a teaser: When does human life begin if it is cloned life? and do they have "souls?"

[default]

No one would argue that a cloned animal isn't alive. Cloning is
manipulating yucky slimy stuff scientifically to produce life, or
actually to reproduce a particular life.

For the sake of discussion let's assume we are making human clones.

In reproductive cloning the nucleus of the person to be cloned is
implanted in an egg that has had its nucleus removed and discarded. Is
that human life? or does it become life after implanted in a womb?

Is it human? Does it have a soul?

Take it one further- create the DNA in the lab, make it mostly human,
but tweak it for high intelligence, remove congenital hereditary
faults, and just generally tinker with it a bit. "new and improved"

Is it still human? Does it still have a soul?

Would the religious say it has a god?

If it were to be aborted before going to term, is that still murder or
sin? what if something goes horribly wrong and it is aborted for
cause?

Inquiring minds want to know.... Exactly how are the religious folks
out there going to deal with these questions? Doubtless they'd want
to make it illegal, but equally doubtless someone, somewhere will do
just that.

[default]

On Sat, 04 Nov 2017 16:04:08 -0400, default <def...@defaulter.net>
wrote:

>In reproductive cloning the nucleus of the person to be cloned is
>implanted in an egg that has had its nucleus removed and discarded.

That should have been "..the DNA of the person to be cloned.."

[Ted]

default <def...@defaulter.net> wrote:
> No one would argue that a cloned animal isn't alive. Cloning is
> manipulating yucky slimy stuff scientifically to produce life, or
> actually to reproduce a particular life.
>
> For the sake of discussion let's assume we are making human clones.
>
> In reproductive cloning the nucleus of the person to be cloned is
> implanted in an egg that has had its nucleus removed and discarded. Is
> that human life? or does it become life after implanted in a womb?

Biologically?

>
> Is it human? Does it have a soul?
>
> Take it one further- create the DNA in the lab, make it mostly human,
> but tweak it for high intelligence, remove congenital hereditary
> faults, and just generally tinker with it a bit. "new and improved"
>
> Is it still human? Does it still have a soul?
>
> Would the religious say it has a god?
>
> If it were to be aborted before going to term, is that still murder or
> sin? what if something goes horribly wrong and it is aborted for
> cause?
>
> Inquiring minds want to know.... Exactly how are the religious folks
> out there going to deal with these questions? Doubtless they'd want
> to make it illegal, but equally doubtless someone, somewhere will do
> just that.

Those assholes will do all they can to make it illegal.

[Patrick]

On Sat, 04 Nov 2017 16:04:08 -0400, default <def...@defaulter.net>
wrote:

>No one would argue that a cloned animal isn't alive. Cloning is
>manipulating yucky slimy stuff scientifically to produce life, or
>actually to reproduce a particular life.
>
>For the sake of discussion let's assume we are making human clones.
>
>In reproductive cloning the nucleus of the person to be cloned is
>implanted in an egg that has had its nucleus removed and discarded. Is
>that human life? or does it become life after implanted in a womb?

You should ask God.
Since it is your fantasy.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Sat, 04 Nov 2017 16:04:08 -0400, default <def...@defaulter.net>
wrote:

Don't forget identical twins, where the zygote has divided.

[default]

They will probably make it illegal in the US, under the current
system.

I am assuming that it hasn't been done; that may be an erroneous
assumption. Once you know how, if you have the resources and the will,
there's nothing to stop you.

[default]

That's a good argument to use on the religious - god makes clones.

[Ted]

That's true, we wouldn't necessarily know.

[Robert Carnegie]

I gather that according to Roman Catholicism, each soul is
separately created by God and then installed in the embryo.
Therefore it's God's problem to settle. (To be clear,
I'm an atheist and I don't believe in souls.)

This supposedly occurs at the instant of fertilisation,
or possibly insemination (which may be whole days before
sperm meets egg and then fertilised egg finds its way
to stick to the lady's inside: it seems that they often
don't.)

So the soul of an in vitro embryo might arrive at
fertilisation, or when and if the embryo is put inside
a lady. I don't remember whether Rome has decided
whether embryos in test tubes have souls, apart from
saying that in vitro fertilisation is wrong anyway.

