John Stein wrote:
'While I'm no Bible expert, I can tell you where your argument falls apart. You say birthing twins should be immoral my Christian standards b/c they would be genetically identical, etc.'
Firstly, I don't pretend to know what your Christian standards are exactly. Secondly, I didn't say that birthing twins should be immoral by your standards, but rather asked whether it was.
'But the fact is, twins are not entirely identical. Even if everything about them is virtually the same right down to the bloodtype, they're not the same. The only proof needed would be their fingerprints. If I were 40 and i had a 10 year old clone, he'd have the same exact fingerprint. He'd be a copy. Not the same with twins.'
I am aware that identical twins are not really identical, just genetically identical. They have minor physical differences. Some of these are caused after birth, for example, twins may have different marks, scars and moles. Others are caused during their development in the womb. These include differences in size (if one twin gets more nutrients than the other it may grow larger) and the patterns of fingerprints.
There is no reason to think that clones would have identical fingerprints when identical twins do not. In fact, since a clone would not have the same womb environment as the original person, the two would be *more* different from each other than the average pair of identical twins. Thus, the argument doesn't fall apart, as the question remains: Is the idea that clones would have no souls because they would be genetically identical?
It's nice to see that at least some Christians believe that clones, would in fact have souls.
The Zaniak wrote:
'This essay didn't seem as organised as the essays by you I'm used to reading...I'm not sure why.'
That seems a fair assessment. I didn't put as much effort into this one as I usually would. It was just something I jotted down, just to keep my hand in. Further chapters will probably follow.
Thanks to all who have reviewed so far.