What the Pope thinks on cloning organs and using genetic engeering to get rid of diseases

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

What are the Pope's thoughts on cloning human organs, and to use genetic engineering to get rid of a disease before the baby is born.

-- Heather Schjei (heatherschjei@hotmail.com), November 08, 2000

Answers

Hi, Heather.
Could you please explain what you mean by "cloning human organs?"
I have only heard of cloning entire animals (done already) or cloning entire human bodies (God forbid!), but I have not heard of "cloning human organs." Can you give a specific example or a description of the technique that would be involved?

Sorry that I must ask for another clarification. When you speak of using "genetic engineering to get rid of a disease before the baby is born," are you referring to some method that may be developed whereby the defective gene in the cells of an unborn baby (being carried in her mother) will be "corrected in utero." If so, I believe that I have read that the Church has already ruled that such a thing would be permissible. However, the following would not be permissible:
1. "In vitro" fertilization, so that defects could be found and corrected before implantation of an embryo.
2. "In utero" manipulation of non-defective genes, in order to obtain certain desired characteristics.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), November 09, 2000.

Yes cloning for human organs is a good thing. Then we can save more lives....

-- Toni West (toni@hotmail.com), January 18, 2001.

No, Toni.
The idea of cloning an entire human being was rejected as gravely immoral by the Vatican many years ago -- long before there was ever even an animal clone. (The pope and bishops foresaw science headed in this direction a generation ago.) It is bad enough to clone a human just so that he/she could live a whole life -- but it is even worse, an abomination, to clone a human in order to exploit his/her body as something from which to harvest organs! Only people who are like Nazis would be so disrespectful of life as to do such things. We are not "utilitarians." Our bodies (with our souls) are ourselves. Our bodies are not possessions that we can abuse or throw away as though we own them. They are owned by God and "lent" to us.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), January 18, 2001.


Hey John, I found an article on human organ cloning. It tells all about organ cloning. I suggest that you read it. Also, I'm doing a school project on organ cloning and I was wondering if you could send me some good cons on this subject. Well, here's the article. ______________________________________________________________________ Cloning to produce human organs, tissue

By MICHAEL SMITH TORONTO, Sept 27 (UPI)

- The same cloning technique used to create Dolly the sheep will produce human organs and tissues, perhaps within a decade, one of the leaders of the emerging field said today. Researcher Michael West of the Massachusetts company Advanced Cell Technology said the nuclear transfer technology may also be used to create human heart, muscle, bone and skin tissue.

Using this technique, in theory, will allow researchers to create human organs and tissues that have the patient's own DNA to avoid rejection reactions that occur when body parts are transplanted from donors. "I'd be disappointed if cloned tissues are not available within 10 years," West told reporters in Toronto at a joint meeting of the Canadian Fertility and Andrology Society and the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. The tissues would be grown by themselves, rather than harvested from cloned bodies.

The technology will allow researchers to use the DNA from an adult cell to create what are called stem cells - cells that can grow into all the kinds of tissue found in the body, West said. The technology, nuclear transfer, involves transferring the nucleus of an adult cell of a patient into an egg that has had its nucleus removed. The egg with the new nucleus grows into an embryo. The embryo then has stem cells with the patient's DNA, which in theory can be made to grow into cells of various types - skin, bone, tissue and organs.

Although the technique is controversial, West told reporters, "it's a real gift to mankind that nuclear transfer works." Urologist Larry Lipshultz of Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas, said West may be going out on a limb. "It's always difficult to predict exactly when a new therapy will become available to patients," he said.

But Lipshultz, president of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, agreed with West that therapeutic cloning is a "very promising approach to a number of very stubborn conditions." Transplanting tissues and organs is difficult, because the recipient's immune system tries to reject the transplant. But West said cloning would solve that problem, because the new tissue would have the same DNA as the patient.

West said his company and other labs have been able to create early- stage embryos using cow eggs and the DNA from a human cell. Those embryos, or blastocysts, then produce human embryonic stem cells, he said, which can in theory produce all types of tissue. The difficulty now is finding ways to tell the stem cells to form a particular type of tissue, he said.

West said the first use for the technology will probably be to treat diseases like diabetes, in which the underlying cause is a lack of particular types of cells. In diabetes, for example, insulin- producing cells in the pancreas no longer function, causing the disease. The technology has been controversial because it uses early- stage embryos, but West said there should be no cause for alarm. The embryos used are less than 14 days old, too immature to have developed any kind of individuality. In fact, he said, before 14 days, the embryos can split to become two, or two embryos can fuse to become one. "There is no human entity there," he said.

