Slashdot Mirror
First Genetically Modified Human Embryo Under Review
Wired is reporting that Cornell University researchers genetically modified a human embryo in 2007, but have only recently been gaining publicity as their work is being reviewed. "The research raises a number of thorny ethical questions. Though adding a fluorescent protein was merely a proof-of-principle step, scientists say that modified embryos could be used to research human diseases. They say embryos wouldn't be allowed to develop for more than a few weeks, much less implanted in a woman and brought to term."
Quiche?
The eternal struggle of good vs. evil begins within one's self.
Anyone else getting a 404 "feed not found" page back from feeds.wired.com?
A fluorescent protein? Did they want to make a baby that you can find under the black lights in a night club?
Does that mean the kid would have an annoying hum if born?
Wouldn't that mean they were murdered? That is if you accept the religious side of the house...
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I'm sure it can't have been slashdotted already. Alternate source here
Seriously though, how many people here would love to be fluorescent green?
This is a common gene that is added to explore the control mechanism of specific protein...
Like when and where they are produced.
abomination
I'd be a hit at the next rave i can tell you that for sure!
We have glowing mice and they're doing fine. Why not a glowing human? I think that would be pretty nifty. I really don't see why there would be people who are against such things. This has other implications too. Imagine if we could remove the defect that causes Huntington disease in an embryo. Would people have ethical issues with that?
No, I don't want to be preaching "gloom and doom," but it does raise ethical questions. The biggest question: are the ethical questions that such an act raises actual issues of right and wrong, or are they simply the products of Western culture and my own philosophical prejudices? Here's the corrected link.
If you haven't been down-modded lately, you aren't trying.
Sacred cows make the best hamburger.
Seriously
If you haven't been down-modded lately, you aren't trying.
Sacred cows make the best hamburger.
For the sake of the embryo I hope that women aren't allowed to work in that lab. Some freak accident could lead to a woman being implanted with an embryo, which we know imbues it with a soul. And when the embryo is not brought to term the soul would go to hell... or would that be heaven since it hasn't committed sin yet? Wait what are the thorny ethical questions again?
I am a v1ral sig. Plse c0py me and h3lp me spread. Thank y0u?
Number 1: More intelligence. Hoo boy do we need this one implemented ASAP.
Number 2: Respiratory bypass system. No more choking to death on pretzels.
Number 3: Two hearts. Works for the Time Lords, howzabout it working for us?
Number 4: Reinforced cerebral circulatory system. No more strokes.
Number 5: Smarter immune system. Get rid of cancer and AIDS before they start, no more auto-immune diseases.
Number 6: Smart metabolism. Good-bye unwanted pounds, save your ass if you crash in the Andes without making your co-survivors menu items.
And so on. Look, we can stand some species improving. Save the default in the genes as a backup and let's get splicing here.
I figure all religious beliefs on the topic should be thrown out before the discussion begins. Religion is responsible for more genocide than anything else. Today's rallying cry of "Save the babies!" is typically political babble to earn votes.
No sig for you!!
weirdest thing I ever saw: scientology advertising on slashdot.
Children are born to parents who don't want them, they neglect them, abuse them, and even kill them.
There are parents who know they have medical problems related to their genetics, and yet are still selfish enough to "try for one" instead of adopting one of the 50,000+ or so that die of starvation somewhere in the world.
There are people out there who believe that having a baby can help save their relationship / marriage, and so create a whole human being just so they don't have to face up to the fact that they don't belong with somebody.
There are a host of ethical issues about this genetically modified human embryo, but nothing worse than already exists in the world today.
Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the Geneva Convention outlaw human testing? and I can already see the the whole "televangelist" rebuttal already..
The bible belters here in Florida are gonna be annoyed when this eventually gets on the news networks. anyway.. It is neat and all but I still think we should proceed with it in a cautious manner..
The actual article can be found here...
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/05/the-first-genet.html
At this age they are not self aware. Basically they don't know they exist. I don't see the difference between studying an embryo of that age and studyng plants.
