1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Is it a sin to clone?

Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by Thinkingstuff, Apr 29, 2009.

  1. Gold Dragon

    Gold Dragon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Messages:
    5,143
    Likes Received:
    149
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    God has been cloning people for millenia. They are called identical twins, triplets, quadruplets, etc.

    Harvesting organs from a living person without their consent is illegal, whether that person is a twin or not and whether they were conceived naturally or in a test tube.
     
  2. Thinkingstuff

    Thinkingstuff Active Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Messages:
    8,248
    Likes Received:
    9
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    So if I wanted to clone myself a gazillion times and create an army of clones I would not be sinning against God?
     
  3. Gold Dragon

    Gold Dragon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Messages:
    5,143
    Likes Received:
    149
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    I don't see that as being any different from trying to have a gazillion children to create an army of your offspring. Why would either the creating of clones or children be a sinful in and of itself the only difference being that one has the same DNA as you and the other has slightly modified DNA from you. The thought process behind creating those lives might have some problems but the actual creation of the life is not a problem.

    Also good luck trying to raise those clones or children to be your army. I would have difficulty with one, not to mention a gazillion. :)
     
    #83 Gold Dragon, May 13, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: May 13, 2009
  4. canadyjd

    canadyjd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2005
    Messages:
    12,944
    Likes Received:
    1,661
    Faith:
    Baptist
    It is not accurate to call the natural birth of twins cloning.

    As I understand it, identical twins develop from the same fertilized egg. The egg splits early on, and the two cells develop independently, but occupy the same sack in the womb. You do not have an "empty" egg fertilized with DNA, as you do with cloning.

    I've never heard of indentical triplets, quadruplets, etc... Paternal twins, triplets, quadruplets, etc., come from separate eggs and have different sacks, as I understand it.

    Identical triplets would have to occupy the same sack, as well as quadruplets, etc. For identical triplets, you would have to have the egg split, and then one of the two cells would have to split again, and then all three cells develop independently, but within the same sack in the womb.

    Given the enormous difficulties such a pregnacy would entail, it seems unlikely.

    I'd have to do more research to see if there has every been truly identical triplets (i.e. born from the same sack in the womb).

    peace to you:praying:
     
    #84 canadyjd, May 13, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: May 13, 2009
  5. Gold Dragon

    Gold Dragon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Messages:
    5,143
    Likes Received:
    149
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    The birth of identical twins is God creating clones, two people who have identical DNA. It is accurately referred to as natural cloning. Modern discussions of cloning usually refer to artificial cloning which is trying to replicate what God has done naturally, create two people with the same DNA. If you are against artificial cloning because it is artificial, you would also be against invitro fertilization.

    You are correct about the egg splitting early on but incorrect about the sacks. Depending on how early the embryos split, the twins can share a placenta and share an amniotic sac or they can have their own placenta and their own amniotic sac, or they could share the amniotic sac and have their own placenta. The later the split, the more shared structures and those that split very late give you conjoined or siamese twins.

    Correct. I'm not sure why that makes things any morally different unless you are also against invitro fertilization and any type of reproductive technology.

    You are correct that fraternal twins have separate eggs and sacs. Identicals come from the same egg and are clones of each other (have the same DNA), but can have different amniotic sacs and different placenta.

    Identical triplets are very rare because of the risks in pregnancy as you correctly identify, but they do happen as do identical quadruplets at an even lower rate.

    The identical Dionne quintuplets were Canadian and international news in the 1930s because they were the first recorded set of quintuplets to survive infancy and the only set of identical ones known. Two of them are still alive today.
     
    #85 Gold Dragon, May 13, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: May 13, 2009
  6. Gold Dragon

    Gold Dragon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Messages:
    5,143
    Likes Received:
    149
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Sorry, I switched these around. It is possible to share a placenta but have separate amniotic sacs. The alternative is impossible developmentally.
     
  7. canadyjd

    canadyjd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2005
    Messages:
    12,944
    Likes Received:
    1,661
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I disagree.

    http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art1293.asp



    peace to you:praying:
     
  8. Gold Dragon

    Gold Dragon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Messages:
    5,143
    Likes Received:
    149
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    I agree that there are differences between identical twins and artificial clones. Those differences have to do with the how the embryo came about but do not change the fact that the people are genetic clones who by definition have the same DNA as another organism.