Other religions teach that a soul is your self and it
continues to exist when you die, but they may not be
specific about where it came from in the first place.
In some religions, after you die, your soul gets
reincarnated into another body, which may be a human
or an animal; this accounts for where most souls come
from, they are pre-owned. It may also imply that either
souls wait between lives for a conception to happen,
or else conception depends on a soul being available
for the embryo. Good luck testing that in the laboratory.

If you don't think about it, you may suppose that a soul
just sort of grows out of you.

[Astero...@yahoo.com]

No proof that there is a real human clone. Are there real animal clones? Some of these don't even look like the cloned animal. They have different colors and so fourth. The idea behind clones is that you get an identical individual. If the mother is different how could you get a clone?

[Robert Carnegie]

Are you talking about plain cloning, or cloning with improvements,
or aborting the clone embryo, being illegal? Or all three?

<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-41269200> describes research
done this year in London, England, with experimental embryos.
This was about introducing a defect and causing embryos to fail,
in order to prevent failure in other cases. In the UK, it is
not legal to implant modified embryos or to grow them for
longer than 14 days.

[Ted]

Interesting.

[Don Martin]

I believe that catholic dogma says that ensoulment occurs at
conception. Subsequent division must then also be a division of
souls.


--
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
Je pense, donc je suis Charlie.

[Robert Carnegie]

On Saturday, 4 November 2017 22:58:26 UTC, Astero...@yahoo.com wrote:
> No proof that there is a real human clone. Are there real animal clones? Some of these don't even look like the cloned animal. They have different colors and so fourth. The idea behind clones is that you get an identical individual. If the mother is different how could you get a clone?

Several are mentioned at:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_that_have_been_cloned>

If you want to consider answers to your questions, I can
offer some, but I am not an expert on this subject.

[Jeanne Douglas]

Human cloning IS illegal.




--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post

[default]

On Sat, 4 Nov 2017 15:58:24 -0700 (PDT), Astero...@yahoo.com
wrote:

>No proof that there is a real human clone. Are there real animal clones? Some of these don't even look like the cloned animal. They have different colors and so fourth. The idea behind clones is that you get an identical individual. If the mother is different how could you get a clone?

There already have been human embryos cloned - but not born. In
animals, even with cloning animals have different characteristics from
the sources, while still possessing identical DNA. Same with
identical twins.

You get clones because the mother's egg has had it's DNA removed as
part of the process.

I think we will have human clones eventually. Remember how every
religious nutter was against "test tube babies?" Now a few hundred
thousands a year are born.

And what about bio-engineering? You can cure hereditary diseases - no
one would object to that. You can improve the species too - why would
anyone object to that? What if you could clone a missing limb? The
acceptance of that sort of engineering may eventually pave the way to
cloning humans.

While human reproductive cloning is illegal in most of the world
today, does that mean some countries couldn't be experimenting in
secret? Perfect worker drones, perfect soldiers, unquestioning
obedience, high productivity... a dictator's dream.

[default]

On Sat, 4 Nov 2017 15:52:19 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
<rja.ca...@gmail.com> wrote:

The whole clone question calls to mind another Catholic Gotcha:
"original sin."

I'm sure the church, in it's need to invent original sin, intended it
as a way to insure people were baptized into the cult. The
theologians, who were later tasked with finding a justification for
original sin, came up with their tried-and-true sex is "sinful,
disgusting, icky, and dirty," references, and the clerical hierarchy
went along with it. That is when your soul is besmirched with O.S..
Something your parents did to you.

But cloning and in-vitro fertilization pretty much takes all the
pleasure and most of the yuckyness out of it, so it follows that
humans reproduced by cloning would have no "original sin."

Then Catholics still ignore the church's stance on IVF and the church
still merrily baptizes infants even when it knows how they were
conceived, so they'd probably still baptize a clone while still
condemning the practice - but how the hell will they deal with
original sin?

Theologians have been painting the RCC into corners from it's
inception, and finding illogical work-arounds when their decrees come
back and bite them in the ass.

[Patrick]

On Sat, 04 Nov 2017 18:41:40 -0400, default <def...@defaulter.net>

So what?
Your silly questions always cause serious apologists to make up some
answer that will satisfy you.
They you whine when the answer is as silly as the question.

Talk to the scientists.
They have been discussing this for 40 years.

