Where is the line with "playing God"?

[juvenissun]

Why?

A human being has a unique soul given by God.

So what happens with monozygotic (identical twins)? they come from a single egg fertilised by a single sperm - do they share a soul? does God make an exception and provide another soul from the spares box?

Also, why is a soul with unknown origin less desirable? and if souls are given by God, what does a soul of 'unknown origin' even mean?

The soul of a person is given by God. Every existed soul is registered in God's account. Not one more, not one less. A twin has two souls. A triplet has three souls. etc. It does not matter what happen to the eggs after fertilization.
A soul which not given by God has an unknown origin.
I am not sure a human clone is a human or is not a human.

I am thinking how to define cloning ...
How about: An animal/human life which is not originated from a simple merge of sperm and egg is a cloned life.

 

[juvenissun]

We would find out what the problem was soon enough, if a genetically modified bacterium, or a nano machine, escaped into the environment, and it turned out not to be so harmless as was supposed. The British Government was so worried about the latter happening that it commissioned a report from the Royal Society.

Nuclear Armageddon is beginning to be a bit old hat, and soon we will have other ways of destroying ourselves. One day we will doubtless succeed in doing precisely that.

The Bible tells us that there will be more than one way to kill people in a large quantity.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

A human being has a unique soul given by God.

The soul of a person is given by God.

Every existed soul is registered in God's account. Not one more, not one less. A twin has two souls. A triplet has three souls. etc. It does not matter what happen to the eggs after fertilization.

Ah, it does matter if you're counting souls - twins and triplets develop some while after fertilization, when the fertilized egg has already divided several times. So when you said, "A human soul is given by God only when a human sperm and a human egg combined", you may have meant 'one or more human souls ... at the start of separate embryonic development'.

A soul which not given by God has an unknown origin.

If, as you say, human souls are given by God, where do the souls not given by God - souls of unknown origin - come in?

I am thinking how to define cloning ...
How about: An animal/human life which is not originated from a simple merge of sperm and egg is a cloned life.

There already is a definition - a clone is an exact genetic duplicate of an organism. Strictly speaking, identical twins are clones, but the term is generally used to refer to lab cloning, where your definition would be nearer the mark in terms of method.

 

[dgiharris]

A lot of religious people get annoyed at things like stem cell research, research into reversing aging, genetic engineering and it sort of confuses me.

If you look at history, every time there was a significant medical advance there were tons of religious types who felt that advance was playing god.

A big outcry of "playing god" came out with the advent of successful organ transplants.

The arguments merely change to fit the times. People come up with arbitrary biblical interpretations when the reality is the bible does not explicitly comment on these matters. You have to read between the lines and then put your own "interpretation" together.

...Cloning is a difficult one, the morality of it isn't clear, but I am not sure what benefit it brings at all to the human race.

Cloning has many obvious benefits, for one thing you solve issues with organ donors, for another a clone could be used to extend your lifespan significantly.

 

[The Cadet]

Cloning has many obvious benefits, for one thing you solve issues with organ donors

Why hello there ethical issues! Personally, I draw the line at your own personal softball team. Anything beyond that and it's exploitation of the innocent.

 

[dgiharris]

A human being has a unique soul given by God..

This is something I've never quite understood, that is, why is it "only" human beings have souls?

One day we will figure out artificial intelligence and machines will develop sentience. When that happens, would it be possible for a sentient machine to have a soul? I mean, if God can do anything, why wouldn't he give a sentient machine a soul? Why doesn't a dog or whale or ape have a soul? Why must a soul be this exclusive thing that only human beings have?

 

[dgiharris]

Why hello there ethical issues! Personally, I draw the line at your own personal softball team. Anything beyond that and it's exploitation of the innocent.

to me, this is the real ethical dilemma behind cloning. How much dominion do we have over things that originate from us. For instance, lets say you have a major surgery coming up. One common practice is for the hospital to store your own blood, so you go in a week early, and they draw blood and store it for you.

Why would it be unethical to create a clone, limit it's cerebral development, and use said clone as a spare parts locker for yourself, keeping the clone in a perpetual state of hibernation?