-- Peter Scott Thomas (petethex@aol.com), February 07, 2001.


The embryos used are less than 14 days old, too immature to have developed any kind of individuality. >>>>

My question to each and every one of you is this...when do you think we receive our soul into our body? Is it at the moment of conception? Is it when there are brain waves present? Does it come at birth? If you say the moment of conception, then surely having a soul offers you some sort of individuality, right? And surely it must be conceded that these "experiments" serve some sort of purpose or else the research would not be under way, correct? So, if this embryo already has a purpose on this earth, doesn't that give him/her some sort of individuality? And the right to fully develop and be born?

-- jackiea (jackiea@hotmail.com), February 07, 2001.



Maybe they have lights on in that place. But there's no one home.

Have any of these people heard of ''LIFE''?

If it isn't human life pray tell us, what happens after we allow it to grow a month or two? Does it turn into an iguana? Or maybe an apple tree?

NO, a human baby.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), February 08, 2001.


Jmj

Dear Peter,
I'm sorry, but I must disagree with your characterization of what is described in the article. You said that it "tells all about organ cloning," but I don't believe that it does.

When I read the words, "organ cloning," I picture something helpful and morally acceptable -- a technique whereby one organ in a person would give direct rise to a "copy," for donation to self or to another person. In fact, the writer of the article had me fooled, at first, that something of this kind was in the offing.

Mr. Smith wrote: "Using this technique, in theory, will allow researchers to create human organs and tissues ... The tissues would be grown by themselves, rather than harvested from cloned bodies."

But then Mr. Smith contradicted himself, writing: "The technology, nuclear transfer, involves transferring the nucleus of an adult cell of a patient into an egg that has had its nucleus removed. The egg with the new nucleus grows into an embryo. The embryo then has stem cells with the patient's DNA, which in theory can be made to grow into cells of various types - skin, bone, tissue and organs. ... The embryos used are less than 14 days old, too immature to have developed any kind of individuality. In fact, he said, before 14 days, the embryos can split to become two, or two embryos can fuse to become one. 'There is no human entity there,' he said."

It certainly appears to me that a human person does not simply donate material that gives rise to a "cloned" organ, but rather donates material that gives rise to a second human person, a separate individual whom the scientists then exploit, abuse (through "harvesting" tissue or organs), and kill.

St. James, pray for us.
God bless you.
PS: Here are some sites to visit, if you'd like to read about cloning from a Catholic perspective:
Pope John Paul II
Sr. Therese Auer, OSF
Pontifical Academy for Life
George Marlin


-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), February 08, 2001.




-- (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), February 08, 2001.

who cares about the guy who needs a liver and is waiting for someone to die!!!!!!!.....do you see ...waiting for me to die so you can have my liver is as morally wrong as waiting for my cloned liver to grow in a laboratory......i think the pope knows that we cant go on putting words in gods mouth any longer..God gave us the ability to do these things and we should take advantage of his gifts to us.

-- Rich (omniumskyz@hotmail.com), June 16, 2001.

The answer to genetic engineering is simple. Humans are not God. We are in no position to play God. With such advancement in science, it was reassured long ago that people would come to a point where they would be forced to question and choose between their moral, ethical and religious beliefs and the advantages science could offer to their future lives. Ge is justified by many through stating that it has evolved in the pursual of ending several forms of human suffering. However, one must not forget that all human suffering is from God, and that all has a purpose which is commonly only recognized by Him, far from our grasps. Every form of agony, pain is a reminder for us to not forget God, to remember that there is one greater than any human on Earth. What will become of Him, this divine being who so many depend on and see as a figure of hope, when we step into His shoes and take on the task of achieving human perfection? Is this another step in the attempt to eventually phase out God, for significance in Christianity to be forgotten? I am a 18yr old student and I submit that I don't fully comprehend all matters concerned with Ge. Yet my conscience and beliefs refuse in allow me to view Ge as a great discovery, rather it is another move towards human destruction. We do not own ourselves.

-- k (katrina_vi@hotmail.com.au), June 29, 2001.


In response to Rich-we are given choices in life. Not everything is a gift from God. Think about how cloning contradicts the fundamentals instituted by Christianity.

