Slashdot Mirror


Louisiana Rep. Preps State Bill Banning Human-Animal Hybrids

mikeljnola writes with an excerpt from NOLA.com that says state senator Danny Martiny (R-Kenner) will introduce a bill to the Louisiana legislature on April 27 to "'make it illegal to "create or attempt to create a human-animal hybrid, ... transfer or attempt to transfer a human embryo into a non-human womb ... (or) transfer or attempt to transfer a non-human embryo into a human womb."' With budget cuts all around, our struggling state is concerned with the eminent danger of human-animal hybrids. The upside is that the odds of the Louisiana becoming the Bayous of Dr. Boudreaux are now even slimmer."

36 of 422 comments (clear)

  1. Damn by Aranykai · · Score: 4, Funny

    So much for ever getting a real catgirl :/

    --
    If sharing a song makes you a pirate, what do I have to share to be a ninja?
    1. Re:Damn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      You think the Japanese will follow a USA bill?

    2. Re:Damn by the_humeister · · Score: 4, Interesting

      transfer or attempt to transfer a human embryo into a non-human womb ... (or) transfer or attempt to transfer a non-human embryo into a human womb

      This has got to be one of the stupidest thing I've ever read. The one thing that would quickly decrease the risks of pregnancy to absolutely zero is an artificial womb! Pregnancy itself has a host of potential complications that range from mildly irritating to quite deadly (eg. abdominal stria, pregnancy induced diabetes, pre-ecclampsia, ecclampsia, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary thromboemboli, amniotic fluid emboli, ectopic pregnancy, choriocarcinoma, etc.).

      Hopefully this piece of legislation gets voted down.

    3. Re:Damn by JCSoRocks · · Score: 5, Funny

      Furries everywhere are universally disappointed.

      --
      You are using English. Please learn the difference between loose and lose; they're, there, and their; your and you're.
    4. Re:Damn by Toonol · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That would reduce the risk for the mother; I doubt it would reduce it for the child. The child is under far more risk than the mother in most pregnancies.

    5. Re:Damn by Zencyde · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, but the mother's life is far more valuable than that of the child's.

      --
      What day is it? Could you please tell me?
    6. Re:Damn by gnick · · Score: 5, Insightful

      OK, I've dumped my Karma bonus and am expecting to earn a couple of new Freaks, because this is the single most heartless thing that I've ever posted on /.

      That would reduce the risk for the mother; I doubt it would reduce it for the child. The child is under far more risk than the mother in most pregnancies.

      Who cares? The mother is far more important than the child. The "child", at least in the most risky period of the pregnancy, is just a collection of tissue that will hopefully develop a nervous system and eventually become a person. If we can halve the risk to the mother while doubling the risk to the embryo - I'm all for it.

      When my wife was pregnant with our first child, she asked me very seriously how I would respond if something went wrong and the doctor told me that he could only save either her or our child (she watches too much TV). I told her that I'd pick her and we could try for another baby or adopt. She was satisfied with that and responded with something to the effect of "Damn straight." Reduce the risk to the mother at (almost) all cost - Babies are easy to assemble, far more difficult to transform into productive adults.
      [/monster]

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    7. Re:Damn by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Law of Unintended Consequences, we've all evolved to be in a womb. There's a whole list of things that go on during pregnancy that I don't think we're even close to completely understanding.

      Babies pickup up the basic phonemes of the mothers language in the womb. Babies respond to their mother's voice after birth because they've been 'hearing' it for the last 9 months.

      Babies constantly hear the mother's heart beat. It's why you can calm a baby by placing it close to your chest, it hears the heart beat again.

      Babies' immune system get bootstrapped with antibodies from the mother's body.

      The mother's body (kidney, hearts, lungs, livers) act as the baby's for the first 9 months. We haven't perfected artificial copies of those yet, so what is the artificial womb supposed to do? We're already seeing problems where a constant flow motor in place of a heart causes problems in the rest of the body that had grown accustom to a (1/60) Hz throbbing.

      Artificial / Cow milk is no substitute for breast milk during young development. The fatty chains and stuff can't be replicated by any formula, what makes them think that the fluids the mother and baby exchange?

      The human body is an infinitely complex system of feedback loops and control systems. I can't ever see us getting this right artificially. If the baby is low on X, the mothers body will give it more X.

      How many versions of this will we go through of very very messed up babies/people before we get it right?

    8. Re:Damn by the_humeister · · Score: 4, Informative

      Seriously? do we really want to go down this route? We've already screwed with the planet and life enough. Do we really need to screw with it more and more by allowing human/animal hybrids?

      We already have them. They're called "transgenic mice" and we use them for research. We also have bacteria with human genes too. They make insulin for diabetic people, etc.

