Will Human Clones Have Souls?
Esquire asks the question, "would a cloned human being have a soul?", as part of its "Answer Fella" series, which I mention as though I've ever heard of it, which I haven't. The question comes right before another about what it means to call "the badlands" badlands, and in both cases the correct answer is, "shut up."But ever-patient, our Dr. Caplan - who will be celebrated tomorrow at Benjamin Franklin's 301st Birthday Party as recipient of the Franklin Founder Award - offers the answer Ben would have given, though Ben wouldn't have allowed a column as dumb as Answer Fella to exist in the first place.
It's kinda funny though:
Would a cloned human being have a soul?The end.
It wasn't widely reported, but when Dolly the sheep—the first mammal cloned from an adult cell—died in 2003, she was listening to Barry White's 1974 smash album Can't Get Enough and pregnant by a Bolivian alpaca doing a long stretch at Edinburgh's Royal Zoo for running cocaine. Sure, the vets gave her the lethal injection, but the real cause of death was a broken heart. Now if a freaking cloned sheep had such a vast spirit, you can bet that a cloned human would be imbued with the same immaterial presence that binds us all, even Antonin Scalia, to the Godhead. But don't just take AF's word for it. C. Ben Mitchell, director of the Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity, says, "The answer is in the question itself. A cloned human being would in fact be a person and would therefore be ensouled. To be human is to be a person is to be a soul." This is neither an argument in favor of human cloning nor the final answer to various theological questions about the existence or nature of a human soul, topics best left to mouthbreathing Pentecostals, infallible men in funny hats, and Mitch Albom. It is simply to say, as Arthur Caplan, chairman of the Department of Medical Ethics at the University of Pennsylvania does, "If humans have souls, then clones will have them, too."
Labels: Benjamin Franklin, cloning
contribute a comment
Comments have been closed for this post.
comments
Perhaps clones are just the new thing in vampires - non-ensouled beings. There's a sciefi novel waiting in that idea,..
(And congrats, Dr. Caplan.)
- by Kelly on Jan 17, 2007 at 3:45 AM | link
Do identical twins have souls?
- by Laura on Jan 17, 2007 at 3:47 AM | link
I cannot pass on this opportunity to plug Kazuo Ishiguros Never Let Me Go, a transcendent and poignant fictional exploration of the cloned soul. You know youve read a great book when you dont want the book to end. If you have a soul, youll weep.
- by Karen Kondej on Jan 18, 2007 at 9:43 AM | link
One more intellectual highpoint for bioethics.net
For the believers who wonder about the souls of cloned human beings, I ask whether it's possible for us to divide the image of God. For the non-believers, I ask the same question that Laura asks above - or whether the IVF (born) children are human enough. The soul question is not relevant to non-believers, is it?
- by Beverly Nuckols, MD on Jan 18, 2007 at 3:03 PM | link
And if Dolly has a soul, then that means that she is capable of a fallen or redeemed spiritual nature.
How like Esquire and Dr. Kaplan to evoke the Biblical parable of the lost sheep. God bless you and keep up the good work, my brothers!
- by robert b on Jan 19, 2007 at 6:26 PM | link
I don't see how cloned individuals cannot have souls. If clones have the ability to feel pain and sadness, then who's to say they wouldn't have a soul?
- by Julia P. on Jan 24, 2007 at 1:32 AM | link
Cloned individuals are not created by God, but by people playing God. It is God who instills the soul into a person, so therefore cloned people do not have a soul. Dolly on the otherhand was an animal, not a human being. You cannot compare a persons soul to that of a human. That is like comparing apples with watermelons!!!
- by R. Phipps RN on Jan 24, 2007 at 8:56 PM | link
One of the meanings of soul is the spiritual,emotional and moral nature of humans. I personally think that this is not innate in humans. Emotions, morals, and spirituality are something that are learned as you grow and develop. I don't think there is any reason as to why a cloned human would not have a soul. They would learn their emotions, morals, and spirituality as they grow and develop.
- by H.Stetz on Jan 25, 2007 at 5:02 AM | link
I believe in God and I know this act of cloning is wrong. An identical twin has feeling and emotions so I believe a replica of myself would have feelings. Would we share the same soul?This is a tough question, but I would have to say no. Since God did not produce it in his image then it has no soul. It may express feelings but I just can't believe it to have a soul.
