Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

'Embryo Bank' Stirs Ethics Fears (Clients Pick Among Fertilized Eggs)
WP ^ | 01/05/07 | Rob Stein

Posted on 01/06/2007 6:04:54 PM PST by TigerLikesRooster

'Embryo Bank' Stirs Ethics Fears

Firm Lets Clients Pick Among Fertilized Eggs

By Rob Stein

Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, January 6, 2007; A01

A Texas company has started producing batches of ready-made embryos that single women and infertile couples can order after reviewing detailed information about the race, education, appearance, personality and other characteristics of the egg and sperm donors.

The Abraham Center of Life LLC of San Antonio, the first commercial dealer making embryos in advance for unspecified recipients, was created to help make it easier and more affordable for clients to have babies that match their preferences, according to its founder.

"We're just trying to help people have babies," said Jennalee Ryan, who arranged for an egg donor to start medical treatments to produce a second batch of embryos this week. "For me, that's what this is all about: helping make babies."

But the embryo brokerage, which calls itself "the world's first human embryo bank," raises alarm among some fertility experts and bioethicists, who say the service marks another disturbing step toward commercialization of human reproduction and "designer babies."

"We're increasingly treating children like commodities," said Mark A. Rothstein, a bioethicist at the University of Louisville in Kentucky. "It's like you're ordering a computer from Dell: You give them the specs, and they put it in the mail. I don't think we should consider mail-order computers and other products the same way we consider children."

Prospective parents have long been able to select egg or sperm donors based on ethnicity, education and other traits. Couples can also "adopt" embryos left over at fertility clinics, or have embryos created for them if they need both eggs and sperm. But the new service marks the first time anyone has started turning out embryos as off-the-shelf products.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: babyfarms; business; embryo; embryobank; embryos; ethics; homosexualagenda; ivf; moralabsolutes; moralrelativism; pickandchoose; playinggod; selfishness; slipperyslope; transhumanism

1 posted on 01/06/2007 6:04:57 PM PST by TigerLikesRooster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: TigerLikesRooster

A better link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/05/AR2007010501953.html


2 posted on 01/06/2007 6:07:07 PM PST by TigerLikesRooster (kim jong-il, kae jong-il, chia head, pogri, midget sh*tbag)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigerLikesRooster; 69ConvertibleFirebird; Alexander Rubin; An American In Dairyland; Antoninus; ...
Moral Absolutes Ping!

Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.

FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]


3 posted on 01/06/2007 6:08:34 PM PST by wagglebee ("We are ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom." -- President Bush, 1/20/05)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigerLikesRooster

You ain't seen anything yet. Just imagine, a few generations down the road when we will not only have read and understood the genome, but will be in a position to re-write it and even to write one de novo. Then one would be dialing up healthy athletic geniuses, and nothing else.


4 posted on 01/06/2007 6:10:22 PM PST by GSlob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: TigerLikesRooster

Like the old "Little Tavern " hamburger joints. "Buy 'em by the bag".


5 posted on 01/06/2007 6:37:19 PM PST by sgtbono2002 (Peace through strength.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigerLikesRooster; 2ndMostConservativeBrdMember; afraidfortherepublic; Alas; al_c; ...

Couples Cull Embryos to Halt Heritage of Cancer


6 posted on 01/06/2007 6:42:34 PM PST by Coleus (God hates moderates, Revelation 3:15-16)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigerLikesRooster
Ryan is, however, using only ... sperm donors who have advanced education, such as a PhD or law degree.

Gee, I can make some mad money. Cool. Who knew?

7 posted on 01/06/2007 6:48:00 PM PST by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigerLikesRooster

Designer babies. The ultimate in selfishness.


8 posted on 01/06/2007 6:54:43 PM PST by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigerLikesRooster
Couples can also "adopt" embryos left over at fertility clinics, ...

The reason they use the quotes around the word "adopt" is because the actual legal transaction involved, under our legal system's current treatment of an embryo, is a purchase and sale of personal property.

Treatment of human lives as chattel or livestock did not end with the civil war, and was reintroduced to America in 1973.

9 posted on 01/06/2007 6:56:06 PM PST by mvpel (Michael Pelletier)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Torie
such as a PhD or law degree.

Doesn't the congresswoman from Huston, that wanted to know if the mars lander could go over and see the lunar lander have a law degree.????

So I guess this process guarantees an IQ of at least 95. LOL

10 posted on 01/06/2007 6:56:43 PM PST by org.whodat (Never let the facts get in the way of a good assumption.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SuziQ

Well, you just can't have *too* many babies, right?


11 posted on 01/06/2007 6:59:30 PM PST by gcruse (http://garycruse.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: org.whodat

And Sheila Jackson Lee is a potential sperm donor? Who knew?


12 posted on 01/06/2007 7:00:17 PM PST by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: GSlob

with a few dummies thrown into the mix- gotta have someone to blame when something goes wrong- lol http://sacredscoop.com


13 posted on 01/06/2007 7:13:56 PM PST by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: GSlob

There are three sides to eugenics. Good, bad, and bizarre.

An example of good eugenics has to be put down to just plain luck. It happened in one of the idealistic communes of northern European immigrants in New York State in the 19th Century. Though they believed in strong families, procreation was based solely on the judgment of the leader. A woman was strong and a man was smart, so they were ordered to make a baby, that would then be raised by her and her husband. In three generations, this commune produced some 60 or so national leaders in many fields. But had it continued another generation, it would have genetically collapsed because of inbreeding.