On a similar note, there are plenty of stories of parents having one of their children develop leukemia or an organ deficiency or some other medical emergency and the parents decide to have ANOTHER kid for the express purpose of using that kid's body to save their first kid via an organ transplant or bone marrow infusion etc...

So you could argue we already do a form of cloning for medical purposes already. So why not for yourself?

 

[The Cadet]

Why would it be unethical to create a clone, limit it's cerebral development, and use said clone as a spare parts locker for yourself, keeping the clone in a perpetual state of hibernation?

Oof. You got me there. IMHO the ethical problem there involves the limiting of the cerebral development - if we were to do that to someone that wasn't a clone, we'd find it monstrous, wouldn't we? Of course, there's always the question, why would we find it monstrous, and in my current state, I cannot for the life of me figure out why we find that monstrous. After all, it never knew consciousness and it will never know consciousness...

...Seriously, someone help me out here, this ethical conundrum has got me stumped and I very much dislike the feeling.
-Durnken cadet

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...Seriously, someone help me out here, this ethical conundrum has got me stumped and I very much dislike the feeling.

I dunno... maybe it's the sense of deliberate nurturing an insensate humanoid life purely for exploitation. How would you feel about having organs from a brain-dead organ donor? what about from an organ donor kept alive until the organs were needed?

 

[dgiharris]

I dunno... maybe it's the sense of deliberate nurturing an insensate humanoid life purely for exploitation. How would you feel about having organs from a brain-dead organ donor? what about from an organ donor kept alive until the organs were needed?

The thing is, a clone comes from you. It is your DNA, your medical procedure using your genetic information. When we are going in for surgery we will often deposit blood in the blood bank in advance right?

I think the ethics comes in when we add in "sentience". But if you are able to impede sentience such that the clone is NEVER sentient and does not have the ability for sentience, then I submit that a clone is no different than growing an organ in a petri dish.

Imo, the only ethical debate in regards to cloning is when there is sentience, and without sentience there is no ethical conundrum imo.

 

[juvenissun]

This is something I've never quite understood, that is, why is it "only" human beings have souls?

One day we will figure out artificial intelligence and machines will develop sentience. When that happens, would it be possible for a sentient machine to have a soul? I mean, if God can do anything, why wouldn't he give a sentient machine a soul? Why doesn't a dog or whale or ape have a soul? Why must a soul be this exclusive thing that only human beings have?

King Solomon told us that animal and human both have soul. But only human soul can interact with the Holy Spirit. For a reborn (a really magic idea) Christian, his soul is renamed as spirit.

 

[juvenissun]

Ah, it does matter if you're counting souls - twins and triplets develop some while after fertilization, when the fertilized egg has already divided several times. So when you said, "A human soul is given by God only when a human sperm and a human egg combined", you may have meant 'one or more human souls ... at the start of separate embryonic development'.

This is interesting, thanks.
So I temporarily take what I said back.
Do we know the reasons that caused a monozygous twins?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... Do we know the reasons that caused a monozygous twins?

No, not really. The early stages of development are particularly sensitive to physical or chemical disturbance, and although the womb is well protected, chemical, e.g. hormonal changes in the mother's bloodstream can affect the embryo, so it might be some disturbance - a significant proportion of embryos never get past the first week or so; or it might just be a rare chance occurrence.

The split tends to occur at three times, the 2 cell stage at 1-3 days, in the early blastocyst at 4-6 days, and in the late blastocyst at 7-9 days, which suggests these are key sensitive points in development. At the 2 cell stage, the twins will each develop their own amnion, chorion, and placenta. At the later stages, they're likely to share these support structures.

 

[AV1611VET]

I personally think if you could save a baby from developing cancer at age 50 by doing some genetic engineering, it would be immoral NOT to do it.

I don't think it's "playing God" to do that stuff; but I have to SERIOUSLY disagree that science is concerned with morals.

(At least, not unless they define & establish those morals themselves.)

I also figure if God really had a problem with it he would let us know, but maybe that's not the case.

And if He did, that would be like ringing the dinner bell for scientists to "research" it.

Should God, for example, say drinking was a sin, scientists would bend over backwards to make sure they "discovered" a gene that "predisposes" a person to drink.

Even if they had to do it behind closed doors.

