UK approves Human Animal Hybrid clones - genetic engineering

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Letum

Some you you say it is immoral, but why do you think it is immoral? Who is it hurting?

Let's see, the retarded kid down the street, we can take his body parts and kill him since he doesn't know hats going on now can we? Same thing going on here. Its crossed a line when human embryos that are 99% human, but are not looked at as fully human because they added a mouse tail to it making it 1% mouse.

Well, someone funding this certinaly can!

I can't see the practical application of the new partical accelerator in Europe, but I am assured there are many.

Im not saying one should trust everyones motives blindly, but one should not assume they are not good with out reason.

When you crossed the moral line, then you should look at it from a half empty perspective - You should assume not good until proven otherwise. This is the problem with scientists - they cannot be trsuted to uphold moral boundaries in the face of their relentless research.

-S

[Letum]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Let's see, the retarded kid down the street, we can take his body parts and kill him since he doesn't know hats going on now can we? Same thing going on here. Its crossed a line when human embryos that are 99% human, but are not looked at as fully human because they added a mouse tail to it making it 1% mouse.

Well, yes, you can do what you like to the "reatrdedreatrded kid" as long as it is only a group of a few thousand cells weather he is 100% mouse or 0% mouse.

Where you around a few hundred years ago I wonder if you would be amongst those protesting against human autopsy.

[Spruence M]

What....... The....... ****.......

[The Avon Lady]

YOU'VE BEEN WARNED!

[Tchocky]

I see Cosmos gave into temptation, "Human-Animal Hybrids!!" instead of "human-animal hybrid embryos"

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

I see Cosmos gave into temptation, "Human-Animal Hybrids!!" instead of "human-animal hybrid embryos"

All you need is one "Boys from Brazil" Mengele wannabee sneaking a test tube out of the lab one night............................

Just being creative.

[Tchocky]

...starring Matt Damon. Only in theatres*


*read - Straight to video

[antikristuseke]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

When you crossed the moral line, then you should look at it from a half empty perspective - You should assume not good until proven otherwise. This is the problem with scientists - they cannot be trsuted to uphold moral boundaries in the face of their relentless research.

-S

You speak as if morality was a constant, its not, it is an entirely subjective mater. I dont see any morality issue with this. Allso noone should ever assume something is bad untill it is proven otherways, you should allwasy concider things neutral untill it has been proven to be otherways.

[Letum]

Originally Posted by antikristuseke

You speak as if morality was a constant, its not, it is an entirely subjective mater. I dont see any morality issue with this. Allso noone should ever assume something is bad untill it is proven otherways, you should allwasy concider things neutral untill it has been proven to be otherways.

A little contradictory there.
You can not prove the subjective.

[antikristuseke]

Originally Posted by Letum

A little contradictory there.
You can not prove the subjective.

Exactly what is contradictory about my post? I did'nt say that morality could be proven to be good or bad, all I said about morality was that it was subjective.
The next sentence was in reply to having to assume something, like a new technology or avenue of research etc., to be bad untill proven good, which i dont agree with. Rather you shouldnt assume something to be either bad or good untill it has been proven to one of those options or if it simply depends on its implementation/usage.

[Letum]

Originally Posted by antikristuseke

Exactly what is contradictory about my post?

"Bad" and "good" are moral
conclusions.
You said that, "You speak as if morality was a constant, its not, it is an entirely
subjective mater"
Therefore as you take morality as subjective; you must also take moral conclusions
such as "bad" or "good" to be equally subjective.
However, you later say, "noone should ever assume something is bad untill it is proven
otherways". Thus lays the contradiction:As you take the terms "bad" and "good" to be
subjective then they can not be "proven otherways [otherwise?]" as it is impossible to
prove a subjective point.

Btw, if you are using IE or firefox you may wish to get a copy of "google toolbar" it has
a spell checker that you may find very useful.

[antikristuseke]

Ah now i see what you mean, good point.

As for browsers im using Opera, I'm aware that i make quite a few spelling errors, but msot of them are due to typos. But meh, I can allways use the age old "english is not my primary language excuse"

[Letum]

Originally Posted by antikristuseke

Ah now i see what you mean, good point.

As for browsers im using Opera, I'm aware that i make quite a few spelling errors, but msot of them are due to typos. But meh, I can allways use the age old "english is not my primary language excuse"

Ahh, don't worry. Your English seams to be good. I am always amazed at the standard of English in other countries, it puts schools in England to shame!