    There are many ways to have genetic clones:

    naturally
    • twins in mammals and humans
    • parthogenesis in amphibians and reptiles
    • apomixis in plants
    • budding in bacteria
    artificially
    • grafting in plants
    • reproductive somatic cell nuclear transfer in animals
     
  9. canadyjd

    canadyjd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2005
    Messages:
    12,944
    Likes Received:
    1,661
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Human clones (none exists yet) have the same DNA as another person. Clones are identified not only by the genetic makeup but also by the process that brought them into being.

    Twins have the same DNA but, scientifically speaking, are not clones. The reason they are not clones is because the process by which they came into being is not considered to be "cloning".

    Let's say we want to travel to Miami. You take a plane, and I take a bus. We both end up in the same place, but the way we got there is different.

    No matter how fast that bus moves, it will not be accurate for me to claim I "flew" to Miami.

    Twins and clones (potentially, though no humans clones yet) have the same DNA. The way they got to that point is a different process. Cloning is one process.

    Being a twin does not, scientifically, make you a clone...it makes you a twin.

    peace to you:praying:
     
  10. Gold Dragon

    Gold Dragon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Messages:
    5,143
    Likes Received:
    149
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    To use your analogy:

    We both travelled (cloned) to Miami and are both tourists (clones) in Miami. You became a tourist by flying (artificial cloning) while I became a tourist by taking the bus (natural cloning).
     
  11. canadyjd

    canadyjd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2005
    Messages:
    12,944
    Likes Received:
    1,661
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The analogy is flawed because we both begin as clones. Twins do not begin as clones and they do not end up as clones because the process that brings them into being is not cloning.

    To use your analogy of my analogy.

    We both travelled to Miami (reproduction of identical person) and are both tourists (same DNA as another person). You became a tourist by flying (process of cloning) while I became a tourist by bus (twin).

    We both end in same place but by different processes.

    Twins are not clones, so it is inaccurate to claim God has been cloning for thousands of years.

    peace to you:praying:
     
  12. Gold Dragon

    Gold Dragon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Messages:
    5,143
    Likes Received:
    149
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    You have correctly identified the problem with our terminology. Is a clone a person who has identical DNA or is a clone a person who has identical DNA via a specific process?

    One of the reasons I brought up the concept of twins is because people have the strange misconception that somehow the process of cloning creates something that is less than a person or owned by the person who is cloned simply because we view our DNA as "ours". The concept of twins as clones helps us to understand that a clone is simply another person who happens to share our DNA. We never think of one twin as less of a person than the other or one twin as owning the other simply because they share the same DNA. Yet somehow when we talk about cloning, weird thoughts come into mind about organ harvesting, souls, ownership, etc.

    I agree with you that the common usage of the word clone associates an artificial process for the creation of that person. However, the concept of what a clone ultimately becomes after the process of cloning (whether you consider twin birth cloning or not), is exactly the same as a twin. A clone is simply someone who shares your DNA. The main difference being that clones will probably be separated in age by many years while twins are separated in age by minutes to hours.

    The other question is: Is there something wrong with the cloning process? Ultimately, one must decide if reproductive technologies such as IVF are moral or not. But once you have decided on that, whether right or wrong, you have also decided about the technology behind cloning.

    The other problems with clones have to do with sociology. Who is the "parent" of the clone and responsible for raising them? What attitudes would parents have to raising their clone? Would the uncloned parent treat the clone differently than the parent who was cloned? What type of person would be cloned and would they be good parents?

    The following is an interesting article about the sociological impact of cloning by an ethicist who compares the childhoods of clones to issues faced by identical twins and step children.

    http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/mind/stories/s1313277.htm
     
    #92 Gold Dragon, May 14, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: May 14, 2009
  13. canadyjd

    canadyjd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2005
    Messages:
    12,944
    Likes Received:
    1,661
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Actually, the "weird thoughts" do not just appear in our minds. People are doing research at this very moment where eggs are being injected with DNA, and the resulting cells are being studied for medical application. Several people have already claimed to have successfully cloned a person.
    I disagree.

    A person can argue that IVF maintains the God-ordained method of reproduction, since the egg is fertilized by sperm. The only thing artificial is the way in which the egg is fertilized and is implanted in the womb.