[Ted]

Thanks Jeanne, I didn't know that. Too bad.

[Astero...@yahoo.com]

On Sunday, November 5, 2017 at 9:05:54 AM UTC-8, default wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Nov 2017 15:58:24 -0700 (PDT), Astero...@yahoo.com
> wrote:
>
> >No proof that there is a real human clone. Are there real animal clones? Some of these don't even look like the cloned animal. They have different colors and so fourth. The idea behind clones is that you get an identical individual. If the mother is different how could you get a clone?
>
> There already have been human embryos cloned - but not born. In
> animals, even with cloning animals have different characteristics from
> the sources, while still possessing identical DNA. Same with
> identical twins.
>
> You get clones because the mother's egg has had it's DNA removed as
> part of the process.
>
> I think we will have human clones eventually. Remember how every
> religious nutter

"Religious nutter"? You don't have to be a religious humanist (see Buddhism and Humanist Manifesto II) to realize that all humans are natural rights. The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Just because a human is little doesn't mean it doesn't have rights. If you can deny their rights, they can come after you. So protect yourself OK?

[Smiler]

What do scientists know about souls?
Do identical twins each have half of a soul?

--
Smiler,
The godless one. a.a.# 2279
All gods are tailored to order. They're made to
exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Smiler]

Identical twins, therefore, each have only half of a soul.
How does that work???

[Smiler]

On Sun, 05 Nov 2017 12:08:20 -0800, AsteroidSeven wrote:

> On Sunday, November 5, 2017 at 9:05:54 AM UTC-8, default wrote:
>> On Sat, 4 Nov 2017 15:58:24 -0700 (PDT), Astero...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>> >No proof that there is a real human clone. Are there real animal
>> >clones? Some of these don't even look like the cloned animal. They
>> >have different colors and so fourth. The idea behind clones is that
>> >you get an identical individual. If the mother is different how could
>> >you get a clone?
>>
>> There already have been human embryos cloned - but not born. In
>> animals, even with cloning animals have different characteristics from
>> the sources, while still possessing identical DNA. Same with identical
>> twins.
>>
>> You get clones because the mother's egg has had it's DNA removed as
>> part of the process.
>>
>> I think we will have human clones eventually. Remember how every
>> religious nutter
>
> "Religious nutter"? You don't have to be a religious humanist (see
> Buddhism and Humanist Manifesto II) to realize that all humans are
> natural rights.

Nope. I'm naturally half left.

> The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Of all human beings, those that have been born.

> Just because a human is little doesn't mean it doesn't have rights.

Once it has been born.

> If you can deny their rights, they can come after you. So protect
> yourself OK?

Why would I need to protect myself from unborn foetuses?

[Don Martin]

On Sun, 5 Nov 2017 20:45:54 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smi...@jo.king>
wrote:

And the poor quintuplets must make do with 20% each, but strangely
manage to be fully human, almost as if the soul thingy made no
difference whatsoever.

[Don Martin]

On Sun, 5 Nov 2017 20:50:48 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smi...@jo.king>
wrote:

Fractionally.

[default]

On Sun, 5 Nov 2017 12:08:20 -0800 (PST), Astero...@yahoo.com
wrote:

>On Sunday, November 5, 2017 at 9:05:54 AM UTC-8, default wrote:
>> On Sat, 4 Nov 2017 15:58:24 -0700 (PDT), Astero...@yahoo.com
>> wrote:
>>
>> >No proof that there is a real human clone. Are there real animal clones? Some of these don't even look like the cloned animal. They have different colors and so fourth. The idea behind clones is that you get an identical individual. If the mother is different how could you get a clone?
>>
>> There already have been human embryos cloned - but not born. In
>> animals, even with cloning animals have different characteristics from
>> the sources, while still possessing identical DNA. Same with
>> identical twins.
>>
>> You get clones because the mother's egg has had it's DNA removed as
>> part of the process.
>>
>> I think we will have human clones eventually. Remember how every
>> religious nutter
>
>"Religious nutter"? You don't have to be a religious humanist (see Buddhism and Humanist Manifesto II) to realize that all humans are natural rights. The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Just because a human is little doesn't mean it doesn't have rights. If you can deny their rights, they can come after you. So protect yourself OK?
>
>

When I say religious nutter I do mean Christians, Jews and Muslims.
(automatically, but not limited to them) Buddhism encourages people
to find spirituality within themselves, they have no deity, and none
of the happy horse-shit of a god that will rain down fire if they
don't obey.