- by Melissa S on Jan 25, 2007 at 3:04 PM | link
I have to agree with the previous author. Although this process is not something I particularly favor or agree with the endproduct is ultimately an individual. To say or even question whether or not they lack a soul is really not appropriate. Is this being not capable of having spiritual and emotional depth as any of us and are they not entitled to that because their journey was different than that of yours and mine?
- by Jill Braver on Jan 26, 2007 at 2:36 AM | link
I don't believe a cloned human would have a cloned soul. I think a soul is the spirital part of the individual. Your life experiences influence the development of your soul. A cloned human may have the same DNA but life experiences would change the end results. Has anyone thought about nature vs nuture?
- by maberg on Jan 27, 2007 at 11:51 PM | link
I believe that souls are a Divine intervention that humans have no control over. Humans may have the ability to clone animals and human beings but they do not have the ability to instill them with a soul. Though it seemed that Dolly had feelings and experienced pain, I have to doubt those as signs of having a soul. If humans have the ability to create something and give it a soul then why haven't they created computers with souls?
- by Lisa (Gearhart) Campbell, RN on Jan 28, 2007 at 9:46 PM | link
What an interesting question. To my understanding, a genetically produced mammal shares the precise DNA markers as the donor. However when it comes to speaking about something as ethereal as having a soul, I wonder. I would venture to say the disposition of having a soul is a philosophy, a trust or belief, religious or otherwise. Consequently, it depends on your beliefs. Prior to this posting, I truthfully didnt consider whether an animal had a soul. The term assumes a sort of self-awareness, which my dictionary defines as having a balanced and honest view of your own personality, and often an ability to interact with others frankly and confidently. I cannot imagine an animal who has an honest view of its own personality. Likewise, what of a child who is damaged in some way or cannot be reflective? Are they soul-less for the same reasons?
On the other hand, Ive often ascribed human attributes to animals Ive loved and shared space with. Consequently in the broadest sense I believe every mammal has the capability of complex consciousness and thereby, a soul.
- by D Watson on Jan 29, 2007 at 3:26 PM | link
I think that the question posed here is rather ridiculous. It makes it out like clones are just shells. If people were cloned, they would be just like any other person. The only difference would be that they have a perfect genetic match out there also. I believe that while people may actually "create" clones, they are truly the result of divine inspiration. People do not have the ability to create life on their own.
- by Ashley M on Jan 29, 2007 at 8:03 PM | link
The whole idea of cloning to me is sacreligious. I am a firm believer in God, I feel everthing I am blessed with in this world has a direct corelation to God. When humans attempt to alter what God has given us, it to me is unethical. This is my opinion. I cannot believe that a cloned animal or person would have a soul. Does a shovel have feelings? What about a stick of butter-does it cry? I do not believe cloned humans would have souls.
Respectfully, Ericg
- by ericg,rn on Jan 29, 2007 at 10:02 PM | link
Why would a cloned human being be any different from an identical twin? I personally believe that every human being has a soul which is the mind, the will, and the emotions, has a spirit and lives in a body. The clone is still a person, will still have a mind, a will, and
emotions and live in a body.
- by rbilan on Jan 30, 2007 at 12:09 AM | link
After reading everyone's postings it seems as though this is a question of whether one is a believer in the soul or not. For those who believe in a greater being the next question to ask yourself would be if you were a clone, do you not think the Lord would look upon you in the same way as he would all his children? If one is a human, then I believe one has a soul. It doesn't matter what shape, size, race or gender one is, I believe we all have souls, even the for the cloned human. It is not as if the cloned human regenerated themselves, someone else was playing God and did it to them. The clone is not the one we should be concerning ourself with the wonderings of their soul, but rather the person doing the cloning.
- by Jennifer Greeley RN on Jan 30, 2007 at 11:49 AM | link
I agree with you Jen that a clone would have a soul everyone does.God is incontrol of all things.He is a loving God and would not degrade someone because they where cloned and made by human hands. I dont agree with cloning but do believe God is the who helps with everything including science like cloning.This brings me to another question, Why dont God stop clonong?
- by Lisa Taylor on Jan 31, 2007 at 12:55 PM | link
Lisa, in response to your question about why God doesn't stop cloning, remember he gave us freedom of choice. We should be able to obey his word and not take part in cloning if it's against His word instead of Him having to watch out every move. I still can't help but think that as long as one is a human they would have a soul whether they are clones or not.
- by Jennifer Greeley RN on Feb 13, 2007 at 7:05 PM | link