We are already using animals that are aware of their existance in labs. Apes can recognise themselves in front of a mirror and we are using them so I feel this is really not a big issue and we should let science go ahead.
Now I'm going to start a very heated debate. We know that babies start to be self aware around the age of 2 so if you really want to test my logic I'll tell you my opinion. We could logically use babies to make tests. Why this horrifies people is because they are attached to their own babies but since these newborns are not sentient yet, where is the harm in using "lab babies"? They would have to be grown in artificial wombs and all that to dehumanize them but logically it shouldn't be stopped.
I might be modded down for opening a can of worms but try to have fun with this ethical puzzle.
I have added fluorescent protein in the lab with e. Coli and it is very simple. There have been quite a few more unusual experiments that involve taking human brain cells and growing them in mice and adding human genes to animals. I think the door is already wide open as they can claim it is not human if it does not have 100% human genome. I wonder if this non human gene is in a human, then are they not human any more by this definition?
There is definitely a grey area between embryo and 2-year-old that can be argued over.
Let the games commence!
-AC
First, you lump all religious people (hint: this is most of the planet) into the category of "people who cause genocide." Second, you offhandedly pronounce that, on the whole, the effects of religion are evil. Then, you conclude that religious viewpoints should not be heard. I say that you can't back up any of those statements.
It would be just as easy to out-of-hand dismiss Slashdot users (the only group I can knowingly lump you into) as incapable of reasonable political debate.
The fact is, this is an ethical question. It presumes that human life is valuable, and asks whether embryos qualify, and then asks how their interests balance against the other considerations.
The idea that human life IS valuable is just as much a belief as the idea that embryos do or don't qualify as humans. Whether you call that belief "religious" or not, it's still a belief.
I happen to believe that human life is valuable because we "are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights." I make no argument about the faith of the Founding Fathers, but they did start with that premise. If you toss out the Creator, I assume you have some alternate rationale, but I don't think it's reasonable to say that any religious basis for valuing human life is irrelevant.
~Gant
Give a medical reason why not.
I'm sorry, but this is wrong questioning, because you're assuming that there is some global (meaning absolute) definition of right and wrong. There isn't.
:)
One of the most important things i learned is, that everything is relative. If someone wants to kill you, and you kill him first, then for both of you you were right yourself, and the other one was wrong.
This comes from the simple rule, that humans have only two reasons why they're doing something: Either they think what they're doing is fundamentally right, or they did not want it in the first place.
Examples for the first reason in my "killing" example are: That other guy thoght you wanted to kill him any he had no other chance than to kill you first. Or that you did or stood for something so evil (to him), that it was only fair to kill you. And you maybe killed him for the same reasons.
Examples for the second reason coild be, that anyone of you did it accidential in the reflex to protect himself. Or you were forced to it and had no choice.
Of course the "law" does not care for this, because it is a set the common rules that you as a group argeed to. At least that's what it shoud be. In reality it's The ruleset of a much smaller group. And in really really real reality it is quite likely that there is not a single person who agrees to all teh laws (eg they are a compormise).
That brings us to the final philosophy:
- Do whatever *you* think is right (you can't do anything other anyway).
- When interacting with other poeple, think of the consequences for you when you apply their ruleset(s). This can be very complex. And that's why there is a third rule:
- When somebody does something that's not right in your rule system, then always remember that to him doing this was correct or he did not want to do it, and then search for a solution that's ok for you both (yes, for your enemy too), or you and he can never be happy again. (Going completely separate ways is a solution too. But it's not the best, because you lose the advantages of being in a group with him.)
You'll eb happy to hear that this even works with outer space aliens.
Yeah, but how do they taste with bacon?
> You are presenting one side of an issue as the only side. You've chosen the side that embryos are human and alive and thus this is murder.
Forget whether it's "murder" or not for a second (that's an emotive word that will only derail discussion) and focus on the "human" aspect of things, please.