Buddhism is the closest you can come to being religious and still sane
IMO.

The United States Declaration of Independence is not a religious
doctrine. Those "rights" are denied to many people all over the
planet. Donald Trump owns slaves for all practical purposes, they are
building the Trump International Golf Club in Dubai.

I've no doubt that cloning would result in a legal morass, but I was
only wondering how the religious would accept/condemn cloning humans.

A fetus, zygote, gamete, embryo are not little humans - just slimy
stuff that might be a human if things work out that way.

[Don Martin]

On Sun, 5 Nov 2017 20:58:02 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smi...@jo.king>
wrote:

Almost creepier than zombies, all those gormless little fetuses
chasing you about on flabby legs. Luckily, their lack of lung
function tends to cut their chases pretty short.

[Patrick]

On Sun, 5 Nov 2017 20:45:54 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smi...@jo.king>
wrote:

Are you serious?
How about if I just tell you: "Yes."
Will this make you happy?

[Robert Carnegie]

I think the "clones" we are discussing will still be grown
inside dirty woman parts like at present, and probably a woman
who had sex sometime. But eventually, clones may grow inside
laboratory props like they do on Star Trek.

Having read maybe half of its Wikipedia page, I don't feel
that I understand "original sin" but I don't think it is
transmitted because sex is dirty or is fun. (John Milton
was satisfied with the proposition that Adam and Eve had
sex and even enjoyed it before that fruit tree business
occurred. So neither is dirty in itself.)

If a future Pope needs to answer the question about
clones - besides solving the priest shortage with them -
I expect a clarification to say that original sin is
(1) in human DNA and always inherited - although we started
with you raising the question of genetic repairs - and/or
(2) ubiquitous in the environment so the clone would be
infected with it anyway.

They do say that Jesus's mother didn't have it, but
that is because God made her be an exception.

[Alex W.]

It may be a timeshare arrangement...

[Jeanne Douglas]

Even more pity for identical triplets or quads or quints.

[Smiler]

Yes, very serious.

> How about if I just tell you: "Yes."

That depends on whether you're telling the truth.
You usually don't.

> Will this make you happy?

Only your going away would do that.

[Smiler]

Who gets the best weeks?
What happens to the one that doesn't have it?
How does it get transferred?
(My local hospital doesn't do soul transplants.)

[Smiler]

Top half or bottom half?

[Smiler]

I believe that the length of the umbilical cord is the limiting factor for
their chases.

[Alex W.]

Luck of the draw?

> What happens to the one that doesn't have it?

They get to go to a soulless council estate.

> How does it get transferred?

Now that Monarch has gone belly up, it will have to be Easyjet or Ryan
Air...

> (My local hospital doesn't do soul transplants.)
>

Of course the hospital won't do that.
You need a cobbler.

[default]

On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 02:09:38 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smi...@jo.king>

He's on the installment plan with dementia, but he is going away.

[Patrick]

Smiler <smi...@jo.king> wrote:

>On Sun, 05 Nov 2017 18:29:11 -0500, Patrick wrote:


>>>Do identical twins each have half of a soul?
>>
>> Are you serious?
>
>Yes, very serious.

You need to find another hobby.

>> How about if I just tell you: "Yes."
>
>That depends on whether you're telling the truth.
>You usually don't.
>
>> Will this make you happy?
>
>Only your going away would do that.

Why should I?
I don't mind confronting trolls.
You are a troll, aren't you?

[Patrick]

On Tue, 07 Nov 2017 06:53:09 -0500, default <def...@defaulter.net>
wrote:

+ Actually, I like that definition.
You will notice that I am at my best in the early mornings.

[Don Martin]

Didn't some woman drop a litter of seven within the past year? 14% of
soul apiece, poor bastards.

[Don Martin]

On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 02:18:13 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smi...@jo.king>

Denominator to the firstborn (primogeniture and all that) and
numerator to the second. Easy-peasy!

[Don Martin]

On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 02:09:38 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smi...@jo.king>

Amen to that.

