Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Re: Is Cloning Morally Ethical?

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Phil.o.Sofir on January 19, 1999 13:00:48 UTC

: : This post raised another issue which I ponder often. But I'll get to that after addressing cloning. I believe, but its not a strong belief as I don't know much about this issue, that cloning could be used for good but would probably be used for bad. Its something that is here, the question is how will we as a species deal with this dilema. From an uneducated perspective, erroring on the side of caution and taking it slow seems to be the best approach. : The issue mentioned at the top of my passage was that of free-will. Two issues were braught up in the previous post, that of genetics and that of environment. Person A is composed of specific genetics and born into a certain environment. Person B is composed of different genetics and born into the same environment. Person C is composed of the same genetics and born into a different environment. The crux of this is the following: Could person A be a gangster who commits murder on the streets, another person is a successful lawyer or doctor who is cloned, hence person B, and turns out to be a gangster as well? Or vice-versa, the gangster grows up to be successful in a different environment. This issue raises many questions about our society, and ultimately the issue of a "god". For if someone would be different if born in a different environment, than surely they couldn't be damned to hell for their crimes.

: H

Issues of souls and hell seem so concerned with todays behavior and punishment, it seems we must apply one to another or the issue is irelevant, which is the stance I take, although it does have real world effects and consequences. For example, one who questions religious or even scientific doctrine is almost automatically labeled deveint, troublesome... But to question supposed facts and the authority of these facts is of utmost importance to disovering more about the nature of what truth is, regarless of perception or popularity, so that leads me to see religious intitutions in cooperation with science as repressors of ideas to a point, even in our openly expressive environment of communication technology. The big bang is an interesting theory, but it presupposes that the universe or space has an edge or end, it is also in agreement of sorts with the creation theory. Of course big bangs probably occur all the time in an infinite universe, but this is only a reassimilation of matter, not the creation of it. I even question the "universal" belief that atoms function or even exist in the ways we insist they do, there is more to it, do you think?

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2024 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins