Shoukhrat Mitalipov, of Oregon Health & Science University
Researchers at The Oregon Health & Science University have just announced in Cell that they successfully cloned 21 humans, and then killed them to extract their stem cells at the blastocyst stage (although they didn’t describe it as “killing”). This is the first time stem cells have ever been derived from a human clone.
Welcome to the brave new world of cloning.
HT: Wesley J. Smith
Thinking to Believe 
May 16, 2013 at 10:13 am
Did they have souls?
LikeLike
May 16, 2013 at 11:42 am
I think you are trying being sensational using a headline Humans have been cloned for the first time saying 21 humans have been cloned and killed. That sound like something from the Midnight Enquirer Newsrag.
Human biology materials were used, a donated egg with it’s DNA removed a human skin cell inserted and zapped with electricity to mimic fertilization causing cell division.
No humans were cloned. Forget the Media Drama puleeeze.
LikeLike
May 16, 2013 at 11:46 am
NotASCientist:
“Did they have souls?”
All a soul is, is “Emotion” as in
Body, Soul and Spirit
Mind, Emotion and Will
All animals have souls, all that having a soul proves is that you are not a vegetable, it doesn’t prove you are human.
LikeLike
May 16, 2013 at 3:09 pm
NotaScientist, yes, they did. Every living thing has a soul. But why does that matter?
LikeLike
May 16, 2013 at 3:14 pm
Leo,
I wasn’t being sensational. That is exactly what took place. They cloned. What did they clone? A rabbit? No, a human. And what did they do with the humans they cloned? They killed them to extract their stem cells.
You need to freshen up on your biology, or read the details more carefully. You skipped the part about a human zygote being formed. What they produce in cloning is identical to the person they extracted the nuclear DNA from, when that person’s existence began. If you compared what that person looked like at the zygote stage of development, to what these scientists created, they would be identical (minus the small amounts of mDNA from the enucleated egg).
Jason
LikeLike
May 16, 2013 at 7:49 pm
You are saying that the DNA from a human skin cell inserted into a human egg from which the human DNA was extracted when zapped with an electrical charge to began forming stem cells to begin the process of formation and for you that constitutes a human being with a soul?
Ridiculous in your ludicrity.
According to your idea of what constitutes a human being, all stem cells are human beings, acquired by any means. What is a stem cell but that it can form an entire human being? And you said you were not against stem cell research. With your myopic definition you are against all stem cell research which is exactly what I said about religious insanity. You just proved my comments correct.
LikeLike
May 17, 2013 at 4:59 am
Jason,
Regarding NotAScientist question whether it has a soul or not is an interesting one.
I wonder whether Humans can be cloned in the fullness of humanity or whether they can only be created as an animal without the human soul…
If the latter, then cloning and killing should be no more immoral than cattle farming or eating eggs surely?
And to your suggestion that “every living things has a soul”, I will only agree with you (at present) if you are suggesting that the human being is a “rational animal” – That is, has a mind, soul and body as opposed to an animal which has a soul and body (but no rational mind)
LikeLike
May 17, 2013 at 6:22 am
“NotaScientist, yes, they did. Every living thing has a soul. But why does that matter?”
I was curious about your opinion. I don’t think anyone/anything has souls because I don’t believe souls exist.
If they all had souls, though, does that mean that humans have essentially found a way to create souls in the lab?
LikeLike
May 17, 2013 at 10:21 am
Jason:
Don’t you, and doesn’t anybody find it curious that the ethical concerns and opposition by the religious community to embryonic stem cell research was because “life begins at conception” therefore harvesting stems cells from embryonic cells after conception amounted to “killing babies”.
Now however, the tune has CHANGED according to your position.
No sperm was ever used, DNA was removed from an unconceived egg; therefore, no conception took place and according to the previous religious argument that “life begins at conception”, never took place, so now the opposition takes a new road to continue their opposition to stem cell research by essentially saying now that life does not begin with conception but begins………..? HUH? At what point in this process did life begin without sperm/egg conception? And at what point did the Soul of Emotion, Intuition, Instinctual Drive begin if it ever did begin?
