Cytoplasmic hybrids and the beginning of life

Status
Not open for further replies.

SRoper

Puritan Board Graduate
The subject of cytoplasmic hybrids came up recently with some members of my bible study (we have several life science researchers and med students in our group). Apparently Britain is going to allow the creation of cytoplasmic human-animal hybrids for research. I missed the conversation, but I'm told the discussion revolved around the beginning of life, the origin of the soul, and creationism vs. traducianism. I'm interested in what implications cytoplasmic hybrids and cloning in general has for when we say life begins. It seems to me that the formula of life begins at conception is inadequate. I'm also curious if this has any implications for the creationism/traducianism debate.
 
The subject of cytoplasmic hybrids came up recently with some members of my bible study (we have several life science researchers and med students in our group). Apparently Britain is going to allow the creation of cytoplasmic human-animal hybrids for research. I missed the conversation, but I'm told the discussion revolved around the beginning of life, the origin of the soul, and creationism vs. traducianism. I'm interested in what implications cytoplasmic hybrids and cloning in general has for when we say life begins. It seems to me that the formula of life begins at conception is inadequate. I'm also curious if this has any implications for the creationism/traducianism debate.

Why would life not begin at conception in these schemes? There has to be a point at which the zygote has his own genetic identity. Even a clone would have his own identity and have no vital connection to the original. His "conception" would be when the cloning process is complete.
 
I don't think "genetic identity" is helpful because it is a clone; it has the same genes as the donor (well, as the donor cell, which might contain mutations). In conception the situation is different. There we have two haploid cells combining to form a diploid cell.
 
I don't think "genetic identity" is helpful because it is a clone; it has the same genes as the donor (well, as the donor cell, which might contain mutations). In conception the situation is different. There we have two haploid cells combining to form a diploid cell.

But the clone would still have it's own identity and person, as soon as the DNA was inserted.
 
I agree that that would make sense, which is why "life begins at conception" is inadequate since there is no conception in that case.

I suppose there are also difficulties in the case of identical twins.

I'm not sure there are any implications for creationism, but I think anyone who holds to traducianism would have to assert that both parents contribute to the immaterial part of the person as a clone can be made from either a male or female.
 
If you are speaking of a human-animal mutation though...would the creature have a soul tyope issues arise. I'm not sure how they are planning to mutate the two together.
 
It's not mutation it is hybridization. It has already been done in China. I believe what they do is take an animal ovum, remove the nucleus, and place genetic material from a human cell into the ovum. The result is not a true hybrid since it is not taking half it's genetic material from an animal and half from a human. It would have 99.9% human cells if allowed to develop. Such a creature would have a soul (all living creatures have souls, see Eccl. 3:21), and there is no doubt in my mind that the soul would be a rational soul.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top