    9. Re:Damn by roman_mir · · Score: 4, Funny

      an embryo becomes a human when it stops just asking questions but starts meaningfully answering them. ...
      for a Jewish mother though, an embryo becomes a human when it gets gets degree in law or medicine ;)

  2. Such hybrids have been made... by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I recall an experiment involving a human-cow hybrid; specifically, human nuclear DNA and cow mitochondrial DNA. The embryo was allowed to grow to 16 cells before being destroyed, and there were a lot of cries about the ethics of such experiments.

    --
    Palm trees and 8
  3. Zoophilia? by Lord_Frederick · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If you had sex with a human-animal hybrid, could you be prosecuted for bestiality? Of course *I* wouldn't have sex with a hybrid. Not that there's anything wrong with that. I think.

  4. Question: What is a human? by Orleron · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It may sound dumb, but....

    Directly combining cells from two species is one thing, and this bill is going after that, but the term "hybrid" makes me nervous. A mouse with a single human gene is technically a hybrid. Are they going to outlaw transgenic lab animals, therefore? That would be a huge blow to science.
    Gotta love the Catholic Church, the bastions of innovation and human progress that they are. Not.

  5. Re:Damn.... by gardyloo · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Do you have crabs?"
    "Just one."

  6. Since when... by gardyloo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    are humans not animals?

  7. Cat DNA + Hitler DNA = . . . by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 5, Funny

    Kitlers! http://www.catsthatlooklikehitler.com/cgi-bin/seigbest.pl

    Today your sofa, tomorrow the world!

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  8. Surprising by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Usually Louisiana and Alabama are on the cutting edge of scientific advancement.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:Surprising by omfglearntoplay · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually LSU is probably has one of the most advanced agricultural research centers around. There's the old tour with the living cow with the hole in its side for tourists to put their hand in a living stomach (fun for the family!) and other scary things. I wouldn't be surprised if one of the fuckers was working on a pig with a human head or something.

      Don't be a tool and think that everybody in the southern states is an uneducated freak.

  9. Religion by PowerVegetable · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I live in New Orleans. from the article, this was filed "on behalf of the Louisiana Conference of Catholic Bishops". If you've never been here, Catholicism is huge in south Louisiana.

    This bill has nothing to do with any sort of research or proposed research in the state. There are no biomedical companies here threatening to build mutant humans. Louisiana doesn't generally have the sort of biomedical research centers that would do work of that sort. We're happy if the Germans build a steel mill here.

    This is just another one of those ideas based on a garbled sci-fi fear of Science, made by people who'd rather not have to learn anything before forming an opinion, and who have far too much access to lawmakers.

    I have no doubt the law will pass, the religious community here will crow about it for a few days, and then absolutely nothing tangible will have changed. Except that a few hundred thousand more of my state tax dollars will have been spent on bullshit.

  10. Re:What about baby bacteria? by MeanMF · · Score: 5, Informative

    Bacteria are not technically classified as animals, so the new law would not affect them. Human/tree and human/mushroom hybrids would also still be legal.

  11. A very sensible law by Bob+Cat+-+NYMPHS · · Score: 3, Insightful

    As the day is fast approaching when we can create less-than-human intelligent creatures, it makes sense to be certain it is made illegal before anyone tries it. Might I remind you what history that very state has with beings once considered to be subhuman?

    It is not silly for the legislature to be doing it during a recession, they're not out creating jobs, you know.

  12. If we ban human-animal hybrids... by stand · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...then only the criminals will have human-animal hybrids.

    --
    Four fifths of all our troubles in this life would disappear if we would just sit down and keep still. -C. Coolidge
  13. "On another ethical issue..." by gringofrijolero · · Score: 3, Informative

    ...House Bill 517 that would protect from being fired or demoted people who refuse to participate in any health care practice that violates their conscience...

    Now way! You serve everybody without prejudice. If you can't/won't, then find another line of work. I don't want witch doctors in the operating room. I can go to the mountains for that.

    --
    Todos mis movimientos están friamente calculados
  14. But... But... But... by Greyfox · · Score: 3, Funny
    That will eliminate one of the foremost recreational activities in Louisiana!

    Oh! That's right... I went there!

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  15. Re:Question: What is a human? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Gotta love the Catholic Church, the bastions of innovation and human progress that they are. Not.

    WTF does the Catholic Church have to do with this? Yes, the bill was suggested by a Catholic bishop, but given that the Catholic Church accepts Evolution and the Protestant faiths do not, I know which faith I'd rather have influencing law makers.

    This law is at least based on ethics, as opposed to Protestant laws which are made to try and force their beliefs onto everyone. (Like, say, Prohibition, a law designed explicitly to attack Catholic Irish. Or any of the more recent laws demanding the teaching of "intelligent design.")