May 17 2013
SCIENTISTS FINALLY MAKE THAT BREAKTHROUGH IN HUMAN CLONING THEY AND NO ONE ELSE HAS BEEN LOOKING FOR
Portland, OR – One of the dreams of science, and one of the nightmares of people afraid of the future, has been the cloning of humans. Cloning has happened already, quite a bit actually, but nailing down the human genetic code has always been a difficult thing that has prevented any such nightmare scenarios.
Now, it appears, that barrier has been broken. While not actual human beings have been created with the new technique, scientists have been able to push a human embryo to advanced stages of development. That process will allow for the harvesting of stem cells, outside the ethical medical concerns related to that harvesting, and could well lead to human cloning.
Thus far, the scientists have confirmed that they have not created any actual humans but could do so at any time of their choosing.
SOURCE:
http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/Science/pages-6/Scientists-finally-make-that-breakthrough-in-human-cloning-they-and-no-one-else-has-been-looking-for-Scrape-TV-The-World-on-your-side-2013-05-17.html#.UZZWo-D2yVg
LikeLike
May 17, 2013 at 7:13 pm
Mark Rlddle gives a great talk on the Stem Cells issue
http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/video/ondemand/cloning-stem-cells/cloning-stem-cells-value-of-life
Those of you who have bought into the media and misinformation about stem cells need to see this talk. It seems that embryo stem cells are not needed and full grown stem cell can do everything the embryo stem cells can, so why the push and focus on embryo stem cell?
As for the “soul” issue, I think you first need to define what you mean when you say soul. It seems to be used different ways in the Bible. But I doubt that the cloned human would have a soul in the sense that we humans do who are produced via natural birth, (Sorry Jason). There has to be something different, but that will not be know for sure until some deranged person clones a human to full age. And it will be tried (if it has not already) considering the sick immoral state of intelligent humanity these days.
Some of you seem to be overlooking the depth of human depravity, and where this all can and no doubt will lead, the ignorant pride of needing to be the first to do something no matter how dangerous of immoral and enormous potential for abuse of such technology is mind shaking. We are indeed living in the last days.
Thanks for the info Jason.
LikeLike
May 18, 2013 at 1:22 am
Leo,
You skip from one thing to another. Why can’t you respond to what I wrote, instead of switching the topic? We were talking about whether the process involves creating human embryos, and then you switch the topic to talking about souls. So let me ask you point-blank: Do you affirm or deny that somatic cell nuclear transfer produces a human embryo, biologically indistinguishable from a human embryo produced via fertilization?
I don’t think you understand substance dualism, or what philosophers and theologians understand a soul to be. A soul is the animating principle. It is what makes something alive rather than dead. So it should be no strange thing to think that a living embryo has a soul. The problem appears to be in your conception of a soul.
You write, “According to your idea of what constitutes a human being, all stem cells are human beings, acquired by any means.” You don’t understand what I mean by a human being, or you misunderstand embryology, because I would never make such a ludicrous claim. Human beings are whole organisms. Stem cells are merely parts of a human being. Embryos are human beings because they are a whole, self-integrating organism capable of directing its own maturation as a member of the human species. The same cannot be said of stem cells (contrary to your claim). Separated from the embryo, they will either die, or they will only form human organs. They will never become a human being.
It takes some real cahones to tell someone that they don’t believe what they say they believe. On the other post about the success of adult stem cell research, I noted my support (and the general Christian support) of stem cell research. I don’t know of any mainstream denomination, church, or church leader who is opposed to non-embryonic stem cell research.
Jason
LikeLike
May 18, 2013 at 1:23 am
Scott,
His question may be interesting, but it is irrelevant to the debate (and I see that he was not asking it for purposes of the debate, but just out of interest).
I think we have every reason to believe that a cloned human has a soul. After all, cloning is essentially “delayed twinning.” While it’s an artificial process, it’s virtually the same thing nature does when a twin is created in the womb. And philosophically speaking, the existence of the soul precedes the existence of biological life, at least logically speaking. The soul is what directs the development of the organism toward maturation. If cloned embryos lacked souls, they would not be alive. I would highly recommend you read “Body and Soul” by J.P. Moreland and Scott B. Rae for more on this.
I don’t think there is only one kind of soul. Souls are imbued with different properties. Some souls, such as those of the higher primates, have additional properties that lower animals do not have. So while all living things have souls, not all souls are equal. And in the case of man, our souls alone have transendent worth and will endure beyond death because our souls alone are created in God’s image (i.e. are imbued with properties that pattern divine properties).