Fertilized embryos and zygotes are living homo sapien organisms--not some other species, right? They're becoming something we all recognize as human, or would given food and shelter?
So what's the other side of that (and ONLY that--no "murder" discussion, please)? They can't feel or understand pain so it's speciesist to give them special treatment merely because they're homo sapiens. Or perhaps, "What's the difference between them and cell cultures removed from your body? Especially if we could clone those?", ignoring that fertilized embryos are becoming human and samples are not?
I merely want to understand, so no flames please. I would like to hear your reasoning and your philosophy, not your anger.
We could both be fluorescent!
Ahahahahahaha, oh the flamewars this will cause!
<xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
Read radical news here
In the long run the Cornell scientists have probably done a good thing, as I'm sure this will be a milestone in manipulating our genome. A great proof of concept. But you have to wonder if, as a species, we're ready for this.
Few people would object to using genetic manipulation to eliminate diseases or birth defects. What about homosexuality? Or dark skin? Or some other socially marginalized trait that has no bearing on the genetic fitness of the individual? What effect would "enhanced humans" have on a society built by "mundane" humans?
I personally believe we don't yet have the wisdom or foresight necessary to manipulate our genes. Until we can reach some sort of ethical consensus on the how, why and when of human genome manipulation we should collectively say no.
1. Increased strength - able to move large chunks of rock and earth.
2. Increased birthrate - ability to create more and more offspring
3. Limited life span, say 15-20 years - lowers chance of rebellion
4. Limited brain capacity, remove speech, reading, complex math- education creates rebels
5. Limited spiritual/mystical fondness - without hope it is easy to employ for work.
6. Increased stamina - ability to work 7 days a week, with limited breaks.
7. Poor vision, maybe 20/100 - can't rebel without good eyesight
Murdering babies after experimenting on them is very Dr. Mengele-like.
Whatever happened to "never again"?
(It makes them much better targets.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
There are *2* stages of development before the blob of a few hundred cells is considered an "embryo". First, there's the formation of the zygote after fertilization, and then there's the formation of the blastocyst. The blastocyst is basically a hollow fluid filled sphere consisting of an outer layer of trophoblast cells which eventually become the placenta and an inner blob of cells called the embryoblast which eventually forms the embryo after the blastocyst phase.
When talking of "embryos", scientists are usually talking about the extracted embryoblast cells which are pluripotent stem cells. These cells are *NOT* viable and are just that : cells -- they're not going to grow into a baby, or an "embryo" for that matter. Even I would be upset if it were found out that the real embryo, after the start of cell differentiation, had been tampered with.
To conclude, stem cells are not embryos -- they're just a multiplying blob of undifferentiated pluripotent Human cells and as such, they should be put in the same class as pond scum, although pond scum is actually far more highly developed -- the aforementioned stem cells cannot survive outside of a Petri dish (unless they're implanted into another nutrient source, such as the Human body for purposes of healing)
jdb2
If right and wrong are culturally defined (not just specific application, but the general principles), I would argue that they don't exist. There is a big difference between "I/we prefer you don't do X" and "X is wrong."
Imagine that you're walking down the street and trip on someone's foot. You're annoyed, right? Now imagine that you realize the person tripped you on purpose, and is laughing. Now you're indigent. Tripping people is wrong!
Clearly your anger has less to do with the pain of falling than with your deep-seated feeling that "it's wrong to harm others." You would not describe this as a preference.
Whatever we say about the source of morality, I think everyone feels that certain things are simply wrong. To deny this removes an important aspect of what it means to be human.
I know that someone will say that different cultures have different concepts of morality, but I don't buy it. There are different applications, yes; but no culture values cowardice and treason and murder. Some cultures defend their genocide and slavery by arguing that the victims aren't human, for example, but they do this because they must justify their actions against the standard that genocide and slavery are wrong. Our instinct to make excuses shows that we agree with the standard.
