human and animal hybrids

Post by **Blaze** » Mon Feb 07, 2005 9:18 pm

And that, that is what I already said. If it doesn't produce results right away, that's ok. Sometimes it takes time. But how far do you let it GO? "Oh, well, we just need a few more test subjects, then we'll have it." "Oh, well, we just need some more advanced test subjects, then we'll have it." "Oh, well, we need to test it on people, then we'll have it."

How far do you let it go, trying to get to the benefits, of ANY SORT, that only may be there?

StruckingFuggle · Post by **StruckingFuggle** » Mon Feb 07, 2005 9:20 pm

As far as you can take it with everyone involved being willing. So so long as you can finance it. If you need human test subjects, so long as humans are willing to be heroes and be subjected to the tests ...

(and grumlen, I love that quote - thanks for providing it)

Post by **Blaze** » Mon Feb 07, 2005 9:33 pm

[quote="StruckingFuggle";p="451844"]As far as you can take it with everyone involved being willing.[/quote]

And when you're working with scienfic stuff that could have an effect on the entire world?

StruckingFuggle · Post by **StruckingFuggle** » Mon Feb 07, 2005 9:45 pm

Again, "could not" is not will. Besides, Blaze, this isn't like generating black holes that could go out of control or trying to control the weather, or making superviruses that with one mistake could kill/sterilize/mutate everyone in the world.

It's not going to be like, "oh, I slipped, the world is DOOOMED", you know. I'm not sure where you're getting this whole "this is going to effect the whole world!" thing from, unless we're moving beyond the topic at hand to the academic question above it of general principles...

THEN, I'd say, proceed with caution, but perhaps still proceed ... I think. In general, though, this fall well within the bounds of "do it if you want", though.

Post by **Blaze** » Mon Feb 07, 2005 9:49 pm

The specific process of tampering with genes, while not inherently wrong, (like I said, you can't really "fuck" with God like that. It'll either happen or it won't, per his designs.), is still not something that should just be thrown about for potential possible benefits, in my opinion. You know?

I just don't want to see it happening to ANYONE without their so choosing. (Or even worse, REQUIRING it to happen to everyone.)

StruckingFuggle · Post by **StruckingFuggle** » Mon Feb 07, 2005 9:52 pm

No, I don't know. Why shouldn't it be "thrown about"?

Though we do agree it shouldn't happen to anyone without their consent ... (but disagree if an unborn child counts).

Post by **Blaze** » Mon Feb 07, 2005 9:54 pm

(but disagree if an unborn child counts).

(and grumlen, I love that quote - thanks for providing it)

Why do those two seem at odds with eachother, considering the quote?

StruckingFuggle · Post by **StruckingFuggle** » Mon Feb 07, 2005 9:57 pm

I hardly think they're at odds, at least the way I read the quote. Queen Elizabeth asks what use a scientific discovery has, when there is no apparent practical application at this place and time, and in reply, someone says to her "how much use is there for a newly born child" (note: also 'newly', not unborn) ... the newly born child has no apparent use, but in the future, after time passes and it develops, can prove to be of great use and value (or, also, not) ... ... even so, I really don't see how that's supposed to be in odds to the idea of if or if not an unborn child counts as a "person" who can oppose or give consent to genetic modification ...

Post by **Blaze** » Mon Feb 07, 2005 11:10 pm

Simple, my good man. That unborn child will "develop" to become its own being with its own advances. It may seem without use for its own development, but it will get there.

StruckingFuggle · Post by **StruckingFuggle** » Mon Feb 07, 2005 11:46 pm

... *boggle*

What. the heck. are you. talking about?

Post by **Blaze** » Tue Feb 08, 2005 12:12 am

The queen Elizabeth quote said, "How much use is there for a newly born child?"

This was used to say that a newly developing science may not have any use now, but may grow to be a productive and useful science someday. You liked that quote, but then said you don't think that unborn children should count as being "forced" to be tested upon by their parents and what not.

So, the only conclusion POSSIBLE to draw from that is that you don't feel a normal child is useful enough when grown up. That normal people SHOULD be improved. If sciences should be allowed to develop to see if they'll be useful, why shouldn't each and every person? Making changes before they have a chance to develop naturally is no different than changing or canceling an undeveloped science for fear it won't be "good enough" (Or really, for any other fear).

