    I have heard of people conceiving to have an abortion so that they can
    use the DNA or whatever to save their living childs life.  I don't know
    if this is factual but I do believe this would be very unethical.
    
    A twin baby is just as valued...but some may want to clone for the
    above purposes and I don't believe this is right!!
    
    -Jack

    It's okay as long as the Boston Celtics get 5 clones of Michael Jordan.

    Jack,
    
    You have been misinformed again.  
    
    People have conceived and given birth to another child (or even more)
    in an attempt to save and older child's life and/or health.  Irt isn't
    the DNA, it is the stem sells in the umbilical cord or bone marrow that
    the goal of this.  It is the only treatment for Franconi's anemia,
    certain leukemeias and other cancers, and wouldn't it be nice if the
    genetic information we get from cloning could prevent the diseases in
    the first place, or at least give a better treatment option with gene
    splicing?
    
    meg

    Yes it would be...so long as nobody is killed in the process.  
    
    I wasn't misinformed...DNA was something I just came up with knowing I
    was probably wrong.  An aborted fetus did not have the choice in
    sacrificing its existance for an older sibling.  Therefore, there was
    no choice there at all!!
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 1335.6 by ASGMKA::MARTIN "Concerto in 66 Movements" >>>

| I wasn't misinformed...DNA was something I just came up with knowing I
| was probably wrong.  

	Jack, then why come up with it? At least clarify that it is something
you are not sure of, and not make it out as some sort of fact. Oh... this is
done BEFORE you post the note. :-)

    Having read Huxley's "Brave New World," I am a bit concerned about
    the prospect of cloning human beings.  Can engineering human beings
    for predetermined purposes (as Mike suggested with Michael Jordan) be
    far behind?  When might we start pumping out people like cans of
    Coca-Cola?
    
    Richard
    

    Why not?  We can create a race of non-sinners.  People who
    won't have lust or greed or hate and won't have any desire
    to rebel against the current authority.  They'll work when
    they're told.  Worship when they're told.  Pray when they're
    told.  And they'll think just the way we tell them too.

    Won't God be pleased!

    Though I mentioned Jordan in jest, I could see it happening because of
    man's greed.
    
    Regardless, my opinion is that man cannot clone the soul.  It is the 
    part of man that is God-breathed and will be unique in every human.

    Jack,
    
    Nobody dies in stem cell collection.  It takes a full-term baby, and if
    the stemcells don't take on the transplant, then it takes a child much
    older than a baby for the donation of bone marrow.  
    
    meg

.9

>    Why not?  We can create a race of non-sinners.  People who
>    won't have lust or greed or hate and won't have any desire
>    to rebel against the current authority.  They'll work when
>    they're told.  Worship when they're told.  Pray when they're
>    told.  And they'll think just the way we tell them too.

>    Won't God be pleased!

I realize you are speaking from a deliberately facetious place here.  But
seriously, how different is this from Hitler's ultimate goal?

Richard

    Re .9 (Tom)
    
    >    Why not?  We can create a race of non-sinners.  People who
    >    won't have lust or greed or hate and won't have any desire
    >    to rebel against the current authority.  They'll work when
    >    they're told.  Worship when they're told.  Pray when they're
    >    told.  And they'll think just the way we tell them too.
    
    I realize that you were just kidding, but conditioning behavior using
    chemicals and/or surgery is right on the horizon.  Want to make a saint
    out of a sinner?  Add chemical 'X' and cut out section 'Y' of the
    brain.  I kid you not.  This kind of thing is right around the corner. 
    I recommend "Molecules of the Mind" by Jon Franklin (I think that's his
    name).  He talks some on the science, but also makes an appeal to the
    reading public to take responsibility for steering the course of this
    technology as opposed to leaving it up to researchers in labs.
    
    -dave

.10
    
>    Regardless, my opinion is that man cannot clone the soul.  It is the 
>    part of man that is God-breathed and will be unique in every human.

My opinion is that human clones will not be soulless.

Richard

    So then why is ther religious community all up in arms?

    .15
    
    I wouldn't describe myself as up in arms.
    
    My concerns are not limited to the soul.
    
    Richard
    

re Note 1335.15 by SMARTT::DGAUTHIER:

>     So then why is ther religious community all up in arms?
  
        First, I'd echo Richard in saying that we're not all "up in
        arms" over cloning (per se).

        Secondly, a question for thought:  why do some more
        "primitive" people think that to take a photograph of a
        person is to capture their soul, and therefore wrong?

        Bob

	Through cloning scientists believe that anything is possible 
	including the immortality of man. The Bible on the other hand,
	shows that everlasting life will only be made possible through
	the ransom sacrifice (Matthew 20:28, John 17:3).