I know you were joking, but what about actually NOT EATING TOXIC CRAP (= tons of [sugar, white flour, saturated fat, aspartame, salt]) so you never come to the danger to need protection against strokes any whatnot. I think with mod number 1, this would already been solved.
And you wondered how Soylent Green could possibly have that color...
Frank Herbert's Dune: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axlotl_tank
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
You think it's easy being green?
Your courageous and selfless spelling corrections have made me a better person.
Even if an egg is fertilized by a sperm, there are a thousands of things that can go wrong that would cause it to just never divide, divide wrongly and get auto-aborted, not settle to the lining in the womb and get auto-aborted, nevermind complications further down the road that could cause a late auto-abortion or a stillborn delivery. At which point are any of the above examples ever a life?
Without defining 'life' we can't really define whether something had a potential for life in the first place... if you define 'a fertilized egg' as being 'life', then you -must- also say that every egg has a potential for life as long as it gets fertilized. We're not fertilizing every egg (thank goodness), so are we in effect denying millions of potential lives every day simply by a woman having her period instead of sitting around pregnant? ( Can't really fault the men for not using every single sperm on an egg, the ratio of eggs to sperm is just entirely too low to justify that. ) The GP was being funny more than serious, but when it comes down to it - you have to accept that there's a core truth to the funniness.
Then again, you asked in another comment how somebody would feel being the result of a science experiment and I really do hope that the child commenter pointing out in-vitro fertilization has been modded +5 Insightful by the time I press Submit on this comment.
Honestly, I'm really pissed they didn't have this 20 years ago. Cause I'd be all for having several genetic mods in my body. (And if you don't like me having them, too bad. MY body, not yours.)
Windows has detected an undetectable error.
Does anyone here actually remember being an embryo? Does an embryo feel pain? If it cannot remember when developed, nor express that pain before it has, how is this in any way, shape, or form, an ethical issue? We have laboratories and science to expand our knowledge. We can create life in a lab, and use it to expand knowledge. How does this become ethically problematic? If it is not viable to sustain life on its own, without the aid of technology, I fail to see how there are any ethical issues with using an 'embryo' for research purposes. Seriously. I point my finger squarely at the religious types who claim that this is somehow a sin unto god, wherein these same people, while championing the birth of babies, look the other way while this baby starves in some cesspool.
"Why are those rhythmically pulsating bushes glowing?"
which is totally what she said
to get into heaven and since unborn children haven't been they aren't allowed in and go to purgatory instead. But I'm not religious so what do I know...
From the Wikipedia: '"The Diploids" (1953). In this novella, a young lawyer suspects he may be an alien because of certain physical and biochemical abnormalities but discovers that he is a commercial human embryonic cell line, sold for research and illegally grown to maturity.'
How's that for being ahead of you time?
You argue that it's wrong to trip me. Is it okay to trip a puppy and laugh at it? Flip a bug on its back? Put a nail in a tree? Uproot and eat a carrot? Exterminate a nuisance rat? Jail a troubled youth? Execute a murderer? Wage war?
Do you really think there is anything all humans agree on? everyone feels that certain things are simply wrong... no culture values cowardice and treason and murder The culture I was born into values these things:
cowardice: "discretion is the better part of valor" treason: "When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another... murder: Holy Bible, KJV, Deuternonomy 20, God allows/commands Israelite army to kill every man in a city: When you march up to attack a city, first offer it terms of peace. If it agrees to your terms of peace and opens its gates to you, all the people to be found in it shall serve you in forced labor. But if it refuses to make peace with you and instead offers you battle, lay siege to it, and when the LORD, your God, delivers it into your hand, put every male in it to the sword; but the women and children and livestock and all else in it that is worth plundering you may take as your booty, and you may use this plunder of your enemies which the LORD, your God, has given you. If you have a timeless, acultural, objective test to distinguish right from wrong, I'd sure like to hear it.
I think that if the moral problems are resolved, it would be very beneficial to go ahead with obtaining knockout embryos. This has been accomplished for yeast and is underway for other higher eukaryotes. Having knockout embryos/fetuses/cells for all human genes could have great potential in curing any number of diseases. It would also facilitate a much deeper understanding of the human body in the sense that the effect of knocking out genes on early development would be better understood.