[Don Martin]

On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 02:23:51 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smi...@jo.king>

Unless they are dragging their afterbirths. They can be very placenta
then.

[Alex W.]

On the upside, there is a group discount available.

[default]

On Wed, 8 Nov 2017 10:33:32 +1100, "Alex W." <ing...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

On ebay?

[Alex W.]

No joke: it's been done.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=98892&page=1

[Smiler]

The one without draws gets lucky?

>> What happens to the one that doesn't have it?
>
> They get to go to a soulless council estate.

That explains Dagenham.

>> How does it get transferred?
>
> Now that Monarch has gone belly up, it will have to be Easyjet or Ryan
> Air...

Not air freight?

>> (My local hospital doesn't do soul transplants.)
>>
> Of course the hospital won't do that.
> You need a cobbler.

I see what's afoot here.

[Smiler]

On Tue, 07 Nov 2017 07:53:44 -0500, Patrick wrote:

> Smiler <smi...@jo.king> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 05 Nov 2017 18:29:11 -0500, Patrick wrote:
>
>>>>Do identical twins each have half of a soul?
>>>
>>> Are you serious?
>>
>>Yes, very serious.
>
> You need to find another hobby.

You need to find an answer.

>>> How about if I just tell you: "Yes."
>>
>>That depends on whether you're telling the truth. You usually don't.
>>
>>> Will this make you happy?
>>
>>Only your going away would do that.
>
> Why should I?
> I don't mind confronting trolls.
> You are a troll, aren't you?

Patrick talks to the mirror.

[Smiler]

Erm, thanks for explaining it, Don.

[Smiler]

One wonders how the buyer would collect?

[Smiler]

They can be easily placated with some milk, but be sure to burp them
afterwards.

[Alex W.]

Badly Drawn Boy strikes again ...

>
>>> What happens to the one that doesn't have it?
>>
>> They get to go to a soulless council estate.
>
> That explains Dagenham.

Lewisham, Hounslow, Harlesden ...

>
>>> How does it get transferred?
>>
>> Now that Monarch has gone belly up, it will have to be Easyjet or Ryan
>> Air...
>
> Not air freight?

Didn't I just say that?

>
>>> (My local hospital doesn't do soul transplants.)
>>>
>> Of course the hospital won't do that.
>> You need a cobbler.
>
> I see what's afoot here.
>

Better toe the line then!

[Malcolm McMahon]

Maybe they are like worms. Cut a soul in half and each half regenerates into a complete soul.

That would provide a neat resolution of the replicator problem too.

Or maybe there is only ever one soul.

[Jeanne Douglas]

Probably not identical septuplets, though. Usually to get that requires a petri dish or whatever.

[Patrick]

On Wed, 8 Nov 2017 02:50:10 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smi...@jo.king>
wrote:

>On Tue, 07 Nov 2017 07:53:44 -0500, Patrick wrote:
>
>> Smiler <smi...@jo.king> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 05 Nov 2017 18:29:11 -0500, Patrick wrote:
>>
>>>>>Do identical twins each have half of a soul?
>>>>
>>>> Are you serious?
>>>
>>>Yes, very serious.
>>
>> You need to find another hobby.
>
>You need to find an answer.

Why?
Would an answer solve all the mysteries of the universe for you?

[Don Martin]

On Wed, 8 Nov 2017 02:59:00 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smi...@jo.king>

Under the medieval scheme, being present to suck in the seller's last
breath would do it. One would hope that he isn't dying of pneumonia.

[Robert Carnegie]

What about siamese twins?

As I explained, Roman Catholics have an answer, although
I myself don't like it; it is that when a soul is required,
God provides one. So if one embryo ball of cells splits
into two - God provides an extra soul at just that moment.

I haven't asked an RC priest about this. They may in fact have
either a different plausible answer for each of these cases,
or an autonomic reflex to murder anyone who brings it up.
I don't particularly want to find out, either way.

However, cases of Catholic objection to life-saving surgery
for one of a conjoined twin pair while the other one dies
indicates that, at least, the church doesn't believe with
certainty that there is only one soul involved.

[Smiler]

And keep instep.