    Cloning, in contrast, by-passes the God-ordained method of egg/sperm union, which combines genetic codes from mother and father, and replaces it with a man-made process where genetic material is removed from the egg and full DNA is injected into the egg.

    Those are two very different processes.

    peace to you:praying:
     
  14. Gold Dragon

    Gold Dragon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Messages:
    5,143
    Likes Received:
    149
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    You are talking about stem cell research which is an issue whether clones are involved or not as long as you are dealing with an embryo.

    Organ harvesting from a clone is usually talked about in the context of when the clone actually develops organs that are useful for transplantation when the clone is older than a small child. People seem to talk about it forgetting that a clone is a person who happens to share your DNA, just like a twin. He/she is not an owned object that is an extension of yourself.

    Nobody debates that twin birth and somatic nuclear cell transfer are two very different processes. The end result however is the same, two people with identical DNA.

    It is interesting that you God-ordain egg/sperm union but not male/female union in the creation of life. I would say the male/female union people have a lot more scriptural backing than your view.

    Which brings us back to identical twins. In identical twins, one egg/sperm union resulted in a single life. But God produced two, three or more out of it by a different process. The same is of clones. One egg/sperm union resulted in a life. Another process created a clone of that life.
     
    #94 Gold Dragon, May 15, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: May 15, 2009
  15. canadyjd

    canadyjd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2005
    Messages:
    12,944
    Likes Received:
    1,661
    Faith:
    Baptist
    They are one and the same thing. The male/female union is seen at the cellular level in the fertilization of the egg. IVF mimics the male/female union by keeping the egg/sperm fertilization process that produces the child. Cloning does not keep the egg/sperm process in place.
    It is not a "different process". It is not the "same as clones".

    It is a part of the natural process of division of cells. The single cell (with the combined genetic material) reproduces itself and splits. Each new cell has the same combined genetic material of mother/father, and then grows independently of each other. The genetic material is not "ripped out" and replaced by another, which is what happens in cloning.

    Cloning is not the same process as twins. No matter how many times you make the claim, it will never be true.

    peace to you:praying:
     
  16. Gold Dragon

    Gold Dragon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Messages:
    5,143
    Likes Received:
    149
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Fair enough. That is a valid way to rationalize justifying IVF and not cloning.
    Yes.
    I don't see anything wrong with taking genetic material out of a cell and replacing it with other genetic material. This is how recombinant proteins are currently made for things like insulin, clotting factors, etc that are used for patients who are deficient in those proteins. A virus is used to infect a bacteria to replace parts of its DNA or RNA so that the bacteria becomes a protein factory. The proteins are then collected and injected into humans with type 1 diabetes, hemophilia, etc. Cloning is simply doing the same thing at the mass level of the entire genome instead of part of the genome.

    I think you should stick to the rationale that your opposition to cloning is because it does not bring life via a sperm/egg union rather than any problem with the actual process of removing or inserting DNA.
    For the record, I've never said that cloning involves the same process as making twins. Simply that if you define a clone as someone with identical DNA as someone else, then having identical twins can be validly seen as natural cloning.
     
    #96 Gold Dragon, May 15, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: May 16, 2009
  17. canadyjd

    canadyjd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2005
    Messages:
    12,944
    Likes Received:
    1,661
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Creating insulin, clotting factors, etc..., is different from creating a human being.
    Thank you for your advice. I'll take it under unconsideration.
    This is what you said:
    It appears to me you are saying that "twinning" is a different process than single birth, and that different process which God used for twins is the same process as cloning.

    If you I have misunderstood your post, please explain how.

    peace to you:praying:
     
  18. Gold Dragon

    Gold Dragon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Messages:
    5,143
    Likes Received:
    149
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Yes you misunderstood me.

    Twinning is a two step process. The first step is sperm meeting egg producing one life in a fertilized ovum. The second step is when the cells in the two, four-cell stage or later stage of development split to become a second, third or more life.

    Similarly, cloning is a two step process. The first step is sperm meeting egg producing one life in a fertilized ovum. The ovum becomes a baby who becomes an adult. The second step is taking that adult's DNA and inserting it into a fertilized ovum to become a baby and another adult.

    My point was that the first step of sperm meeting egg is the same. The second step is different.
     
    #98 Gold Dragon, May 16, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: May 16, 2009
Loading...