Of course, the moral problems are incredibly difficult, and that aside, the knockouts would take a long, long time to procure. But in my opinion, this proof of principle is a step in the right direction.
> The effects of religion have proven time and again to be more than overwhelmingly negative. They're only competition for motivation to reap atrocities on mankind is lust for money.
Prove it? And don't give me anecdotes from history with no control group, or I'll counter that Mao and Stalin have shown atheism the worse, at least in terms of body count. No, it won't help you that Stalin was an ex-theist, given that that only makes one MORE of an atheist not less. Though you might be right in that that's part of what made him terrible: the anger. He decided in his wrath to "purge" all the undesirables. Naturally, religion was one of those things he considered undesirable. History rightfully remembers him as a monster.
I was going to say that you forgot a lust for power in there, but really, that's only a generalization of a lust for money, not something inherently different. Money is, after all, merely one type of power.
> What I'm saying is, I tire of religious rhetoric impacting the lives of those who do not follow a religious association.
I can understand that, but how can you ask them to separate what they believe from how they act? Are you not, at that point, asking them to be hypocrites by definition? Everyone has to live with the law, not just you. Don't be selfish in supposing it ought to conform to your ideals alone.
I don't want to have to put up with people I find insulting, but I do. It's called civilization, and sometimes you, not it, need to adapt.
I personally believe we don't yet have the wisdom or foresight necessary to manipulate our genes
Nonsense. What do you think the thousands-of-years-old practice of arrangement marriages was all about? Not strictly village economics. Parents also sized up prospective mates for their kids based on the health, history, and talents of thei prospective mate and his/her family. Yeah, yeah, eugenics. Except, that's exactly what it is, and was for a long time.
We can (the old fasioned way) make new specialized breeds of livestock, dogs, and chickens with only a few decades of paying attention to cause and effect. Cultures do the same thing - it just takes longer. And that's why - whether anyone wants to admit it or not - you can spot, in a given geographic region - people that have a "peasant" look/build and other people that have an "aristrocratic" look/build. Genetic manipulation.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
If you equate human embryos with plants, then would you eat a human embryo?
Take a quarter pound of ground up human embryo meat, throw in an egg, and salt and pepper to taste. Mix well, then shape into a patty. Put it in the frying pan, and cook. When done, take the resulting patty and put it on a bun. Add ketchup, mustard, and a pickle. Munch munch much!
If this scenario disgusts you in the slightest, then you know how your mind really regards human embryos, regardless of intellectual bravado.
There are no "thorny ethical issues." It is immoral to sacrifice one life to benefit another and it is immoral to experiment with human embryos. It is also immoral to experiment with racially unpopular groups, mentally retarded people, impoverished people, uneducated/unaware people, or undeveloped people, be they 'embryos', babies, or children. We are called upon by God to respect life and this fails to do that. Sorry...
THere is a point beyond which it cannot be argued that it is a human. That point is the point at which the fetus can survive without the mother and without artificial means. That point is generally about 7 months, although modern science has pushed that arguably back further, but most normal fetus can survive and continue to develop normally at a bout 7 months gestation.
So, it is indisputalbe that a normal fetus at 7 months is a living human, and should be afforded all the protections of such. Except in certain cases, such as the health and life of mother. At this point you sometimes need to choose between which life to save.
Any embryo, under a week old really shouldn't qualify, as ther eis currntly no way to grow and embryo to full term without implanting into a living host. So anything under 4 months really shouldn't qualify as human life since the only way to get an embryo that young to develop require a living being with a womb. No human embryo has ever been able to be sustained beyond 3 months in a laboratory.