War is wrong? make an atom bomb
Abortion is wrong? call it a "fetus"
Hom... skip that one.
Fornication is wrong? call it a "common law marriage" or a "one-night stand"
Adultery is wrong? call it an "open marriage"

You name it.

If God calls it "wrong" -- there will be a shrewdness of scientists to "discover" that calling it wrong is wrong.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Everyone talks about "playing God". Why isn't just treating cancer considered "playing God"? I mean if the idea is that disease came into the world because humans sinned, then don't we deserve these diseases? Isn't treating them "playing God" in this sense?

Coronary heart disease is a leading cause of death ahead of Cancer. It is believed to be the result of a high fat diet. There is substantial research showing that this disease can be avoided and even reversed through a low fat diet. With Cancer it has been suggest that there maybe a diet that could help prevent or reverse Cancer. So if there is a sin involved with the two diseases that are the leading cause of death it seems to be related to diet. Stress control and exercise are also factors. Again behavior modification can play a key roll in prevention or reversal of disease and the leading causes of early death in the civilized world today.

 

[juvenissun]

No, not really. The early stages of development are particularly sensitive to physical or chemical disturbance, and although the womb is well protected, chemical, e.g. hormonal changes in the mother's bloodstream can affect the embryo, so it might be some disturbance - a significant proportion of embryos never get past the first week or so; or it might just be a rare chance occurrence.

The split tends to occur at three times, the 2 cell stage at 1-3 days, in the early blastocyst at 4-6 days, and in the late blastocyst at 7-9 days, which suggests these are key sensitive points in development. At the 2 cell stage, the twins will each develop their own amnion, chorion, and placenta. At the later stages, they're likely to share these support structures.

Thanks for the new information to me.

Based on what you said, two things are significant to the issue. I would still hold my view that human soul is given (assigned) by God at the moment when sperm and egg combined.

1. There are many fertilized eggs did not make it. In this case the soul simply went away (to some place). The situation is the same as the general case of natural abortion.

2. Since we do not know a constant mechanism which caused twins, I would stretch my model by saying that if the zygote made into a twin, then two souls were assigned to the zygote right from the beginning. Since God knows if it would become a twin or not. However, there is no guarantee on both or either one of the twin would survive the pregnancy.

Back to the OP. As long as the origin of a person is the combination of a sperm and an egg, then God will put a soul into the flesh. Other than that, the life would be made by human engineering, then God may not give a soul to it (most likely not). Then it would be cursed.

 

[DogmaHunter]

A human being has a unique soul given by God.


The soul of a person is given by God. Every existed soul is registered in God's account. Not one more, not one less. A twin has two souls. A triplet has three souls. etc. It does not matter what happen to the eggs after fertilization.
A soul which not given by God has an unknown origin.
I am not sure a human clone is a human or is not a human.

I am thinking how to define cloning ...
How about: An animal/human life which is not originated from a simple merge of sperm and egg is a cloned life.

What is a soul, how do you know it exists, and how do you know the god you believe in is the one who plants them in humans? And how does that work? And again, how do you know?

 

[juvenissun]

What is a soul, how do you know it exists, and how do you know the god you believe in is the one who plants them in humans? And how does that work? And again, how do you know?

It is all religious.
For a religion, you do not ask questions of scientific nature.
If you like some logic answers, I may try.

 

[Loudmouth]

Why is it "playing God" to remove cancer genes from an embryo but not "playing God" to treat a person's cancer later in life?

Curing diseases was once viewed as tampering with the will of God. Another interesting example was the invention of the lightning rod by Benjamin Franklin. This was also thought to be playing God because it redirected lightning bolts that God was trying to direct elsewhere.

https://books.google.com/books?id=XFoRCgAAQBAJ&pg=PT258&lpg=PT258&dq=lightning+rods+playing+god+franklin&source=bl&ots=12Q4nqfMgy&sig=N__HEzDMnlTcCg78i-ohp18KIvY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDMQ6AEwBGoVChMItLX7y6D-xgIVBnc-Ch0vngo4#v=onepage&q=lightning rods playing god franklin&f=false

 

[Loudmouth]

The key is the soul of human. As long as we do not multiply soul artificially, we are not playing God. The worst would be that we offended God.

Identical twins are clones in every way. Does God only give one of the twins a soul?