[Smiler]

On Wed, 08 Nov 2017 17:12:51 -0500, Patrick wrote:

> On Wed, 8 Nov 2017 02:50:10 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smi...@jo.king>
> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 07 Nov 2017 07:53:44 -0500, Patrick wrote:
>>
>>> Smiler <smi...@jo.king> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 05 Nov 2017 18:29:11 -0500, Patrick wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>Do identical twins each have half of a soul?
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you serious?
>>>>
>>>>Yes, very serious.
>>>
>>> You need to find another hobby.
>>
>>You need to find an answer.
>
> Why?
> Would an answer solve all the mysteries of the universe for you?

No, but it would show that what you believe is nonsense.

>>>>> How about if I just tell you: "Yes."
>>>>
>>>>That depends on whether you're telling the truth. You usually don't.
>>>>
>>>>> Will this make you happy?
>>>>
>>>>Only your going away would do that.
>>>
>>> Why should I?
>>> I don't mind confronting trolls.
>>> You are a troll, aren't you?
>>
>>Patrick talks to the mirror.
>
> You are a troll, aren't you?

Patrick talks to the mirror, again.

[Smiler]

I doubt that that would work with quintuplets or sextuplets.
IIRC, only the head end of a cut worm 'regenerates'.

> That would provide a neat resolution of the replicator problem too.
>
> Or maybe there is only ever one soul.

Better still is that there are none and it's all religious fiction.

[Smiler]

Or one of several other fatal airborne diseases. TB for example.

[Cloud Hobbit]

But there has to be such a thing, how else will I get to see the stripper factory and the beer volcano?

[Patrick]

On Thu, 9 Nov 2017 03:14:06 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smi...@jo.king>

wrote:

>On Wed, 08 Nov 2017 17:12:51 -0500, Patrick wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 8 Nov 2017 02:50:10 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smi...@jo.king>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 07 Nov 2017 07:53:44 -0500, Patrick wrote:
>>>
>>>> Smiler <smi...@jo.king> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 05 Nov 2017 18:29:11 -0500, Patrick wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>Do identical twins each have half of a soul?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are you serious?
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes, very serious.
>>>>
>>>> You need to find another hobby.
>>>
>>>You need to find an answer.
>>
>> Why?
>> Would an answer solve all the mysteries of the universe for you?
>
>No, but it would show that what you believe is nonsense.

Now that was the first sensible thing you've said.
There are certain things I just don't worry about.
That is merely one of those things.
As is "Why do I like large curd cottage cheese better than small
curd?"

[Malcolm McMahon]

Then why would He bother to provide a soul to an embryo fated to be aborted?

[Robert Carnegie]

I'm not here to defend this, but, if he's God, he can do whatever
he likes. And what do you mean, "fated to be aborted"? God would
probably say that getting an abortion is an act of human free will;
not fate.

I'm more worried that apparently it amuses this God to put innocent
new souls into condemned original-sin bodies and then punish the soul
for the "original sin".

Or maybe it is like novelist Philip Pullman's "Dust", the imaginary
material of consciousness; spirits everywhere, and the ones that
collide with a human embryo do so by bad luck or incompetent steering?
So they get punished for bad driving.

Hmm!

[Don Martin]

On Thu, 9 Nov 2017 03:12:08 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smi...@jo.king>
wrote:

An arch comment!

[Smiler]

By being touched by his noodly appendage, of course.

[Smiler]

Avoidance noted.

[Smiler]

Yet most abortions are natural and more commonly termed 'miscarriages'.

> I'm more worried that apparently it amuses this God to put innocent new
> souls into condemned original-sin bodies and then punish the soul for
> the "original sin".
>
> Or maybe it is like novelist Philip Pullman's "Dust", the imaginary
> material of consciousness; spirits everywhere, and the ones that collide
> with a human embryo do so by bad luck or incompetent steering?
> So they get punished for bad driving.
>
> Hmm!

Driving under the influence of spirits?

[Olrik]

You've nailed it!


--
Olrik
aa #1981
EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division

[Alex W.]

He's got balls indeed...

[Malcolm McMahon]

Far more embryos abort spontaneously than are aborted by human choice. I understand that the human reproductive system is amongst the most inefficient in the whole mamalia (maybe Giant Pandas are worse).

[Don Martin]

I just vamped it.