The so-called "fundies" have one undeniable fact in their favor: the cells in that petri dish have DNA distinct from the donor mother and father. We can choose to ignore this if we like, but that won't make the reality any different. Those cell have a distinct DNA from the theorethical moment of conception, and that is precisely why people far out on the right believe a collection of cells is a person. We can try to impose artificial constraints on what makes people people - like viability, ability to feel pain, self conciousness - but we still don't have legitimate arguments. Take viability - who among us would be viable long in a jungle or desert? Self conciousness is another no brainer; the Nazis absolutely believed "vegatables" should be exterminated - do we really want to uphold that? We're wandering into really dangerous territory when we don't have resolution on this issues, and the experiments continue anyway. The term "hubris" comes to mind.
If you look at the bottom of the image, in the article, you can see its already developing alien head! It looks like an alien aligator ready to eat human brains. Good job science! I would elaborate further, but as an American and I can barely spell the word science.
If you can't implant it in a human, implant it in something non-human: Cows, gorillas, horses, politicians....the list is endless.
signature is pants
...embryos wouldn't be allowed to develop for more than a few weeks, much less implanted in a woman and brought to term. My army of superhuman clones will see to that.Have gnu, will travel.
How long before someone implants one of these embryos into a viable animal that can host a fetus? I need a citation, but I understand that pigs are considered very 'close' to us in terms of metabolism.
If you grafted a gene that would theoretically improve viability, wouldn't you be excited to see if it would develop?
Human nature being what it is, I have a hard time believing that they really destroyed these embryos as quickly as they are claiming.
"No good deed goes unpunished"
I want options like stripes, fur, new colors (anthocyanins, carotenes, chlorophyll, variable amounts of colors), extra appendages - how about elephant-trunk arms with flexible fingers, centaur legs, extra eyes/noses on stalks.
...Insensitive... How does that go, again?
This is murder, atleast in the same way abortion is.. ?
>>Wouldn't that mean they were murdered? That is if you accept the religious side of the house...
>I think not. Most people can differentiate between the potential for life (semen and eggs) and actual life itself (autonomous life including self-replicating cells that may or may not have certain dependencies for life; don't we all?).
You really think so?! In the Unites States (if you're here)?!?!
Anyway, this isn't that. The embryo being destroyed in the article already IS your second type - that's EXACTLY what some people are upset about.
(note: rest of post intended to be NPOV)
The article is talking about a genetically-modified human embryo being destroyed - a fertilized human egg, your "self replicating cells". Not gametes, or reproductive cells. A complete, viable set of DNA with 23 pairs of chromosomes, generated from 2 people - tend to it a bit and you've almost got a baby :)
The strict pro-life position, and that of the Catholic Church, is that life beings at conception, at fertilization - not at implantation, spinal fusion, viability, or live birth. The destruction of any embryo (egg fertilized by sperm) in order to get embryonic stem cells is viewed by a non-insignificant (potentially even majority) portion of the U.S. population as the destruction of a potential human life, a human life, a human being, or even murder.
Destruction of frozen embryos with 50 cells, produced in the course of petri-dish fertilization and immediately frozen in liquid nitrogen, is viewed by some as destruction of human life. Legal custody battles have been fought over such embryos.
Opponents of the emergency contraceptive Plan B (Levonelle, NorLevo) which is taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex, even argue that because the drug, which prevents implantation, may instead cause a newly-implanted embryo to be immediately shed, it is an abortifacient, rather than birth control. Destruction of life, rather than prevention of it.
-
This announcement seems a bit underwhelming, given it's significance. Granted, it's easy to lose sight in the face of weekly news articles about advances in cloning, DNA research, stem cells, genetic modification, etc. But HOLY SHIT - they've MADE A GENETICALLY MODIFIED HUMAN EMBRYO. We went from animal GM embryos to live GM births to cloned embryos to cloned GM animals in a decade or two. We could probably do significant GM changes resulting in live human births in 5 years, and this is a major first step. Wow. Post-human Singularity, here we come !
I'd probably get a little squeamish about vivisecting a copy of me that had a working brain, but I'd have few problems receiving the heart and lungs and liver from a headless incubator and having a barbecue with the leftovers.
