UK approves Human Animal Hybrid clones - genetic engineering - Page 2

The Avon Lady · 09-20-07, 02:22 AM

YOU'VE BEEN WARNED!

Tchocky · 09-20-07, 03:35 AM

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

The Avon Lady · 09-20-07, 03:39 AM

Quote:

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 · 09-20-07, 03:43 AM

...starring Matt Damon. Only in theatres*

*read - Straight to video

Skybird · 09-20-07, 05:54 AM

When does a human become a human? How many cycles of cell division must the egg go through, before a still relatively unstructured bunch of cellular mass turns into a "human"? If you believe that their is a collective or even an individual soul - when is this cellular mass starting to become part of it? When is soul entering the matter? Or is soul matter, matter is soul? What? you do not think that there is a soul, or that there is more in life in general and humans in special than some billion cells that interact for a limited time and then fall apart again? I see. It's clear, if a human is not seen as being more than just 70 kg of flesh with a function cycle of 78 years, then one must not care for uncomfortable questions about wether manipulation of the human genome and the breeding of human (sorry I forgot, they are not human) embryos for laboratory purposes can ethically be justified. Where you do not see mind, you are left only with the matter.

Also ignore that more and more evolutionary benefits from certain genetic "defects" and gene-related disease get discovered and understood, as i just have posted in a thread maybe two weeks ago. the defects you repair - may be the caused that mankind in the future will be prevented from adapting to a certain critical variable in the future. Can you forsee it? Do you know and throughly understand all the many different variables, interactions, interdependencies, two sides of one and the same coin?

I am not surprised that it is the social and political left that does not care so much in Europe for these questions, like they do not care for their historical identity, they also do not care philosophical problems like this. companies don't do it anyway, materialist as their orientation is.

It depends on wether you see life in general and humans in special as inspired beings, or as soul-less machinery only. but if the first: you need to answer when humans become to be humans. From the first cell on? From the stadium of the foetus on? from the first billion cells on? From the moment you detect the first electric brain potentials? and if that: why do you know that soul means brain? Or is what you consider to be "soul" already there even before the egg if fertilised?

You do not have an idea, you do not care? Heaven help us against you messing around with genes and embryos.

I personally oppose abortion accept under certain medical circumstances, although I do not accept to criminalise it, put it under penalty, and demonise women using it. the act itself has a bad side for the woman in question, and often is opted for for reasons of lacking education and information, and false belief of having no other choice. despair almost always is part of it, and such a woman does not deserve hate by pseudo-"Christian" fundamentalists, but deserves compassion, assistance and better information. There should be the legal possibility to give the baby away and available for adoption, and there should be the needed economical support for the mother to help her through those nine months. Then there would be no need to abort, the experience of pregnancy may also change her mind in that time. also, there are tens of thousands of couples, numbers growing, who can't have children of their own, and would like to adopt a baby. And you must not travel around the globe like stupid Madonna to find the one that fits you "perfectly", nor is it desirable to let DNA-designer create your perfect baby for you. - From this perspective, I also oppose the abuse of human embryos, which means nothing else than to intentionally breed human babies, interrupt the process and kill them to gain material for laboratory procedures. both in the case of abortion, and in the case discussed in this thread, you start and you end with this single question: when does a human start to be human?

And consider this: would you like to explain your growing boy one day why you and your partner created a sister/brother for him and hen killed him, so that he himself can live? How do you think he will feel about this for the rest of his life?

Genetic research can be of benefits, yes. But if it is done in a climate of materialism and business atmosphere, and not more, than the risk is extremely high that it turns in nothing else but the worst crime of mankind. The Nazis gave you a foretaste of things to come. Sciences without compassion and respect for life, and sense of responsibility - means the ultimate fall of what makes man "human".

09-20-07, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by STEED

To late the Daleks did it when they created pig men slaves, Dr Who.

Alright thats sci fi so back in the real world are we slowly crossing the line in to a nightmare world?

The answer has to be yes.

On the other hand: We'll finally get all those cute girls with cat ears we always see in Anime cartoons.

Letum · 09-20-07, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zayphod

Quote:

Originally Posted by STEED

To late the Daleks did it when they created pig men slaves, Dr Who.

Alright thats sci fi so back in the real world are we slowly crossing the line in to a nightmare world?

The answer has to be yes.

On the other hand: We'll finally get all those cute girls with cat ears we always see in Anime cartoons.

What ever floats your boat!
:hmm:

antikristuseke · 09-20-07, 12:45 PM

Quote:

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 · 09-20-07, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by antikristuseke

Quote:

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.

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

STEED · 09-20-07, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zayphod

Quote:

Originally Posted by STEED

To late the Daleks did it when they created pig men slaves, Dr Who.

Alright thats sci fi so back in the real world are we slowly crossing the line in to a nightmare world?

The answer has to be yes.

On the other hand: We'll finally get all those cute girls with cat ears we always see in Anime cartoons.