-- Gary Jensson (gj@hotmail.com), June 29, 2001.

The great catholic church has always changed with the times. from when they burned people for saying the earth is not in the center of the universe, and when they had to ask the jews when easter was supposed to be celebrated. It is just a matter of time before they change to accept the cloning of any human or part of a human. I'm sure somewhere cloning humans is already in affect, by doing this they will learn to cure many diseases and even prevent them. If you believe people have the right to believe as they chose, then let those people do the cloning and you can sit back and wait. At least until you are taken with a disease or need a transplant, then you'll think again about cloning and hope the cure will come soon. All cures came from studing effects of humans after taking drugs or some type of therapy, some people died in the tests, should we have not found a cure for chicken pocks? something taken for granted nowadays. If you believe in not finding cures with new information then don't take the cures from the old information. Live like the first humans and have 46% of your children die before they reach maturity. 80% of abortions occur naturaly without anyone ever knowing, is this Gods way of keeping down the population? The book says we should procreate(have babies), dosen't this 80% count? If life begins at conception then why would God kill 80% of us without giving us a chance to do good?

-- J. Burns (sburns02@home.com), October 29, 2001.

Mr. Burns--
Your post is insensitive at best, and ignorant at worst. The Holy Catholic Church is not who ''burned people'' on account of what they rightly or wrongly believed. You are confusing the Church with the Inquisition; but you are only following the lead of many other anti-Catholics. If the Inquisition did evil (which might not be so easily ascertained) it did so in nationalistic causes; not Catholic.

The rules may change, Mr. Burns. But the teaching of Christ's Holy Church remain faithful and don't change with the seasons. Please don't declare these things as fact. In fact, they are just opinion; YOUR opinion. It suits your fancy to flout your opinion here, in this Catholic forum. But don't act as if your voice were an authority.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), October 29, 2001.


The opope shall say , no !!!! I sse life , OK !!!! But with what purpose , they will cloning organs ???? And what will be the results , playing with the nature is very dangerous !!!! Before you know , you get trash first class and the person who has such cloned organ or a completely cloned , how will his/her body react !!!! Think twice , that's my advice !!!! Don't play with madness !!!!

If I knew , my wife (PS: I don't have one) and I get a baby with an handicap , but they could cure the handicap by operation , go for it !!!! I don't like genetic manupulation , because you don't know what will be the result !!!! Theoretic , it's beautifull , but as long they are not 101% sure about the result , I say again : "Don't play with madness !!!!"!!!!

-- Laurent LUG. (no__religion@hotmail.com), October 30, 2001.


Well, I think that cloning is wrong, it is scary to think that something of this kind can go on in our society. I know that the Pope is against all of this, and hope that this unreal society that people are trying so hard to make real does not happen. Who do they think that they are? E-mail.

-- Isabel Arambula (tangerinebaow@hotmail.com), November 11, 2001.


I just finished a report on human cloning in this report I explored the possibilities of cloning organs. Can It be done? I'm not sure, I can understand cloning the embreo, getting the stem cells from the embreo. Even growing tissue from the cells makes sence because after all its the same type of cell. but actually cohersing a cell or group of cells to grow into an organ. It seems a little far fetched. Even if the organ was grown in a labratory how would you make it stop growing? Lets first concentrate our efforts on perfecting the making of cells. And when your done give me some brain cells i could use em.

-- Jonathan (JohnNmichelle@homel.com), December 13, 2001.

this isn't so much of an answer as an opinion i'm a 14 year old and i know whats right from wrong. just because god gave us the knowledge to create new ideas and come up with things leading to messing around with peoples lives doesn't mean we have the right to do it. god gave us a mind to think and come up with things but that can also be a test to see if we would do the right thing or not. our whole life is a test. and people who have to clone things because they are too weak to let go have to talk to someone. people all have to lose things but you lnow that your love ones are in a better place. there is no need for cloning of any type

-- (kelc_23_desperado@hotmail.com), April 08, 2002.

I would think that if we could cut a small piece of an organ, and grow it, that might be a good thing, but it doesn't make much sense to clone your own organs if they have been shown to be defective, so you would still have to use another body's organs, and you still would have to deal with possible rejection....

I think cloning an entire human is wrong, but then I think it was wrong for that couple to have another baby just to save the older sibling's life, too.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), April 08, 2002.