Bullshit.
I'm sure a lot of people would like to think that's how they would react, but I bet most would act otherwise when the time came.
Only a little squeamish about killing your sentient clone?
You think you could harvesting lungs and a rump roast from an adult-sized version of you that had intentional hydroencephalopathy so that biological systems would work and develop, but not sentient brain functions? Minimal sentience? Mind of a cow? Monkey? Would you feel more 'squeamish' the more consciousness was left intact?
Do you hunt? If not, I'd say you have no real idea of whether you could kill a deer, much less a clone of yourself.
Hey, I'm going to heaven. I would disgust me to have embryo's walking around. Or are embryos allowed to develop further? If I strike a conversation with attractive soul: "Hey, how was your life?", will that be the same faux pas as I make here on earth?
Bert
Heaven is a stupid concept, For a clearer understanding, go here: http://www.jhuger.com/kisshank
As for the more-squeamish-with-more-consciousness bit... well, yeah, of course. I guess we're getting down to what defines a human being, something that people have struggled with from time to time. And I suspect that the definitions may get a little rubbery around the edges, as we try to accomodate different people and their different needs and beliefs. My hydroencephalopathic adult-sized clone (hell, why not stunt cranial and limb development if we can, if we're primarily after a liver and pancreas and lungs and heart I'm sure that tech to suppress expression of the limb development genes will become available if we get as far as tank-grown organ-donors) is an unthinking lump of flesh and mass of spare parts, grown from my own flesh for the purpose of repairing my body and maybe having a nice rib-roast too. Someone elses hydroencephalopathic newborn is crushed dreams, a life that will never be, sadness for all the "I love you too, Daddy"'s that will never be said. Both have similar amounts of brain function, and are genetically "human" for whatever that's worth, but I'd like to believe that it would be wrong to equate my purpose-grown organ-farm with someone elses stillborn child on those criteria alone.
I would have no problems donating my own organs if I "died", which to me means brain function ceased and my body no longer housed the person I was
Thank you for calling "Bullshit". Thank you for making me think about this some more. I can see from your resume that you probably have a lot of experience with dealing with people, their actual motivations and beliefs, what they believe they are and what they say they are. Thank you for making me examine mine, and how they may differ from what I'd like to believe they are.
Is it, now. So what characterizes exactly the DNA of the typical human? And how much discrepancy between the DNA of an individual and the median DNA sequence of human beings are you willing to accept before said individual is NOT considered human anymore? For example how many chromosomes more (or less) than our typical 46 chromosomes are you willing to accept into such a human being (e.g. what about Down syndrome?) How many variations?
"I'm never quite so stupid as when I'm being smart" (Linus van Pelt)
thegodmovie.com - watch it
[Gene]
Mission: To provide products that consume time and energy as entertainingly as permitted by the laws of thermodynamics.
Dark Angel anyone?
g0t b33r?
They say a parrot has the brain capacity of an 8-year old human.
Now, assuming the parrot isn't already dead or pining, and you kill it, is that the same as killing an 8-year-old human? Of course not! many would snort. Some would snort otherwise, must most would agree it's "not really the same thing".
So what exactly is the issue at stake then, if intelligence itself doesn't determine the morality/legality of killing another organism? I'm not saying wanton parrot popping is acceptable behaviour, but it certainly doesn't carry the weight of condemnation as, say, caging a toddler with nothing but a seed-bell to peck on for years on end.
Where and how do we draw the line between "hey asshole you killed my parrot" and "omg you killed me, you psychotic murderer I hope you get life in prison. Ack." ?
We generally place more importance on human life, above other forms of life, but on what basis? Well, probably because we are one and we can. I mean to say it has no objective basis, nobody tells us it is so, except other human beings, who are arguably biased on the matter. It is certainly not a position supported by nature - since when has an earthquake or cyclone saved more people than parrots? Does that make parrots favoured in the eyes of an all-mighty? It's completely arbitrary, and humans rail against the unholy Arbitrariness Of It All by making up stories as to why we're so damned important and everything bad that happens is for a reason which has our ultimate best interest at heart.