[Patrick]

On Fri, 10 Nov 2017 04:13:48 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smi...@jo.king>

wrote:

>On Thu, 09 Nov 2017 08:07:45 -0500, Patrick wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 9 Nov 2017 03:14:06 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smi...@jo.king>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 08 Nov 2017 17:12:51 -0500, Patrick wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 8 Nov 2017 02:50:10 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smi...@jo.king>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 07 Nov 2017 07:53:44 -0500, Patrick wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Smiler <smi...@jo.king> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Sun, 05 Nov 2017 18:29:11 -0500, Patrick wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Do identical twins each have half of a soul?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Are you serious?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Yes, very serious.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You need to find another hobby.
>>>>>
>>>>>You need to find an answer.
>>>>
>>>> Why?
>>>> Would an answer solve all the mysteries of the universe for you?
>>>
>>>No, but it would show that what you believe is nonsense.
>>
>> Now that was the first sensible thing you've said.
>> There are certain things I just don't worry about.
>> That is merely one of those things.
>> As is "Why do I like large curd cottage cheese better than small curd?"
>
>Avoidance noted.

OK, OK.
I just like the size and shape of the large curd.
It goes easier on the fork.
Do you feel better now.

[Robert Carnegie]

"To be aborted" sounds like you're talking about terminations.
And I still don't get the "fated" part. But, of course,
God doesn't exist, and neither do souls.

I just thought your argument was sloppy for arguing with Catholics,
who can be pretty sharp mentally. I don't mean the ones here
in alt.atheism, of course. Their being here proves that.
But, say, a pope.

[Smiler]

Does that make you a heel?

[Cloud Hobbit]

But there has to be such a thing, how else will I get to see the
> stripper factory and the beer volcano?

By being touched by his noodly appendage, of course.

___________________

Face palm.

Thanks for that wonderful spiritual reminder.

[Don Martin]

On Sat, 11 Nov 2017 04:54:04 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smi...@jo.king>

That's a load of old cobblers.

[Smiler]

Is that your last comment on the subject?

[Rick Johnson]

On Saturday, November 4, 2017 at 5:52:22 PM UTC-5, Robert Carnegie wrote:

> On Saturday, 4 November 2017 20:04:10 UTC, default wrote:
> > No one would argue that a cloned animal isn't alive.
> > Cloning is manipulating yucky slimy stuff scientifically
> > to produce life, or actually to reproduce a particular
> > life. For the sake of discussion let's assume we are
> > making human clones. In reproductive cloning the nucleus
> > of the person to be cloned is implanted in an egg that has
> > had its nucleus removed and discarded. Is that human life?
> > or does it become life after implanted in a womb? Is it
> > human? Does it have a soul? Take it one further- create
> > the DNA in the lab, make it mostly human, but tweak it for
> > high intelligence, remove congenital hereditary faults,
> > and just generally tinker with it a bit. "new and
> > improved" Is it still human? Does it still have a soul?
> > Would the religious say it has a god? If it were to be
> > aborted before going to term, is that still murder or sin?
> > what if something goes horribly wrong and it is aborted
> > for cause? Inquiring minds want to know.... Exactly how
> > are the religious folks out there going to deal with these
> > questions? Doubtless they'd want to make it illegal, but
> > equally doubtless someone, somewhere will do just that.
>

> I gather that according to Roman Catholicism, each soul is
> separately created by God and then installed in the embryo.
> Therefore it's God's problem to settle. (To be clear, I'm

> an atheist and I don't believe in souls.) This supposedly
> occurs at the instant of fertilisation, or possibly
> insemination (which may be whole days before sperm meets
> egg and then fertilised egg finds its way to stick to the
> lady's inside: it seems that they often don't.)

So ghod is a perverted gardener who sneaks into ladies
private parts and "plants" souls in newly fertilized eggs.
If this is true, i do hope the poor chap has a lifetime
supply of hazmat suits.

[Don Martin]

On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 02:23:15 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smi...@jo.king>

Just as terminal as an aglet.

[Smiler]

<Thanks for that. I never knew what they were called>

I see that I have you tied in knots.
And don't lace your reply with insolets.

[Don Martin]

On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 04:56:23 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smi...@jo.king>

I was just trying to keep you a breast of the terminology . . . .

[Smiler]

I raise my cap to your efforts.