Now I am worried.

antikristuseke · 09-20-07, 01:22 PM

Quote:

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 · 09-20-07, 01:47 PM

Quote:

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 · 09-20-07, 02:48 PM

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 · 09-20-07, 03:28 PM

Quote:

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!

Bosk · 09-25-07, 07:34 AM

I think it's scary stuff. What scares me most is not the potential effects it might have on tomorrow's athletes but the implications it may have for future generations of soldiers.

09-20-07, 02:22 AM	#16
The Avon Lady Über Mom Join Date: May 2005 Location: Jerusalem, Israel Posts: 6,147 Downloads: 5 Uploads: 0	YOU'VE BEEN WARNED! __________________ "Victory will come to us from the wombs of our women." - Houari Boumedienne, President of Algeria, Speech before the UN, 1974

09-20-07, 03:35 AM	#17
Tchocky Navy Seal Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 5,874 Downloads: 6 Uploads: 0	I see Cosmos gave into temptation, "Human-Animal Hybrids!!" instead of "human-animal hybrid embryos" __________________ [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

09-20-07, 03:43 AM	#19
Tchocky Navy Seal Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 5,874 Downloads: 6 Uploads: 0	...starring Matt Damon. Only in theatres* *read - Straight to video __________________ [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

09-20-07, 05:54 AM	#20
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,628 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	When does a human become a human? How many cycles of cell division must the egg go through, before a still relatively unstructured bunch of cellular mass turns into a "human"? If you believe that their is a collective or even an individual soul - when is this cellular mass starting to become part of it? When is soul entering the matter? Or is soul matter, matter is soul? What? you do not think that there is a soul, or that there is more in life in general and humans in special than some billion cells that interact for a limited time and then fall apart again? I see. It's clear, if a human is not seen as being more than just 70 kg of flesh with a function cycle of 78 years, then one must not care for uncomfortable questions about wether manipulation of the human genome and the breeding of human (sorry I forgot, they are not human) embryos for laboratory purposes can ethically be justified. Where you do not see mind, you are left only with the matter. Also ignore that more and more evolutionary benefits from certain genetic "defects" and gene-related disease get discovered and understood, as i just have posted in a thread maybe two weeks ago. the defects you repair - may be the caused that mankind in the future will be prevented from adapting to a certain critical variable in the future. Can you forsee it? Do you know and throughly understand all the many different variables, interactions, interdependencies, two sides of one and the same coin? I am not surprised that it is the social and political left that does not care so much in Europe for these questions, like they do not care for their historical identity, they also do not care philosophical problems like this. companies don't do it anyway, materialist as their orientation is. It depends on wether you see life in general and humans in special as inspired beings, or as soul-less machinery only. but if the first: you need to answer when humans become to be humans. From the first cell on? From the stadium of the foetus on? from the first billion cells on? From the moment you detect the first electric brain potentials? and if that: why do you know that soul means brain? Or is what you consider to be "soul" already there even before the egg if fertilised? You do not have an idea, you do not care? Heaven help us against you messing around with genes and embryos. I personally oppose abortion accept under certain medical circumstances, although I do not accept to criminalise it, put it under penalty, and demonise women using it. the act itself has a bad side for the woman in question, and often is opted for for reasons of lacking education and information, and false belief of having no other choice. despair almost always is part of it, and such a woman does not deserve hate by pseudo-"Christian" fundamentalists, but deserves compassion, assistance and better information. There should be the legal possibility to give the baby away and available for adoption, and there should be the needed economical support for the mother to help her through those nine months. Then there would be no need to abort, the experience of pregnancy may also change her mind in that time. also, there are tens of thousands of couples, numbers growing, who can't have children of their own, and would like to adopt a baby. And you must not travel around the globe like stupid Madonna to find the one that fits you "perfectly", nor is it desirable to let DNA-designer create your perfect baby for you. - From this perspective, I also oppose the abuse of human embryos, which means nothing else than to intentionally breed human babies, interrupt the process and kill them to gain material for laboratory procedures. both in the case of abortion, and in the case discussed in this thread, you start and you end with this single question: when does a human start to be human? And consider this: would you like to explain your growing boy one day why you and your partner created a sister/brother for him and hen killed him, so that he himself can live? How do you think he will feel about this for the rest of his life? Genetic research can be of benefits, yes. But if it is done in a climate of materialism and business atmosphere, and not more, than the risk is extremely high that it turns in nothing else but the worst crime of mankind. The Nazis gave you a foretaste of things to come. Sciences without compassion and respect for life, and sense of responsibility - means the ultimate fall of what makes man "human". __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

09-20-07, 02:48 PM	#28
antikristuseke Silent Hunter Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Estland Posts: 4,330 Downloads: 3 Uploads: 0	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"

09-25-07, 07:34 AM	#30
Bosk Watch Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Ballarat, Australia. Posts: 28 Downloads: 6 Uploads: 0	I think it's scary stuff. What scares me most is not the potential effects it might have on tomorrow's athletes but the implications it may have for future generations of soldiers.