People are sick. It disgust me that we think we have the right to 'play GOD' and try to control life. We take the babies we've made and abort, KILL them.... how sick is that? now CLONING???? hmmm i wonder what's next???? i wonder if the scientists realize what on earth they're doing when they do all their sick experiments, or if they just don't care. ppl are so casual about the importance of life. like, doesn't it matter that these scientists are starting lives and letting them die?? doesn't that matter? no i guess not.. silly me, how naive i am. haha. as long as the life is defenceless and can't complain then it's perfectly acceptable.

-- Rose Pickersgill (Silver_Shadow@swirve.com), April 20, 2002.

The cloning of body parts has already been deemed wrong by the Church months ago. This is similar to the stem cell research that has also been condemned by the Pope and the bishops for some time. Basically is is creating a healthy tissue through genetic science. It is not much different from cloning an entire body. All is needed is a genetically acceptable tissue to grow more tissue to repalce a part of the body. They have succeeded in cloning an entire ear of a rat in a laboratory.

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), April 20, 2002.

Fred, can you please present a quotation from the Vatican (from "months ago") stating that the "cloning of body parts" was "deemed wrong"?

To my knowledge, what has been deemed immoral is the cloning of persons, in which a new embryo (that could grow to adulthood) is "created."

I don't believe that "cloning of body parts" has been banned -- if, by this term, one means some kind of new technology (not yet invented) wherein some cells, extracted from a person, could be made to grow only into an attachable substitute limb or organ, but not into a separate human being.

tcr

-- (the@clone.ranger), April 20, 2002.


Cloning in all forms is banned. Cloning is Cloning no matter how you slice it. To try to differentiate it in some form is trying to skirt the issue in it's entirety.

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), April 21, 2002.

But I can't just take your word for it, sir. I need to have that quotation from a Vatican document, as requested last time. The reason I ask for the quotation is that you will not be able to produce it. When you track down what the Vatican has stated, you will find that it does not cover this "cloning-of-body-parts" idea.

Please notice the key distinction: Cloning is evil when it brings a new person into existence, a separate human being in whom God creates a soul. If science can find a way in which to clone/reproduce tissue/organs/limbs without bringing a new person (embryo) into existence, that would probably not be immoral. The Church has not spoken about this yet.

tcr

-- (the@clone.ranger), April 21, 2002.


If the stem cell research is not cloning then what is it? That is using the brain of a partial birth abortion to kill a baby and then cloning cells for research and medical uses. What part of this is it you can't understand. The act of cloning is wrong and that is it. Why am I having such a hard time getting this through to you? It is morally against the will of GOD. He is the creator, NOT US HUMANS.

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), April 21, 2002.

Fred writes:

"If the stem cell research is not cloning then what is it? That is using the brain of a partial birth abortion to kill a baby and then cloning cells for research and medical uses."

My understanding (and I'm not an expert!) is that the pro-life position supports stem cells harvesting from adults. In other words, killing a fetus isn't the only source of stem cells.

AFAIK, Pro-life is pro-adult stem cell research, anti-fetal stem cell harvesting.

Mateo.

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), April 21, 2002.


Mateo

If you give people an inch to reproduce body parts then you are going to give them the full right to go further to clone full bodies to exploit for whatever they wish to do with them. I think you are supporting a very morally dangerous avenue when you support the smallest entity. Why not legalize marijuana and see what happens next. Go from there.

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), April 21, 2002.


Mateo, You're correct, but I don't think Fred, mean't, adults, when, he, said that.

A stem cell transplant, is basically the samething as a bone marrow transplant, but the patient has their own stem cells harvested, out of their own blood! In a bone marrow transplant, the marrow can be someone else.

This isn't anything like experimenting on a dead baby! In a translpant, the stem cells,are taken before they are white, or red blood cells, or platelets. They are taken out of the blood, by a machine, and put back into the person 2 or 3 days after, cheomotherapy is given.

David

-- David (David@excite.com), April 21, 2002.


David

I am not speaking of transplatations at all. I am speaking of the use of a body DNA with another part which could be a neutral egg to create an organism for the use to replace a body part in a human. This has been deemed immoral. To use an exixting bodypart to encourage bone marrow for the saving of a bone cancer victim is not the same thing. This is currently occurring in New York and it has many people in an uproar including the Churches and the U S President. To clone a body part is the issue, not transplantation of body parts or body tissue mass from oneself or a compatible donor. We need a heart therefore we create living tissue to do this. It is LIVING MATERIAL, not a body part from another person such as a dead person or living donor.