[Malcolm McMahon]

Have you read the "parable of the seeds". It should clearly be Our _Farmer_ Who Art in Heaven.

[Rick Johnson]

On Wednesday, November 15, 2017 at 3:57:27 AM UTC-6, Malcolm McMahon wrote:
> On Sunday, 12 November 2017 03:22:50 UTC, Rick Johnson wrote:

[...]

> > So ghod is a perverted gardener who sneaks into ladies
> > private parts and "plants" souls in newly fertilized eggs.
> > If this is true, i do hope the poor chap has a lifetime
> > supply of hazmat suits.
>
> Have you read the "parable of the seeds". It should clearly
> be Our _Farmer_ Who Art in Heaven.

Oh, i've read that verse!

And it continues:

"Hallowed be thy spade".

...?

[Don Martin]

On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 03:06:02 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smi...@jo.king>

With a feather in it, I see . . . . .

[Smiler]

You are a much studded fellow.

[Smiler]

Harrowed be thy spade...

[Alex W.]

On 18/11/2017 16:53, Smiler wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 04:44:19 -0800, Rick Johnson wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, November 15, 2017 at 3:57:27 AM UTC-6, Malcolm McMahon
>> wrote:
>>> On Sunday, 12 November 2017 03:22:50 UTC, Rick Johnson wrote:
>> [...]
>>>> So ghod is a perverted gardener who sneaks into ladies private parts
>>>> and "plants" souls in newly fertilized eggs.
>>>> If this is true, i do hope the poor chap has a lifetime supply of
>>>> hazmat suits.
>>>
>>> Have you read the "parable of the seeds". It should clearly be Our
>>> _Farmer_ Who Art in Heaven.
>>
>> Oh, i've read that verse!
>>
>> And it continues:
>>
>> "Hallowed be thy spade".
>>
>> ...?
>
> Harrowed be thy spade...
>

Harry, be thy spayed?

[Don Martin]

On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 22:12:08 +1100, "Alex W." <ing...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

Be thee spayed, more like.

[Alex W.]

On 19/11/2017 09:12, Don Martin wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 22:12:08 +1100, "Alex W." <ing...@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> On 18/11/2017 16:53, Smiler wrote:
>>> On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 04:44:19 -0800, Rick Johnson wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wednesday, November 15, 2017 at 3:57:27 AM UTC-6, Malcolm McMahon
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, 12 November 2017 03:22:50 UTC, Rick Johnson wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>>>> So ghod is a perverted gardener who sneaks into ladies private parts
>>>>>> and "plants" souls in newly fertilized eggs.
>>>>>> If this is true, i do hope the poor chap has a lifetime supply of
>>>>>> hazmat suits.
>>>>>
>>>>> Have you read the "parable of the seeds". It should clearly be Our
>>>>> _Farmer_ Who Art in Heaven.
>>>>
>>>> Oh, i've read that verse!
>>>>
>>>> And it continues:
>>>>
>>>> "Hallowed be thy spade".
>>>>
>>>> ...?
>>>
>>> Harrowed be thy spade...
>>>
>>
>> Harry, be thy spayed?
>
> Be thee spayed, more like.
>

Thee spied my trifling error...

[Smiler]

You call being spayed 'a trifling error'???

[Alex W.]

If I am the surgeon who was supposed to repair my patient's hernia,
sure, I would!

[Smiler]

You're Andrew B. Chung?

[Alex W.]

Only after a VERY heavy night's drinking.

[Olrik]

Or after a VERY deranged day of eating more than two pounds of food!

--
Olrik
aa #1981
EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division

[Alex W.]

... possibly involving large amounts of melted cheese. Bring on the fondue!

[Olrik]

I hate cheese fondue. I prefer chinese or french fondues, where they
have various meats cooked in savoury bouillons or oils, then dipped in
glorious sauces.

Cheese is to be eaten by itself, or in grilled cheese sandwiches with
bacon. End of story.

[Alex W.]

Those sauces had better be glorious! All too often, I have turned up
expecting a gustatory feast of gastronomic delight, only to be met with
bowls of shop-bought bottled sauces...

>
> Cheese is to be eaten by itself, or in grilled cheese sandwiches with
> bacon. End of story.
>

Have you really never experienced the pleasures of a raclette? Or a
Greek saganaki cheese?

Woe is you...