Animal - Human embryos - Breakthrough or Monstrous? (Page 2)

Sowwy. I wasn't getting that, obviously. So, we'll skip the whole stem cell research tie-in.

The technology/science already exists for implanting DNA of species 1 into embryos of species 2.  Do I think some wacko will use this technology for strange/bizarre purposes? Sure, Mary Shelley predicted it almost 200 years ago. Humans invented genocide and 'holy' wars; we play god all the time. Do I think people will stand for it? Depends on the culture in which the wacko is practicing his/her science.

I understand. It's reactionary, but I get it.

But there seems to be no argument about the reverse of this process; those things that were "moral" in the past yet deemed "immoral" by today's standards i.e. slavery, suppression of women's rights, archaic legal systems etc..  We have progressed as a society in ways that now see those things as "immoral" and "wrong".

It brings to question the very source from which one's morals are attained.  If the institutions we have set up to guide society in the ways of what is morally acceptable (primarily the church) were wrong about slavery and women's rights among other moral issues, why are we so quick to assume that they are right about this one?

I'm reminded of the Second Great Awakening here in the US in the mid 1800's when the religious movement of the time made great efforts to abolish alcohol to the point that the state of Maine made it's consumption illegal.  All based on religious morals, all later ignored and deemed silly.

In fact, I would be wary of looking to our founding fathers as an inspiration for morality.  We baited Mexico into a war just so we could take their land; we ignored the Supreme Court's ruling and ran the Native Americans out of the south so we could take their land; we built our contries economy on slave labor; we oppressed women; all under the watchful eye of our founding fathers.  We are indeed a great nation, the greatest.  But our history is certainly not based on the ideals that were initially set forth at the 1st Continental Congress in 1787.

If it is our desire as a society to turn to ONE source as our moral compass, then IMO we should adopt and practice ALL which that one source teaches.  If instead we pick and choose and upgrade or progress past some of what that one source instructs, then it is not a source at all; but merely a suggestion.

Moarlity is in a constant state of flux. Like you said, many things that use to be deemed as moral are now unconscienable. Likewise, manythings that used to be viewd as immoral are not so much anymore. As examples, women smoking in public, sex outside of the missionary position, short skirts on women, men wearing Speedos. Dancing. Eating pork.

Men wearing Speedos is still up for debate...or at least should be.

Well, I must be doing something right.  I've got the far lefties and the far righties coming at me.

It's also an interesting reflection of today's partisan and divisive debating style.  The right challenges to think, the left derisively dismisses.

So don, I'm sorry, but could you condense your lengthy post into a simple sound bit so I can understand it.  You know, something like "Bush lied, people died"?  We'll go from there

postscript - don't worry, not taking it personally, I care little about what most people on the board think of me (some I do, one of them has posted on this thread), so the slight goes acknowledged but not felt.

ETA to highlight in response to Renee below.  seriously.  I truly don't care

Sorry you feel slighted, Chris, but I wasn't debating you or coming at you. I was responding in a non-derisive manner to Jim's semi-rhetorical question about why people aren't alarmed by biotechnology, offering what I believed to be the source of some people's overreaction to the technology/science in question. Embryo is an emotionally laden word; that's just reality.

I can tell you my post isn't about you, but if you make it about you I can't help that. I think maybe you're reading a tone in there that I did not imbue my words with.

Maybe instead of taking it personal that Jim or I feel this is much ado about nothing - by the way, you did ask for reactions - you could go back to the discussion about why you feel this is dangerous ground (NOT putting words in your mouth, just generalizing about the gist of your reaction).  I am often interested in listening to the devil's advocate (no slight intended!).

Amen, brother.  Check out Pope Benedict when he's here in a few weeks.  He agrees with you.

(and by the way, I think your contention that things like slavery were once moral and now are not can only be defended if you come from a place of being a Bible literalist. The early Christians, the ones who brought the Bible together, were not.)

Says who? 

If you cook with old fish, don't complain about the stink.  

The population as a whole, I guess. Your individual results may vary. Of course, morality is personal, but you can make observations about what groups believe. For instance, contraception is immoral to Catholics, but moral for just about everyone else. Since Catholics make up a small percentage of the population of the US, you can say that in the US, contraception is not thought to be immoral.

Only if you have good tickets to Yankee stadium this season.

So one group has it right and the other has it wrong.  Question is, which is which.

What if it turns out that Protestant Christians missed something in the equation.  How would you test for that?

Or better yet, do you want to test for it so as to avoid the possibility of doing evil.  Is the avoidance of evil important enough to you to be worth questioning your assumptions. 

Lots available on stub hub.  I just can't afford the good ones.  But I guess a bad seat at Yankee stadium is better than a great seat anywhere else.  

Jim and Chris, this isn't a hi-jack.

Chris' question was "where's the line". To find out, we need to look at the process we've been through that has separated first procreation from sex, and now sex from procreation.

The embracing of a contraceptive culture, and the so called free love culture, has been a milestone in that process. It rests close to the top of the slope.

So it has to be considered if you want to avoid "creating monsters".

It depends on who's doing the judging, I think. You could probably that both groups are right because they believe they are. Faith is funny.

But moraity gets clouded by religion, lots of times. I don't want to argue natural law vs. God's law vs. man's law again, though, I guess

No worries, I am out of this thread, it's all yours

But then where does that  leave us with some of these bio-ethical questions?

For example, with contrasting  opinions on contraception, myself I would much prefer that you believe your position on it is correct, rather than having you believe that there is no way to find out who is correct.

In other words, it's better for us to disagree with what is true while still believing that something is true, rather than just throwing up our hands and saying that truth doesn't exist or at least is not knowable.

If there really is no foundation of truth available to us, then the jig is up.  We may overwhelmingly collectively believe today that creating some form of human/animal hybrid is immoral, but it is absolutely no guarantee that come tomorrow, or a hundred years from now, society will overwhelmingly collectively believe that it's just fine.

Ultimately we can't let these questions be based on our "feelings".  They have to be based in reason.

That's why I think that when questions like this come up, we really ought to step back to the root of the problem, that being that we have removed reason from our moral and ethical considerations.  Without invoking reason, there's really no way to answer Chris' OP.