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), April 21, 2002.


Fred, thanks for clarifying that for me! David

-- David (David@excite.com), April 21, 2002.

Matt, you are right in saying this ---

My understanding ... is that the pro-life position supports stem cells harvesting from adults. In other words, killing a fetus isn't the only source of stem cells. As far as I know, pro-life is pro-adult stem cell research, anti-fetal stem cell harvesting.

Not just the pro-life movement, but our own Church encourages research into the use of adult stem cells to treat diseases and possibly to grow tissue for implants, grafts, and even organs for transplant.

THIS is the kind of thing I was talking about. Not once did I even use the words "embryonic stem cells." Right from the start, I was talking about something that did not involve embryos, did not involve putting baby's stem cells into enucleated eggs, did not involve the creation of new human beings. Unfortunately, Fred wasn't getting on my wave length, because he jumped to the wrong conclusion and started getting hot under the collar. {Keep cool, Fred. I'm against executions -- of both babies and adults!}

tcr

-- (the@clone.ranger), April 21, 2002.


TCR

I am not getting "HOT" under the collar. It is this; I am concerned that the medical field may think they can do one thing and yet do something entirely different without our knowledge. It has happened recently in N.Y.. I hope they don't try it again. What is it that they do not understand when they are clearly told "NO". I guess you have a point. But like I said before I am deeply concerned about cheats going on.

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), April 22, 2002.


stuff

-- stuff (stuff@hotmail.com), June 12, 2002.

I am not really sure what I think of cloning a full human being, but I do know that (at least Im pretty sure) cloning organs is NOT wrong. How people can say it is I dont know. All it does is help. There is nothing wrong with helping. Whats wrong is that people who are skeptical (or just plain scared) dont want to give cloning a chance to help. How are we supposed to know if cloning can help if noone is allowed to research it?

-- Jennifer (jenni06yune@yahoo.com), September 30, 2002.

Hello, Jennifer.

Are you referring to an as yet unachieved process whereby a new and separate organ (or batch of cells) would be "generated" from an existing organ or batch of cells -- but without a new human embryo being created (and destroyed) in the process?
If so, then you are talking about something that would probably be morally acceptable and good.

But if you are talking about a process wherein a new human embryo would be "created" and then allowed to develop to a certain point (so that cells or organs may be "harvested" from it), then that would be gravely immoral. That new embryo would be a human person with a right to life -- not some kind of impersonal blob to be exploited for someone else's benefit (and killed in the process).

Please try to find some of the many recent articles on the tremendous things being accomplished in adult stem cell research (which does not involve cloning). Honest researchers are beginning to admit that embryonic stem cell research is an idea that is not worth pursuing (not to mention its immorality).

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), September 30, 2002.


I don't understand all the people who say it is not our place to play God with genetic engineering. Last I checked, God was supposed to be omnipotent and therefore if wanted us to not know how to clone organs then it would be in his power to do so. Now there may be technical problems with cloning such as the advanced aging due to loss of telomeres but to me the ends justify the means, as in the example some one gave about the man waiting for a liver transplant. In the hospital that person is hoping, whether they'll admit it or not, that someone will die so that they may live and in the case of the embryo it's not even firmly establish when this counts as a someone. If you have someone suffering from diabetes in your family and know that through the use of stem cell research they could live a longer healthier life, will you say no? Will you say it is God's will that they die of diabetes? In so far as God may have anything preordained of any particular man, then can we not then extrapolate that he intended for us to discover and use cloning technology?

-- Ben Cassell (jjcbbc@swbell.net), December 08, 2002.

Wow, Ben. You seem to have fallen -- hook, line, and sinker -- for all the fallacies prevalent in decadent, modern society! This is very bad. Let me explain what I mean by putting your words in quotation marks and then making comments ...

"I don't understand all the people who say it is not our place to play God with genetic engineering."

You're saying that you want to "play God"? Humans can't even contemplate it, because our abilities and wisdom are infinitely lesser than God's.

"Last I checked, God was supposed to be omnipotent and therefore if wanted us to not know how to clone organs then it would be in his power to do so."

Here is what follows from that faulty logic ... God is supposed to be omnipotent, and therefore if he wanted us not to shoot each other to death, he would step in and stop it. Do you see now, Ben. The mere fact that something is evil (shooting / murder of embryos for their stem cells) does not mean that God will intervene. He gives man free will to do good or evil, though he expects man to do only good.