Jason
LikeLike
May 18, 2013 at 1:23 am
NotAScientist,
I don’t mind sharing my opinion on the matter. I just thought you were going to argue that if I did not believe embryos have souls, then there is no reason to object to killing embryos. A lot of people argue that way (in the abortion debate as well), and I don’t think that follows. But you weren’t going there, so that’s that.
Have scientists found a way to create souls in the lab? Yes and no. Yes, in the sense that they brought the conditions about that a new human life begins, and since living things are soulish in nature, the scientists created a soul in the lab. But in this sense, this isn’t something new. That started with in vitro fertilization. But I would have to say no, in the sense that the soul is immaterial, and they cannot create anything immaterial. They are only indirectly responsible for bringing a soul into existence. The phenomenon is similar to starting a fire with sticks. When you rub the sticks together, it produces fire. You did not create the fire. That is simply the byproduct of certain conditions that you can control. Similarly, in somatic cell nuclear transfer the scientists are just mixing biological parts, but when they do so in a certain way, a new soulish organism comes into being.
Jason
LikeLike
May 18, 2013 at 1:23 am
Leo,
This latest complaint of yours takes the cake. Talk about an uncharitable interpretation of your opponent’s position! The basic meaning of “conception” is “beginning.” That was a fitting word to use in the context of natural reproduction since the fertilization of the ovum by a male sperm is the beginning of new life. In its most basic meaning, even a cloned human being can be said to have been conceived. But you and I know that the term has come to refer specifically to the process of natural reproduction (and for good reason, since for most of human history that was the only possible means of creating a human).
The mantra that “life begins at conception” was popularized in the context of the abortion debate because in the case of abortion, virtually every baby subject to abortion is a baby produced by natural reproduction. But no prolife advocate ever claimed then, nor do they proclaim now, that what makes a human valuable is how they were created, so that only human beings created via conception are real humans with intrinsic value. What is valuable is the created thing itself, however that comes about. So long as the “thing” produced via cloning is the same “thing” produced via natural reproduction in utero, then prolifers will value each equally. There has never been a change in our position. We value human beings from the moment they come into being, however it is that they come into being.
As for your news article, this is one more example of the obfuscation I am talking about. This person says “no actual human beings have been created with this technique.” Clearly he is defining “human beings” in a non-biological way (to refer only to humans who are born), because even he admits that what was created was a “human embryo.” Biologically speaking, it is nonsense to say a human embryo is not a human being.
And then he says it “could well lead to human cloning.” Again, nonsense. What these scientists did IS human cloning! Once again he is redefining terms in a non-biological way to obfuscate what is going on. He is defining human cloning as allowing the cloned human to be born. But this is a false definition. Cloning refers to the process used to create the human, not what is done with the human after s/he is created.
Jason
LikeLike
May 18, 2013 at 7:53 am
Jason:
First of all I did not bring up the topic of “soul”, NotAScientist did and you responded to him by saying yes they created a soul in the lab and then the topic started on about souls.
“Do you affirm or deny that somatic cell nuclear transfer produces a human embryo, biologically indistinguishable from a human embryo produced via fertilization?”
NO I cannot affirm or deny that.
“You don’t understand what I mean by a human being, or you misunderstand embryology”
BOTH.
I don’t understand what you mean by a human being and I do not have academic, practical or research background in embryology to understand that science.
What I do know is that you do not know what a soul is, that a soul does not determine if you have life or not and not all living things have a soul and one thing for certain is that the soul has no transcendent worth and does not endure beyond death as the supernatural religious argument for afterlife asserts. For a soul to endure beyond death it would mean that a soul has existence before life and without life and that’s when the religious mind goes off on its ethereal tangent of supernaturalism.
LikeLike
May 18, 2013 at 8:00 am
To Jason et al:
The soul seems to be a big issue with a number of writers regarding recent advances making the news about the cloning of human stem cells. It is interesting how so few people understand the nature of soul.
It is amazing to no small degree how so few people understand the nature of “soul”; in particular, Christians who seem only able to glean their daily information from the bible that was, itself, conceived and written in antiquity. There are pages and pages about how to sacrifice animals, and keep slaves, about who to kill and why. There’s nothing about electricity, there’s nothing about DNA, there’s nothing about infectious disease, about the principles of infectious disease, much less about what a soul is.