	The danger seems to lie in putting ones faith in science before
	ones faith in God to resolve the ill's that man is facing today.
	Our Creator is the first recorded person to clone someone and that
	was Eve from Adam's rib and in such a way that Eve was desireable
	to Adam. He felt the best way of humankind to filling the earth was 
	through procreation, which has led to great variety. Though the
	scientists interests are no doubt well intentioned, should not
	ones faith be in Our Creator for He has our best interests at
	heart.

	The Lord's prayer, or model prayer Jesus left us tell us to pray
	for God's kingdom to come. In context to this prayer this kingdom
	is the instrument that God intends to use to bring about God's
	will on earth as it is in heaven. That is resolve mankinds death
	and suffering. It would be a shame if we failed to recognise this
	kingdom by placing our faith totally in the scientists of our day
	(Matthew 6:9,10).

	Phil.

    >Though the scientists interests are no doubt well intentioned,...

    I wouldn't say that it's so much a matter of intention as it is
    curiosity and/or a desire to do what hasn't been done before. 
    Sometimes researchers don't look at how a new discovery or achievement
    will be used.  And that's unfortunate.


    >...should not ones faith be in Our Creator for He has our best interests 
    >at heart.
    
    You're assuming that the researchers believe in a creator who has our
    best interests at heart.  That's a big assumption.  Many are areligious
    and I'd say that almost all are non-inerrant.  They don't find their
    purpose or direction in the pages of the Bible.
    
    

re .19

    >...should not ones faith be in Our Creator for He has our best interests 
    >at heart.
    
;    You're assuming that the researchers believe in a creator who has our
;    best interests at heart.  That's a big assumption.  Many are areligious
;    and I'd say that almost all are non-inerrant.  They don't find their
;    purpose or direction in the pages of the Bible.
    
	Dave,

	I was speaking of those who have a faith in God, whom could be distracted
	into thinking that that it will be man and not God who will solve mankind's
	ills (compare Jeremiah 10:23).

	Excercising faith is a personal choice. From the Bible's point of view,
 	whether the scientists acknowledge God or not, this kingdom is indeed
	coming (Daniel 2:44).

	Phil.

re Note 1335.18 by RDGENG::YERKESS:

> 	Through cloning scientists believe that anything is possible 
> 	including the immortality of man. 

        Cloning has nothing to do with the immortality of the
        person (unless you regard identical twins to be one
        person).

        Bob

|    I realize that you were just kidding, but conditioning behavior using
|    chemicals and/or surgery is right on the horizon.  Want to make a saint
|    out of a sinner?  Add chemical 'X' and cut out section 'Y' of the
|    brain.  I kid you not.  This kind of thing is right around the corner. 
    
    Dave, aren't you assuming that this is a physical property rather than
    a spiritual one?  I don't think man will ever get to a point where
    manipulating the spirit is possible.  Christ would return before that
    would happen.
    
    Mike

.4

>    It's okay as long as the Boston Celtics get 5 clones of Michael Jordan.

Yes, I realize it was said in jest.  On the other hand, the notion of a
superrace has cropped up in history at least once before.

Richard

    Okay then, to be fair, I'll take:
    
    3 of Hakeem Olajuwon
    4 of Larry Bird
    2 of Magic Johnson
    3 of Michael Jordan
    
    Best 12-man team on the planet!

	Cloning would appear to be the ultimate reproductive choice.

	If I would want to reproduce an exact duplicate of me, then
	I claim that the government has no right to interfere with
	my reproductive choice and say that I cannot arrange to have
	a clone of me brought into existence.

	I see no difference between cloning, in-vitro fertilization,
	or designer gene construction.

	And if my gay friend Mike ever meets the California surf-dude
	of his dreams and they want to reproduce, they should be allowed
	to use gene-splicing techniques to create their genetic child.

re.25

>..designer gene construction."

I actually watched this process once and found the experience
fascinating. I was especially entralled by the inseam
double stitching process and the button fly attachment
techniques.

8*)

	Has anyone seen an espisode from the British TV SciFi comedy Red Dwarf,
	called "Rimmerworld" ?.


	Phil.

       Z     If I would want to reproduce an exact duplicate of me, then
       Z     I claim that the government has no right to interfere with
       Z     my reproductive choice and say that I cannot arrange to have
       Z     a clone of me brought into existence.
    
    Ya know, I thought about this very issue on Saturday.  John is
    absolutely correct in saying this.  The pro choice crowd really has no
    say in this matter because they sold their souls on the abortion issue.
    
    This is a reproductive choice matter is is not opened to the scutiny of
    the pro choice contingent.
    
    -Jack

    Jack,
    
    If John has enough money to cover this, I could care less.  Of course
    he also has to find the willing possesor of a uterus, as science has
    never managed to duplicate one, yet.  
    