"Now there may be technical problems with cloning such as the advanced aging due to loss of telomeres but to me the ends justify the means ..."

Nothing like coming right out and stating a fallacy! In traditional Judeo-Christian morality (which is revealed to mankind by God himself), the ends DO NOT justify the means! We must never do evil (killing the innocent) to try to derive a benefit.

"... as in the example some one gave about the man waiting for a liver transplant. In the hospital that person is hoping, whether they'll admit it or not, that someone will die so that they may live ..."

Well, Ben, that may be your way of "hoping," but it probably is not in the mind of most people. There is no need to hope "that someone will die", because people are dying every day. Sane people needing a transplant "hope" that a promising "match" may be found, not that people will die.

"and in the case of the embryo it's not even firmly establish when this counts as a someone."

It has been firmly established in the minds of all intelligent people who have learned the most elementary genetics that an embryo is a human being -- the smallest baby. The embryo is a living and growing person (body and soul) with his own genes, different from his parents. He/she "counts as a someone."

"If you have someone suffering from diabetes in your family and know that through the use of stem cell research they could live a longer healthier life, will you say no?"

I will say "yes" to all stem cell research that does not result in killing another human being. The most promising research does not involve human embryos.

"Will you say it is God's will that they die of diabetes?"

It would indeed be God's will that the person die, if the only alternative were to use a technique that kills someone else (an embryonic baby).

"In so far as God may have anything preordained of any particular man, then can we not then extrapolate that he intended for us to discover and use cloning technology?"

Can you please re-word this for me? I don't understand what you mean. At this moment I can only say that human cloning is absolutely immoral. Every human person has the right to be conceived through a natural act of human love between his/her parents (sexual intercourse).

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 10, 2002.


people like you are why I call christians tools of the devil, especially with the advent of Veggie Tales (pure evil). You show me your proof of God and I will take your moral implications along with it. And please do not even try to point to the bible as I have to believe that it has been flawed by man and is far too ambiguous (much like the constitution) for any hard interpretations. I personally believe in God but mainly because I can not explain to myself how amino acids lead to something living where there was not life before. I believe in God because of the wonder of the world; I see him only as the spark though. The one who set our world in motion. One interesting moral question that I think of when pondering cloning is, if we are not supposed to play God, then wouldn't any clones clearly not have a soul? They would then seem to be artificial, a biological robot of sorts. Before there is cognition I can not think of an embryo as being. I find it interesting that you bring up intelligence as I don't know many proclaimed geniuses who were devout christians. Also there is the fact that in all likelyhood I am smarter than you but I hesitate to bring that up because I do not like to brag. Were you having debates with such moral implications and a need for complex understanding of the biological workings of the world when you were 17?

-- Ben (jjcbbc@swbell.net), December 11, 2002.

Hello again, Ben.

I have no idea what "Veggie Tales" are, having never heard the term. You are visiting a Catholic forum. Catholicism has nothing to do with "veggie tales." It is the religion given to mankind by Jesus, the Son of God. A good Catholic is never a "tool of the devil," so please get that nonsense out of your head.

I think that you have just hinted that you are now 17, and that helps to explain how you could be so very mistaken about lots of things. But it is good that you are seeking out the truth. I hope that other Catholics here will join in to help you overcome some of your misconceptions.

I really don't care who is more intelligent -- you or I. In life, what matters is whether we have the truth and only the truth. I am convinced that, in the matters we are discussing, I have the truth (and no error), and you have some truth, some error, and some empty gaps.

If [God forbid] human clones ever come into existence, they will have souls. The invisible, animating force that is present in a living body is the soul, which God himself creates out of nothing -- at the moment of conception/fertilization, I believe. If a body lacks a soul (as after death, when the soul leaves), it is not alive. Thus if there is a cloned human body, and it is alive, it follows logically that a soul is animating it.

A moment ago, I wrote: "The invisible, animating force that is present in a living body is the soul, which God himself creates out of nothing -- at the moment of conception/fertilization, I believe."
Thus, contrary to what you stated, an embryo IS a human being. The concept of "being" is not tied to "cognition." There is all kind of "being" without cognition. Not only that, but mankind has not yet determined whether there is an extremely early form of "cognition" in the one-celled human being. It is better to assume that the tiny, unborn human deserves respect and protection than to murder her.