So I shall turn on the lamp of knowledge and illustrate to you the nature of soul, in such a way that you cannot possibly fail to understand. You will tell your kids and your grandkids one day what a soul is and reflect on the day that you discovered the meaning of a soul, on a Jasondulle Blogsite.
THE NATURE OF SOUL:
We may be profoundly thankful with this magnificent piece of engineering that we have been provided called body but it’s not you; you’re on the inside. And if you want to communicate your real self to the outside you simply use the body to that end, you may or may not wish to communicate, what’s happening on the inside: the physical, visible body that has been given to us so that we can give a physical, visible expression of an invisible self.
Now of course all animals operate that way and of course man physiologically is an animal; we bleed and breathe and feed, the animal way. You see, what distinguishes the animal kingdom from the vegetable kingdom is that there is built into every form of animal life a behaviour mechanism; it’s called the Soul. Comes as quite a surprise sometimes to discover that animals have souls, of course they do, otherwise they’d be vegetables. You see, the fact that you’ve got a soul doesn’t prove that you’re Man, it simply proves that you’re not a vegetable. I mean, that’s encouraging. When I was a boy at school the teacher who taught me latin was never ever convinced that I was anything but a vegetable.
You see the Soul, commonly in the bible called the heart, comprises Mind, Emotion and Will: a mental, an emotional and a volitional capacity. The mind with which you think, on occasions, the Emotions with which you react and the Will with which you decide. And they way you exercise the will to motivate the body into action, to do something, say something, go somewhere, operates under the influence of Mind and Emotion.
Whoever captures your Mind, whoever captures your Emotion captures your Will and they can manipulate you. That’s why you live in a propaganda age, that’s why you have television commercials, that’s why you have great big fat newspapers full of advertisements, that’s why you have every kind of crusade and propaganda machine, that’s why you have political campaigns and whistle stops because the person who captures your Mind and Emotion knows that now he has your Will and he can manipulate your behaviour and you’ll do what he intended. Mind, Emotion and Will. That’s how we behave and the animal behaves in exactly the same way. Because it too, can only communicate it’s inner self by virtue of exercising its physical and visible body.
If I go to a house I’ve never visited before and there’s a dog between me and the door, I don’t look at the door, because I’m reasonably satisfied as to how the door’s going to behave, it’ll probably swing on its hinges. I’m a little concerned how the dog’s going to behave. But I can’t read its mind, I don’t know whether its thinking benevolent thoughts, whether it welcomes my presence or whether it’s hostile. I wonder which end of its anatomy is going to get into action, it’s tail or its teeth. And so I watch it.
If it’s one of those fluffy little things, you know, with one ear up and the other ear down, and half a grin on its face and it comes wiggling in my direction, rubs itself up and down on my leg, I’m encouraged. But if on the other hand it gets back on its haunches and its tail goes between its legs and its ears go back and it bares its teeth and it there’s a grumbling noise on the inside, I get the message. And I stay where I am until the man’s come, called off the dog and go through the door.
But man is not designed just to be an animal, man is designed very uniquely and for a fantastic privilege. You see, in common with all other forms of animal life man has a physical visible body so that in that physical and visible body he can give a physical and visible expression of an invisible self but it wasn’t just that he might give an invisible expression of his own invisible self but of an invisible self intimately identified and in spiritual union and oneness with an invisible spirit, that’s the difference. So that all creation looking at man behave by what he does and says and is, would know what Good was like. We’re made that way.
Now the animal kingdom is protected; each species has a built in computerized program we call for convenience sake, instinct. And this built in computerized program called instinct operative within the animal soul teaching its mind, controlling its emotions and directing its will, protects it. Governs its behaviour so that its behaviour patterns are predictable because they’re repetitive. The fisherman knows where to go to catch his fish, the bird watcher knows at what time of the year and where to see the species that he seeks to find. A spider doesn’t have to go to school to learn how to spin.
The built in computerized program called instinct will govern their migratory paths, there feeding habits, their building skills, their mating seasons. In this fantastic way instinct protects the animal kingdom but man isn’t protected that way for a very good reason. When the animal kingdom behaves the way it does, it does so because it must. There’s a rigid interlock between the instinctive thrust and the animal soul. So that what it does it does by the Law of Compulsion. By doing what it does it’s not saying anything; the bee, in its magnificent corporate behaviour that is essential to the survival of the swarm in what it’s doing it’s not saying I love you, and I wanted to be the kind of bee that you want me to be, see. No, the bee isn’t saying that. The bee is simple doing what it does, and it’s absolutely magnificent the way it does it, because it must.
But man is a creature that can love. And the only thing that satisfies love is to be loved. The only thing that requires friendship is to be befriended. And you can’t compel another person’s friendship and you can’t compel another person’s love. You can’t go to somebody with your fist clenched and say you’re going to be my friend. Did you make friends like that? I didn’t get my wife that way; I keep her that way but I didn’t get her that way.
You see love demands the exercise of a free volition so man is uniquely designed with not only a body and a soul, man has a body, a soul and a spirit. That unique capacity is exclusive only to man, the human spirit that enables man to be inhabited by Love. So that Love, the Father himself, can actually inhabit man’s humanity and man you see, was so made that the presence of Love within the creature is indispensable to his humanity. So that, Good, co-equal with the Father and the Holy Spirit indwelling the human spirit might by moral consent on the part of man gain access to his soul not by the law of compulsion but the law of faith on the basis not of a rigid interlock but a threefold moral interlock out of love, reciprocating love, dependence on Love and obedience to Love And when out of love for, in dependence on and obedience to Love, I allow Love inhabiting my humanity to gain access to my soul, teach my mind, control my emotions and direct my will and Love in me becomes the origin of its own image, Love becomes in me the source of its own activity, Love in me the dynamic of all its own demands and the cause of its own effect. Then if man only knows and allows Love from within the man to teach his mind, control his emotions and so direct his will, watch that man behave and who would you see behaving? Well, God………. that “Be-ing” that Jesus called, the Father, “within you”.
And that my friend, that behaviour mechanism in a Man is: the Soul of a Man.
LikeLike
May 18, 2013 at 8:23 am
Jason:
In light of statement:
“The basic meaning of “conception” is “beginning.” That was a fitting word to use in the context of natural reproduction since the fertilization of the ovum by a male sperm is the beginning of new life. In its most basic meaning, even a cloned human being can be said to have been conceived. But you and I know that the term has come to refer specifically to the process of natural reproduction (and for good reason, since for most of human history that was the only possible means of creating a human).
Do you believe and accept the Immaculate Conception and virgin birth? Not natural, in utero? in vitro? cloning? or something supernatural? a miraculous transcendence that defies my imagination but perhaps not yours?
LikeLike
May 20, 2013 at 12:57 pm
Leo,
I didn’t say you brought up the topic of souls. I said you switched the topic from what is produced in SCNT to when that which is produced became ensouled. And that is what you did. I was addressing biology in making the claim that a human zygote/embryo was created, and you responded, not by talking about biology, but by talking about souls.
You said you cannot affirm or deny that “somatic cell nuclear transfer produces a human embryo, biologically indistinguishable from a human embryo produced via fertilization.” I can appreciate your honesty here, but you sure sounded like you knew before. You made bold proclamations such as “No humans were cloned.” But the biological fact of the matter is that these scientists used a cloning process to create human zygotes/embryos that are biologically indistinguishable from human zygotes/embryos created through sexual means.
You claim that I don’t know what a soul is. In reality, we just have two different definitions of what the soul is. While I have a large philosophical and theological tradition supporting my understanding of the soul, I would like to know what tradition you are reporting. It sounds like your notion of the soul is one you just made up. It sounds to me like you are taking a word with a well-established meaning, gutting it of its meaning, and then reinvesting it with new meaning.
Why no word on the “conception” issue that I addressed? Do you now see why your argument regarding that was flawed?
Regarding comment 17, how does your question follow from my statement? As for your question, however, the Immaculate conception is a Catholic dogma, not a Christian one. I do accept the virgin birth, however. But what does that have to do with what we are talking about?
Jason
LikeLike
May 20, 2013 at 4:43 pm
The very first comment on this thread by NotAScientist was
“Do they have a SOUL?”