How can you go one way and not the other? Do you really put the progress of science above human life? Should people's usefulness be sidelined per the usefulness of science?

Also, I might note that if you consider a newborn child to be beyond all this, but not an unborn child, you're making a rash claim that one has no relation to the other, but that's a WHOLE HUGE argument there, so....

Grumlen · Post by **Grumlen** » Tue Feb 08, 2005 2:03 am

No Blaze. Thats the way you want to see it. The difference between a born and a unborn baby, in the anology, would be the difference between being on the brink of a possible scientific discovery and already having made one. Until you've made that discovery, you really don't have anything. Once you've made it, you have something to study and nurture.

Also, thinking that a fully grown person isn't useful enough isn't the only possible conclusion. I believe I already said that children, especially unborn, are not mature or responsible enough to make their own decisions regarding life-impacting matters. Thus, the choice must be left up to the parent. This is why I think that a parent has every right to give birth to the child they want, especially since they're the ones going through all the pain and suffering to give it birth and then nurture it.

Once again to reference the analogy, not allowing a scientist to chose which scientific discovery he wants to make would be like rolling the lottery and having Galileo discovery the effects of heating small objects despite studying astronomy. The scientist is obviously allowed to choose, at least generally, the nature of his discovery. Thus, why can't a parent do the same for their child? Or a scientist create whatever form of life he desires? As long as it is treated with the care and respect it deserves due to it's mental and emotional capacity, I'm fine with it.

JudgeMental · Post by **JudgeMental** » Tue Feb 08, 2005 3:44 am

What is the difference between an unborn and a newly birthed child? Weight, for the most part. Granting help from modern medicine, premies born several months early are able to survive and grow up normally. The line where the zygote or fetus is human or not has NOT been defined. Several tentative places have been suggested (that I've seen), but they're somewhat hazy.

Personally, I would PREFER humans to be untouched genetically. For certain obvious genetic deformities, such as Down's Syndrome, I think genetic manipulation might be reasonable, as it would correct a defect that is very well defined and clearly understood. Other genetic deformities are iffy, but the better understood and more specific they are, the more comfortable I would be with messing around with them.

Designer babies though, that's a whole new can of worms. Even with our current span of knowledge, genetic research is still in its infancy. Well, maybe toddler stage. Regardless, would you trust a toddler to handle a scalpel during delicate neural surgery?

Fixer · Post by **Fixer** » Tue Feb 08, 2005 12:58 pm

[quote="Mr.Shroom";p="451092"]Actually, there aren't any laws about chimeric animals period. Hence the freakout. No standing regulation, methods of enforcement...alot of the same problems we have with larger scale medical equipment and the like.[/quote]
Chimera actually occur a bit naturally in nature, just not trans-species. There are some human beings out in the world that possess the genetic traits of two different 'people'. During gestation, the 'host' embryo absorbs the less developed embryo and the two basically merge bodies. The host is what everyone sees, but the symbiont's genetic code is inside as well. The very weird situations is where the symbiont's genetic code is in the reproductive tract while the host maintains the rest of the body. The children are always based on the symbiont's genetic code, which could be quite different from the host, resulting in children that look very little like the 'host' parent.

To attempt to cover chimeric animals with legislation needs to address the natural order of things and prevent what occurs naturally from being illegal as well.

Posted Tue Feb 08, 2005 7:59 am:

[quote="Blaze";p="451488"]On a more serious note, that's back to where we were before. And I agree. Just because you can does NOT mean you should.[/quote]
....and just because what you propose doesn't suit what is right and wrong for others doesn't mean you shouldn't.

Posted Tue Feb 08, 2005 8:01 am:

[quote="Blaze";p="451576"]But as to the rest of them, what if we start in on this, and find there's really no medical or scientific benefit? It doesn't help anything but learn how to create more Chimeras, and they don't help anything but how to create even more. Then what? Should the process be stopped before it gets out of hand?[/quote]
Natural selection exists in science as well. If a project possesses no scientific or economic benefit, it will not get the resources it needs to continue. That branch of science will die off.

Deacon · Post by **Deacon** » Tue Feb 08, 2005 1:57 pm

[quote="Fixer";p="452068"]To attempt to cover chimeric animals with legislation needs to address the natural order of things and prevent what occurs naturally from being illegal as well.[/quote]
Wouldn't the act be illegal, not the resulting being?

Real Life Forums

human and animal hybrids

Who is online