Ben, you wrote: "I don't know many proclaimed geniuses who were devout christians." [When you say, "I don't know many ...", I assume that you mean, "I have not heard of many ...".] Hereby you give away your youth. Only an adolescent (or younger) is likely to be unaware of the many "geniuses who were devout Christians." Here are just a few:
Leonardo da Vinci (inventor, student of anatomy and physiology, artist)
Raphael, Michelangelo, and many other painters.
Gregor Mendel (developed principles of genetics)
Marie and Pierre Curie (chemists, Nobel prize-winners)
Blaise Pascal (mathemetician)
Louis Pasteur (microbiologist)
Johann Gutenberg (printer [first book = Catholic Bible])
Guglielmo Marconi (inventor of wireless radio)
Nicolaus Copernicus (astronomer)
G. K Chesterton and J.R.R. Tolkien (authors)
[The above were all Catholics. The list could go on and on, and one could add Orthodox and Protestant geniuses too.]

Take it easy. God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 14, 2002.


Marconi is the only one that I didn't know of being christian, but I'm not ashamed to admit that I made a false blanket statement. Personally, I was thinking more along the lines of outspoken philosophers but even there I mainly was outraged that anyone would even bring up intelligence because I know a lot more stupid christians than I know smart ones. The main reason that I call christians tools of the devil is because I'd say about 85% of them annoy me either with their stupidity or their religious tendencies (which generally tends toward me believing that their stupid because, rather than thinking for themselves, they turn to the church for the answer). I'm sorry if you think I am on here to find answers. I am not. I am merely here because there is a debate on my band's web page about cloning. On the page is a link to here entitled, "watch Ben fight crazy christians."

PS. I am currently reading/researching T. H. Huxley (inventor of agnosticism) with great interest.

PPS. I'll write you all a letter after I receive all my college letters that grant me full scholarship.

-- Ben (jjcbbc@swbell.net), December 15, 2002.


one last thing. the major-minor thing is stupid because when you say I should major in humility you are being sarcastic I assume but not so when you say a minor in bigotry. Your parallelism is a little shaky. Atleast make them both the same thing for christ's sake.

-- Ben (jjcbbc@swbell.net), December 16, 2002.

im not against any science, excpet for one, and thats cloning, theres no need for it, if i got clone parts to replace the old parts in my body would i still be me? i may live to be 110 years old, but its not worth it in my mind, and also the world is too over populated already so why should we, as for the pope i really dont care. ill define my morals on my own, Rome wont have any control over me

-- andy (asdettmer20@hotmail.com), December 16, 2002.

Hi John,

"Veggie Tales" are children's videos of computer-animated vegetables in Bible stories--I seriously doubt that the producers are Catholic, the videos seem to be very popular with my Protestant friends. I understand the concept of making the Bible a little easier for children to relate to--but vegetables?

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), December 18, 2002.


Thanks, GT.
JFG

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 18, 2002.

Dear Jory,

What I think you are referring to, the growing of organs in vitro, is generally called "organ culture" rather than "cloning". You can probably find some good information online by searching for that term. There are no grave moral concerns associated with this technology, so the Pope and the Church have not had much to say about it. Actually, nothing that I know of.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 20, 2003.


Does any one have info. on cloning organs? I need websites for my Advanced Biology Project

-- Dana D (dukesgal2006@yahoo.com), April 09, 2003.

I think that cloning organs is good. I think it is a good thing because the nurses don't have to ask a family memer to have there kids,nease's ect.... Cloning by far is a good thing for organs.

-- Melissa Alexander (longleggedrooster@hotmail.com), April 10, 2003.

as long as the stem cells taken for the cloning are not from aborted fetuses (the other source is the umbilical cord of a baby that has already been born) the church sees it as fine because there is no harm being done to a life (since the baby is no longer in need of the umbilical cord)

-- Alex (alex@hotmail.com), May 17, 2004.

The Church has already spoken out against human cloning of any kind.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), May 17, 2004.

There is no moral problem with "cloning organs" (more correctly, "organ culture"), provided the cells used to initiate the process are not obtained in an immoral way. Usually they are not, as organ culture is not usually initiated by undifferentiated stem cells, but by cells already differentiated into the type of cells one is trying to culture. Such procedures are in very early stages of experimental exploration, and a long way from actual application to patients.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), May 17, 2004.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