The problem is not in saying, "religion is important," it's the habit of placing greater importance on one religion/race/interest than another. "Mine is better than yours" is the default approach and this speaks of humanity's great immaturity. We haven't yet learned to give equal consideration to all, and how to manage that if we did.
Given this behaviour, our history; are we actually qualified to make judgements about the importance of life? I say we're not, and would add we don't have the wisdom or capacity to even begin to determine such things. Human behaviour is still based around survival and very, very limited collective interest.
The willingness to accept or impose some kind of external moralising factor on our lives, simply implies that, deep down, we fear we are fundamentally less important than parrots.
The use of fertilized embryos as experimental meat creeps me out. CMIIAW, but this is more than a bit different than what happens in stem cell research.
On the other hand, I am all for genetically modded babies. I want my kids to be as smart, strong, and healthy as they can be. What's wrong with that? When is the super baby clinic opening up? Glad I don't already have kids. That would be sad. You know, "Kal El, be nice to your older brothers Gimpy and Stupid!" "And me and your mother too!" Hmmm...
Social Credit would solve everything...
Fuck off, Kermitt
One swallow does not a fellatrix make
Gives a whole lot new meaning to Soylent Green.
It would be awesome if we could genetically modify ourselves in the future so we can remove all our weaknesses, like greed, and make ourselves smarter so we can quit having wars and nuclear weapon programs. Right now we are being haunted by ancient unnecessary genes. I do hope that if this happens that they leave love and sex alone, although you can count it as a weakness, but it is what makes life so much more interesting.
Here be signatures
"It's the end of the world as we know it..." - But OK. The world begins in Genesis and ends in the Apocalipsis.
I usually dodge these discussions but here goes: Humans & animal LIFE in general have some level of brain activity. Thus, is it not reasonable to say that lack of brain or brain activity == lack of life (for animals)?
How can the government stomp down on stem-cell research... but allow this to happen? This is many, many times worse, and does not have a more moral alternative (like harvesting stem cells from umbilical cords).
I really hope this sparks a public outrage, but sadly I doubt it will.
I don't like the F in RTFA. I will try to use RTA. If you RTA, the embryos being utilized were "left overs" from fertilization techniques and efforts. They were on their way to be destroyed. I believe the possibilities for helping man kind with extreme illnesses (as opposed to custom-tailoring your children)is well worth the time to mess with an embryo that was already on its way out. No harm done and man kind has the opportunity to rid itself of horrible diseases.
No single raindrop believes it is to blame for the flood.
Of course things can happen. I even said that life is dependent on things. As adults we still depend on food and shelter and income to buy those things and clean water and a place to shit.
Yes people have miscarriages. It happens. You do what you can to prevent them. If you have any doubt whether those miscarried fetuses were alive then just ask the mothers. Most have a very distinct emotional attachment to each and its not an irrational emotion either.
Embryo's, Zygote's, Fetuses, whatever you want to call them have dependencies. They have to have viable DNA and they have to be attached to the Uterine lining. I don't see these dependencies much different from what Adult humans face.
No, you took my quote out of context. I was responding to the part about semen spilled into a kleenex being life.
Examples of general agreement do not prove "right and wrong" transcends culture.
You'll convince me "right and wrong" are unrelated to cultural contexts if you show me a deterministic algorithm without cultural inputs. Pseudo-code is fine.
More likely they paid Christianity lip service when it was politically convenient - just like American politicians. But what did their actions say?
Whatever Stalin claimed, he oppressed and killed Christians.
Hitler's "Christianity" is highly debatable.
I have a very poor knowledge of history, so I don't presume to have authority on this question, but it seems to me that dictatorships always oppose religion. They do not wish any citizen to have any higher allegiance than their allegiance to the state. If you want to see oppressive group mentalities, look to these people's governments sooner than to religion.