Originally posted by generalissimoThe existence of the soul is hypothetical and irrelevant to any rational argument. I can make any metaphysical assumption I like but it doesn't prove anything, nor does it have any relevance for morality. For example, it may as well be that only cloned humans get a soul, and uncloned humans don't. Prove this wrong.
http://www.americancatholic.org/Messenger/May2003/Wiseman.asp#top
first question.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraCloning is tampering with the essence of life. It is morally
The existence of the soul is hypothetical and irrelevant to any rational argument. I can make any metaphysical assumption I like but it doesn't prove anything, nor does it have any relevance for morality. For example, it may as well be that only cloned humans get a soul, and uncloned humans don't. Prove this wrong.
wrong to artificially create life.
your last statement is nonsense.
Originally posted by generalissimoWhy is it morally wrong to artificially create life?
Cloning is tampering with the essence of life. It is morally
wrong to artificially create life.
your last statement is nonsense.
My last statement is just as nonsensical as claiming humans have a soul without giving an empirical reference to "soul".
Originally posted by KazetNagorraOh, did people forget to tell you that you cannot have rational arguements with True Believers? It's all about faith (theirs) and nothing else counts.
The existence of the soul is hypothetical and irrelevant to any rational argument. I can make any metaphysical assumption I like but it doesn't prove anything, nor does it have any relevance for morality. For example, it may as well be that only cloned humans get a soul, and uncloned humans don't. Prove this wrong.
EDIT: Some enlightened people actually surprise you.