    There is no way a clone could be an exact duplicate, even identical
    twins are not, although they have many similarities.  We can't
    reproduce ev erything from the egg, the uterine environment, the
    pollutants, solar eruptions, and environment and times that we grew up
    in, no matter how hard one tries to turn back the clock.  
    
    Jack,
    
    You really believe people sell their souls that cheaply?  Can I rent
    yours for a few days?  I have some work to do that I would prefer to
    put the  karma on someone else's soul.  ~/~
    
    meg
    meg

    re .22 (Mike)

    >Dave, aren't you assuming that this is a physical property rather than
    >a spiritual one?  I don't think man will ever get to a point where
    >manipulating the spirit is possible.  Christ would return before
    >that would happen.

    I'll disconnect myself somewhat from this and only report what I've
    read in the book I referred to.  It would indeed seem that behavior 
    can be directly affected by physical/chemical manipulations.  For
    example, certain  physical locations in the brain are very active when
    someone is very angry.  Surgically damage that part of the brain and
    that patient longer has the capacity to become very angry.  Another
    well documented case maps a different location to be responsible for
    controlling one's actions.  The poor fellow in this case had that part
    of his brain destroyed in an accident.  Since that point in time, every
    passing thought that he had would be verbalized or acted out.  He had
    no more control over his actions because of the effects of a physical
    accident.  It's been noted in other cases where violent rapists have a
    very elevated level of testosterone.  Chemically manipulate these
    people to have normal levels and they seem not to have the same violent
    tendencies. (not wanting to open up a new bag of worms here and
    admitting that it's more complex than just testosterone levels)

    I'll be the first to say that this stuff is scary.  The knowledge base 
    in the areas of brain anatomy/physiology and a field called
    psychochemistry is expending all the time.  The technology which can be
    used to affect behavior using this knowledge is improving as well.  

    The social ramifications are enormous!  

    The public awareness of developments in this area are almost non existent.

    Again... "Molecules of the Mind" by Jon Franklin.

    -dave

    RE: .30
    
    God aside, Dave, that is a little too convenient for me.  People lack
    enough accountability and responsibility today without being told they
    can blame their actions on hormonal imbalances.

    RE .31 (Mike)
    
    
    How this science and technology is used in a social context is beyond
    the consideration of the researchers.  It's like the scientists working
    on the Manhattan project who developed the bomb.  They felt that it was
    up to the political leadership to decide what to do with it.  
    
    Can excessively violent behavior be mapped to overactivity of a certain
    part of the brain?  Is someone more prone to be a rapist if a hormone is
    overproduced in someone else?  The physical evidence would seem to
    indicate that these are strong factors.  How responsible is someone for
    beiing predisposed to certain behaviors?  The same book that I mentioned
    also expressed that factors like environmenta and upbringing are very
    important factors as well.  So, should responsibility for certain
    actions be weighed in accordance to anatomical and physciological
    predispositioning?  How much does environment and upbringing weigh in? 
    Is rape a mental disease which can be treated chemically or with a 
    scalpal?  Or is it 100% chosen behavior which the rapist should assume
    100% responsibility for?
    
    These are all questions which society has never had to consider before
    now.  Now, this science is giving us... 
    
     1) more insight as to what's going on at the physical level to explain 
        behavior, 
     
     2) methods which can be used to modify behavior using physical and
        chemical manipulation
    
    So, if you saw soemone suffering from malaria, you'd give him/her
    quinine to reduce his/her suffering.  If you saw someone who's always
    depressed, you'd give him/her prozac.  And now the next step... if you
    see someone who's always angry and violent toward women, would you
    help him as well with a drug that would aleviate these feelings and
    probably modify his behavioral patterns?
    
    Where is the line drawn here?  Who decides what's moral behavior?  How
    should behavior be molded?  Who casts the mold?  
    
    And we can't even figure out how much to raise the tolls on the Mass
    Pike, nevermind this!
                                                     
    -dave

    Cloneliness is next to godliness.
    
    Everybody must get cloned!!!

    Send in the clones...
    
    	(They're already here)
    
    

    I wanna be a clone...

    Mike:
    
    Back in the early 80's, there was a Christian singer who was kind of
    New Wavey.  His lyrics were actually quite ingenious.  One of the songs
    is called, "I want to be a clone"  
    
    "Be a clone and kiss conviction good night...
     Cloneliness is next to godliness RIGHT...."
    
    It's been a long time.....

    Jack, Steve Taylor is exactly who I had in mind when I posted that.

    AHHH YES!!  I had forgotten his name.  He had some clever songs! :-)

    Shucks.  I just had ordinary Judy Collins in mind in .34.
    
    She did a nice rendition of "Amazing Grace" though.
    
    Richard
    

    Steve Taylor has been busy the past few years producing the
    award-winning CD's from the Newsboys.