    My point is that while the Catholic Church does do some anti-science things, they can't hold a candle to the anti-science that comes from Protestants. Calling them out and not calling out the even more anti-science Protestants simply isn't fair. After all, if the Protestants had their way, stem cell research would be banned completely.

  16. Ship Sailed by AlHunt · · Score: 4, Funny

    Ever been to Mardi Gras? The human-animal hybrid ship sailed long, long ago.

    --
    1 in 4 Maine children in struggle with hunger.
  17. So much for... by Pedrito · · Score: 3, Funny

    my Republican elephant and Democratic donkey hybrids...

  18. Re:Question: What is a human? by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 3, Informative

    Gotta love the Catholic Church, the bastions of innovation and human progress that they are. Not.

    Louisiana is a majority baptist area. If you're going to bash Christian sects, at least have the decency to pick the right one!

    HAL.

    --
    Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
  19. Re:Question: What is a human? by geobeck · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you only knew how the Catholic Church has advanced scientific understandings.

    I really hope there's an obscure reference that's setting me up for a 'whoosh' here, because if you're serious, you should look into a few names:

    • Aristarchus and his work with Eratosthenes
    • Ptolemy
    • DaVinci
    • Copernicus
    • Galileo
    • Darwin

    ...to name just a few. The first pair and their connection to the second name were probably the longest knowledge setback in scientific history. The Catholic church has always opposed any knowledge that would allow common people to think freely and question its dogma.

    --
    Find environmentally and socially responsible products on http://buy-right.net
  20. Aren't humans already animals? by SpuriousLogic · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Humans are already animals, so would this mean that human to human mixing would be illegal? Jesting aside, this might be hard to legislate, as it would require a scientific description of exactly what genes are required to be human. While at first pass this might seem to be a no-brainer, it actually opens up some serious ethical concerns. If you get a child that has a genetic mutation that either has extra genetic material (or less) than the definition, that person could LEGALLY be considered not human. This is an enormous can of worms. What rights would a sentient non-human, who looks human, expect to have in society?

  21. Safer for everybody. by iYk6 · · Score: 4, Funny

    That would reduce the risk for the mother; I doubt it would reduce it for the child.

    I couldn't disagree more. Machines have an excellent track record for accuracy, compared to humans. During the experimental stage, it might be dangerous for mother and child, but when the technology matures, it will be safer for both, and lots of people will be doing it. There will, of course, always be people who prefer the old fashioned way.

    The one thing that would quickly decrease the risks of pregnancy to absolutely zero is an artificial womb!

    Hooray! Somebody finally found something in this universe that has absolutely zero risk! And it involves babies and surgery!

  22. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  23. Why is this flamebait? by tjstork · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I mean, I'm pro-life, and yeah, mom's life is more valuable than the child. Mom can get pregnant again and has chores to do for Daddy, not to mention providing for the other children. If you had to make the terrible choice between mom and a child, I'd say the lose the child.

    Now, when mom gets old, that role gets reversed. Like, once you retire, the kids become more important than you.

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:Why is this flamebait? by coolsnowmen · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why is this flamebait?

      Because the parent stated something controversial as fact instead of an opinion (which it is), with out backing it up. Then again, by his sig, I'm not really surprised at the position.

      I think there would have been less of a problem
      had [s]he said:

      Yeah, but the mother's life is far more valuable than that of the child's to me.

      The bigger logical problem with his statement is that it is subjective. If my wife and I are having a kid, but we are some of the last members alive of some racial group (say an American indian tribe), then our kid might be more important).

      But, if a couple had to chose at childbirth who lived and who died,for most males, this is probably true. Until you spend time with your children you don't have nearly the emotional connection to them that the female does. The female has spent months with the child inside her body and has hormones to enforce that bond. The choice of whether to live or die with the opposite happening to her unborn child would be much harder for her. Especially if complications made it impossible for her to ever have kids again...

      That is, without an artificial womb

  24. Americans hate children by tjstork · · Score: 4, Insightful

    While rational, your point does not coincide with the values of our society. So they won't be very receptive to those ideas

    What do you mean? America is a society that really doesn't like children at all. It's only that Europeans and Japanese positively hate children that makes America seem child friendly.

        Have you ever taken toddlers out with you and gotten a bunch of dirty looks from all the people? It's like, you shot someone. People should like to hear children laughing and stuff and instead everyone expects them to sit in silence in public places. What kind of a screwed up society is that!

    Similarly, we have no problem blowing tons of money on old people, spending hundreds of billions on medicare and medicaid so grandma can get a new pacemaker on the public dime, but lets see what happens if you suggest that grandma just dies so that kids can get better schools.

    --
    This is my sig.
  25. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion