Animal - Human embryos - Breakthrough or Monstrous?

We crossed that line a loooong time ago.

Also, FWIW, I renewed my driver's license today and took the opportunity to finally leave the Democratic Party, the party that has moral line crossing built into it's platform. I'm now "no party affiliation", which kinda makes me feel like a non-denominational voter. A very happy day for me anyway.

With the Pennsylvania primaries coming up, my only regret is that I'll now have to wait until November for the pleasure of voting against Obama.

Old news - I have been doing this for YEARS in my basement.....

I don't see what the big deal is.......

Interesting. Looks like they are pursuing ways to overcome/dismiss the human embryo objection to embryonic stem cell research.

A team has grown hybrid embryos after injecting human DNA into eggs taken from cows' ovaries, which had most of their genetic material removed.

The embryos survived for three days and are intended to provide a limitless supply of stem cells to develop therapies for diseases such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and spinal cord injuries, overcoming a worldwide shortfall in human embryos.

What things do you think we should be thinking through, Chris?

I am SOOO getting a set of gills.  My swim times are going to ROCK!

That and some webbed feet and hands..... SWEET!

The embryos are 99% human.  Live for 3 days curently, so I assume they will at some point learn to keep them alive longer.  Perhaps for even 9 months.  Then what?  We have... what,  a 99% human?  full human?  what affect does 1% othe species DNA have on a human?  New "racial" lines?  What kinds of diseases that used to be unable to jump species are we now allowing across that bridge?  Limited to cows?  What about pigs, donkeys, monkeys, etc etc

Is a 99% human "less" of a human to dismiss the anti stem cell arguments. FTR, I am pro choice and for stem cell research, so these srguments don't sway me, but still, what percentage makes it "non human"?  90? 75? 50?  What about when these are brought to term?

What about the freaks in vegas that already have 50% dog/50% humans?

What was it Jeff Bridges said in Jurassic Park - Just because we can do something doesn't mean that we should

All very X-Men to me.

My dolphin tail will kick your a$$!!!

That's 75/25 dog/human, SIR!!!!

I realized quickly that any more human that that, and they had too many bad habits......

Why does it matter?

(Of course, I'm glad that it matters to you. )

Tim, stop trying to change the subject (you should have come last night, tirxie and Yanti in the same room?  fuggedaboutit 

Aikido, ROFL

OK, seriousnsess:

Why does which part matter - and don't be so sure you're glad, because:

Let me say, I do not think an embryo is human.  Potential to be human.  Where is the dividing line?  Good question.  Survival outside the womb without artificial stimulus?  Guess I'd start there. 

So my premise at being distrubed is upon birth

On one level, it apears we will end up with a new "species".  What is it?  What traits?  More disturbing to me, what genetic immunities, diseases, mutations will arise?  Of course, we'd never know without experimentation.

OK.

Why does it matter that we'd have a new species that's 99% human. (putting aside for the moment how one would quantify a percentage of being "human" )

I'm still glad.

I think many people will read an article like that and simply dismiss it as being an issue that's not important enough to consider, or will just pretend that the moral/ethical question doesn't exist, or just try to avoid the implications.

I think you give me too much credit.  I dunno, maybe too many Hollywood movies (I can see the Hollywood sign from my office right now).....  and a little knowledge of the depravities of the human condition.  Internment camps, rounding up "subhumans", blaming them for... whatever the ill of the day is.

We had a number of years where certain humans were quantified as "less than human" based upon a physical characteristic.  We were, and continue to be, quite capable of doing that.  But being black, or white, or asian, is different than changing the basic human DNA.   (and I can understand you might draw a parallel to fetuses.. fetusi?)

Is it a form of intellectual evolution?  Sure, Darwin's finch got a longer beak to get into the flower, or a stronger beak to break a nut, through natural evolution.  Is the use of science to create a chosen evolution different?

Other than that, I can't quite put my finger right on it.  Something seems very wrong about it. 

I don't think so. You've been a cyber buddy for something like four years now. We disagree about a lot of things discussed here, maybe most things, and still remain friends.  That's a rare and good thing.

So I'm glad that this news gives you pause. And it confirms what I think of you. And I'm glad about that.

The questioning of the truth of human dignity comes itself from the dignity of being human.

TS Eliot - The Hollow Men

Between the conception
And the creation
Between the emotion
And the response
Falls the Shadow

No, not 9 months. I think you are grossly misunderstanding the science.

From reading the article, the scientists have no interest in actually creating a new species or monster or thing or allowing anything to develop beyond the blastocyte stage (a matter of days).

The reason people have objected to embryonic stem cell research is because the human embryo is destroyed in the process of extracting the inner cell mass which is used to create the stem cell line. With this new development, no human blastocyte/embryo will be destroyed. The nucleus of a cow's embryo is destroyed and human DNA is pumped into it, thereby activating a mechanism that allows for cell replication.

That is not the science they are pursuing. The blastocyte is destroyed in the process.

Yep, I remember that cautionary comment.

Oh, forgot to provide this helpful link - basics of stem cell research.

Actually, it's Jeff Goldblum who ironically was....THE FLY!

When you write "something that has lived for 3 days" do you understand that it was the embryo/blastocyte that survived for 3 days?  That we're talking about something that consists of about 100 cells?

When I wrote you grossly misunderstood the science, I was pointing out the huge difference between the stem cell line creation process - which involves blastocytes that are days old before they are destroyed - that this article is all about, and what you were writing about which is some monster that is brought to term. Seemed to confuse the entire issue.

I think that referring to a breakthrough in stem cell research in one breath and monsters brought to term in the next breath only confuses people. Speaking for myself, I was confused with why you were talking about monsters and such when the article is about stem cell research. Embyronic stem cell research is a science that is requires the destruction of blastocytes, that's why there is such a controversy about it.

And, no, I didn't interpret any political or religious intent in your post - my response was purely from a "I don't think it means what he thinks it means" point of view. Article discusses stem cell research vs what you are discussing. Hence, my confusion and desire to point out that it's impossible to bring it to term since the blastocyte/embryo is destroyed within days of the DNA implantation.

And... assuming you understand the process, I wanted to point out the difference to anyone else who is reading who knows little to nothing about the process.

Oh... and I am staying out of the slippery slope/mad scientist scenario/discussion. Or am I just dense this evening and that was the point of your thread? It happens...

I'm amazed nobody has raised the most pressing question in all of this...

At what point on the scale from animal to human do we have to stop grilling it for dinner?

FWIW, human DNA is 98% monkey. I may actually be 98.5% 

Even a caveman knew that.

Bingo (the point of thee thread part, not the dense part).  No comment on what happened scientifically.  But yes comment on the moral and ethical issues raised by the possibilities

And the word "monstrous" came from the article (quoted by both the church and an ethicist)

Chris, we're already at the bottom of that slippery slope. Just biding our time until the avalanche catches up with us.

Given your set of beliefs, I don't see how you can construct a moral/ethical system now that can argue against these new bio developments.

I'd say that your position on abortion and ESCR shows that what you have now is an ethical/moral system based in a material/human definition of personhood, as contrasted to a transcendent/creator based system.

If it turns out that you're correct, then Jefferson and the rest of the founders were wrong.

If you are correct, then you can't make a moral/ethical claim against any act, since the prohibition would simply be another human construct, one that can easily be changed back.

So what is immoral today can simply be declared moral tomorrow, just because that's what people want.

So if you really want to build a life and a culture on that system, just be prepared to accept anything that comes down the pike. We've already declared that certain groups of people are not human persons and therefore can be legally killed. Today, the movement it seems is to gradually expand who may fall into that group.

It's not a stretch to claim later that certain groups are not a full 100% human and can therefore be made into slaves. The prohibition against slavery has no philosophical basis in the system you hold, at least non that can be successfully defended.

So welcome to the Brave New World, my friend.

We're at the bottom of the slope. But it's not too late to get back to the top of the mountain. The chairlift is there, and the line's not too bad.