I said: “Jason you are being sensational with your header”
I said to NotAScientist. “what a SOUL was” in general terms.
You said to NotAScientist: “Yes they did every living thing has a SOUL” which is false from where I sit because a vegetable, a carrot, a tree does not have a soul.
You said: “Leo I wasn’t being sensational”
I said:According to your idea of what constitutes a human being, all stem cells are human beings, acquired by any means.”
scottspeig said:
Regarding NotAScientist question whether it has a SOUL or not is an interesting one.
You said: Leo, You skip from one thing to another. Why can’t you respond to what I wrote, instead of switching the topic? We were talking about whether the process involves creating human embryos, and then you switch the topic to talking about SOULS.
You said: Scott, His question may be interesting, but it is irrelevant to the debate………I think we have every reason to believe that a cloned human has a SOUL.
You said to NotAScientist: Have scientists found a way to create SOULS in the lab? Yes and no.
I said: “First of all I did not bring up the topic of “SOUL”.
The I said: The soul seems to be a big issue with a number of writers and then explain my definition of SOUL. Which you disagree with, Fair enough.
Then you said: “Leo, I didn’t say you brought up the topic of souls. I said you switched the topic .
To which I now say. Jason you are wrong, I did not switch the topic to souls, your responders did and I followed the thread and so did you follow the trhead
You are trying to obfuscate the issue that you cannot seem to keep straight by trying to lay some kind of blame about switching topics on me; I suppose also trying to placate some writers here who are also looking for a scapegoat to offset their inadequacies of debating the issues by saying that I hijack topics and suggesting you should terminate my comments. Well, I won’t stand for your appeasement to your fellows, if they can’t stand on their own two feet and I won’t stand for your lamentations about me switching to a topic that all of the writers on this thread commented on including you.
LikeLike
May 20, 2013 at 4:49 pm
Jason:
“Leo, I didn’t say you brought up the topic of souls. I said you switched the topic….”
What kind of a niggler question is that? “brought up the topic” or “switched the topic”. You are virtually saying exactly the same thing but niggling over semantics to suit your defense.
LikeLike
May 21, 2013 at 9:03 am
Another good post ruined by malignant narcissistic fairies …………
Naz
LikeLike
May 21, 2013 at 10:52 am
Naz:
When someone actually has something to say, & you have nothing to say, except “ruined by malignant narcissistic fairies.” Why bother?
Typical reply from malevolent Naz who doesn’t have one a good sand-beach belief to stand on like the fool who built his house on a sand. 26 “But everyone who hears these sayings of Mine, and DOES NOT DO THEM, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand: 27 and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it fell. And great was its fall.”
I separate the sheep from the goats Naz and you are a goat.
LikeLike
May 21, 2013 at 12:43 pm
Bahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
There, I said something
Naz
LikeLike
May 21, 2013 at 2:11 pm
Naz:
Yes you said something, as much as any unrepentent goat can say in his separation: When the son of man comments in his day, all the nations will be arranged before him and he will sort the people out, much as a shepherd sorts out sheep and goats, putting sheep to his right and goats to his left.
LikeLike
May 21, 2013 at 2:26 pm
Naz:
Why can we not believe that you can actually discern what a “good post” is: “Another good post ruined by malignant narcissistic fairies…….” when the words that come out of the treasure in your heart demonstrates otherwise?
If you ever escape from the supernatural illusion with which religion has you in thrall, get back to me. Until then I am not available to anyone who has only negatives in the treasure of the heart so here is the final scripture I shall reveal to you: Matthew 12:33-35
“for the tree is known by his fruit.
34 O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.
35 A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.
36 But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.
37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.”
Buh bye.
LikeLike
May 22, 2013 at 6:36 am
Bahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
Naz
LikeLike
May 1, 2014 at 1:18 am
[…] was just about a year ago that humans were successfully cloned for the first time. Those researchers used fetal cells. A couple of weeks ago, it was announced that Robert Lanza […]
LikeLike
September 12, 2014 at 7:48 am
If I Jennifer Spiegel been cloned. I never agreed to have it done.
Jennifer Ann Spiegel.
LikeLike
September 12, 2014 at 11:46 am
J:
No clone will ever agree or disagree to have it done either, n’est ce pas?
LikeLike