UK to allow hybrid human-animal embryos

News.com ^ | 5/17/2007 | Tim Castle

[Some Fat Guy in L.A.]

Paging Dr. Linebarger............(a.k.a. Mr. Smith)

[Rikstir]

Without feeling the need to use any of the nastyisms that you almost felt compelled to use, here I present my rebuttal...

Its only ‘immoral’ if you take a religious viewpoint. Delving into theology a little, as I think it has relevance, what could ‘God’ or whoever hold against the prospect of increasing our life spans and improving the quality of life for ourselves and other around us? If he is the kind and understanding benefactor of us all, then he would understand what we are trying to do.
These aren’t people yet, they are DNA constructs, not even that. Its the raw material that we grow from.

I trust that as you have such a strong moral conviction on this matter that you will refrain from any medical science that has been tested in such a manner? Thats going to leave you with a hell of alot of placebo’s and mysticism. Faith does not cure diseases, medical science on the other hand, has proven to.
I suppose its the argument between the scientist and the theologist. I would rather have cures for disease, and deal with the repercussions later, than not progress as a species.

In all good conscience I find your argument baffling, and in the end, self defeating for us all.

[Rikstir]

;)

[Froufrou]

“Faith does not cure diseases, medical science on the other hand, has proven to.”

There is no proof that faith does not cure. There are many, many doctors who can document miracle cures that can be attributed to nothing but faith.

You have presumed that I am ignorant in medical matters solely because I cannot justify the creation of a part-human for experimental purposes.

And, I submit that the ONLY reason they suggest a non-human component is to attempt to destigmatize the moral notion that men should not aspire to be divine.

Indeed, a pure human that has been aborted would be a better choice. If you have no moral compunction to protect a creature that is even part human, why not destroy one that is all human?

If you don’t see the slippery slope, some near-perfect grandchild of your own could be in line for research.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I don't think it's "ignorance of the idea of the unknown" that puts people off of this type of research: it's knowing all too well what's happening.

The creation of transgenics and chimerics involves the manipulation of a living human embryo who is the genetic offspring of human parents, which in 10 days or so will end in his planned death. This in itself is an act of disrespect for the moral status of an embryonic human being, made quasi-animal by a laboratory process.

The third project, the making a cytoplasmic hybrid, is cloning. Legislation, agreements, and covenants in many countries as well as the World Health Organization and the 1997 G7 Summit meeting in the USA put a moratorium on human cloning, although the definitions are conflicting and the enforcement faulty.

My point in mentioning this is that the ethical problems that have been raised did not come from the science-illiterate "man in the street," but from people at the highest levels of research, international law and human rights.

I'm sure a lot of interesting experiments could be done with sheep-pig chimeras, chimp-dog trnsgenics, or babboon cytoplasmic clones.; and nobody (except maybe Jeremy Rifkin) would have any objection.

But it is a basic ethical principle that human lives at any stage should not be treated as nonconsenting experimental subjects.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"The bill states that they are to destroy the embryos after the appearance of the primitive streak (when cells begin to divide); 14 days after the beginning of the process to make the chimeric embryo; half the gestation period of any of the species involved, whichever of the three occurs earliest."

But what is the significance of this? Perhaps they think that killing the clones early is morally preferable to letting them grow to a more mature stage; but why? They are drawing a moral line, it seems to me, without a moral basis.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"The is a difference between an insane, mad-as-a-bottle-of-chips, one-slice-short-of-a-loaf, one-sandwich-short-of-a-picknick, tyrannical, crackpot, Pol Potesque, nutter, and a scientist trying to cure serious diseases that blight the world."

A man who is prepared to insult is generally one who is not prepared to argue.

[eleni121]

Chimeras huh?
These Brits are stuck in mythology.

Someone should remind them about what happened at Sodom City. They are really pushing the Big Guy’s buttons.

[little jeremiah]

Sick, evil, suicidal, vicious - there aren’t words that described this.

Will do pingthing later, thanks for alerting me.

[theFIRMbss]

>I thought that site was real until...