A bad result of Eugenics is already happening with smart people. Tending to marry each other, we have now discovered to our horror that the children of two smart people are often autistic. Far more than for the rest of the population.

A bizarre case of what Eugenics might be came with a poll that went into far more detail about what typical parents might want if their child could be engineered to their specifications. At first, they responded typically with "smart", "pretty", and "athletic". However, with more and more questions, people started to admit that they would really like their children to have more 'feline' and 'canine' qualities. People seem to get along better with their pets than each other, so these people figured that if their children were more like cats or dogs, then everyone would like them.


14 posted on 01/06/2007 8:13:47 PM PST by Popocatapetl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Popocatapetl

Eugenics up to now [and for a while in the future] has been/will be conducted with a sledgehammer. Really interesting stuff could become possible in 100-200 years, when we will be rewriting genomes in minute detail.


15 posted on 01/06/2007 8:25:57 PM PST by GSlob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Torie
My friend I aways thought it took two to make an embryo. But then you are a lawyer, you say.
16 posted on 01/06/2007 9:23:16 PM PST by org.whodat (Never let the facts get in the way of a good assumption.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: org.whodat

The article said that the filter for lawyers and PHD's was for sperm, not eggs.


17 posted on 01/06/2007 9:55:14 PM PST by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: TigerLikesRooster

A few more things like this and the "good old USA" will be even more deserving of a nuclear holocaust.

An utterly appalling abomination.


18 posted on 01/06/2007 10:02:37 PM PST by AnalogReigns
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Popocatapetl
. . . We have now discovered to our horror that the children of two smart people are often autistic.

Have you got a reference/link/whatever for that? That's the first time I've seen that assertion. Thanks!

19 posted on 01/06/2007 10:19:21 PM PST by Hetty_Fauxvert (Kelo must GO!! ..... http://sonoma-moderate.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Popocatapetl
However, with more and more questions, people started to admit that they would really like their children to have more 'feline' and 'canine' qualities.

That very odd. Do you have a link for that?

20 posted on 01/07/2007 12:59:10 AM PST by Gerfang
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: GSlob

I don’t really have a problem with a world where everyone is smart, talented, and healthy.


21 posted on 01/07/2007 1:02:08 AM PST by Gerfang
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Gerfang
Well, the only problem could be that when everyone else is a genius, becoming and remaining a village idiot might be less than comfortable. But one needs to sacrifice for the future.
22 posted on 01/07/2007 3:38:18 AM PST by GSlob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Hetty_Fauxvert

http://tinyurl.com/y8wjss

WASHINGTON, May 2 (UPI) -- There was something similarly strange about the children who caught Leo Kanner's attention starting in 1938. He called their behavior "autistic."

There also was something strangely similar about the families they came from.

"There is one other very interesting common denominator in the backgrounds of these children. They all come of highly intelligent families," child psychiatrist Kanner wrote at the end of his historic study of 11 children, published in 1943.

He ticked off the fathers' occupations: four psychiatrists, one "brilliant lawyer," one chemist and law school graduate, one plant pathologist, one professor of forestry, one ad copywriter with a law degree, one mining engineer and one businessman.

"All but three of the families," Kanner wrote, "are represented either in 'Who's Who in America' or in 'American Men of Science,' or both."

Among the first 100 cases Kanner saw, he reported they "almost invariably came from intelligent and sophisticated stock." Of the 100 fathers, 96 were high school grads and, of those, 74 were college grads -- almost twice today's percentage...

(article continues)


23 posted on 01/07/2007 6:45:06 AM PST by Popocatapetl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Gerfang

I did have a link for the other guy, but I'm afraid the poll I mentioned is beyond Googling, and I don't remember much about it other than it was done in England in the past few years.


24 posted on 01/07/2007 6:48:19 AM PST by Popocatapetl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: TigerLikesRooster
sperm donors who have advanced education, such as a PhD or law degree.

Oh, great. So many members of Congress and state legislatures who started out their careers as attorneys are eligible.

25 posted on 01/07/2007 6:54:24 AM PST by tyen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tyen
Re #26

Clintons? Oh, no!

26 posted on 01/07/2007 8:01:17 AM PST by TigerLikesRooster (kim jong-il, kae jong-il, chia head, pogri, midget sh*tbag)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Torie

But did she, are did she not, graduate from a law school????


27 posted on 01/07/2007 9:14:21 AM PST by org.whodat (Never let the facts get in the way of a good assumption.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: org.whodat

Ya, from Ted Kennedy's law school.


28 posted on 01/07/2007 10:18:00 AM PST by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
"Well, you just can't have *too* many babies, right?"

Even one baby is too many babies, if you're treating them like products, property, chattel.

The most obvious problem is that IVF "begets" or produces more offspring than will be implanted in your womb. That results in two really inhuman options: (1) killing your "surplus" offspring (or storing them in frozen form until they deteriorate and are ultimately dumped); or (2) using the embryo as a human experimental subject, without any of the safeguards essential to its moral status as a nascent human being.

The third problem is that the entire process of ovum extraction, sperm collection, in vitro fertilization, and so forth, has already reduced human procreation to an laboratory procedure resulting in a product who/which is a commodity in commercial transaction.

The entire distinction between a human being, a lab animal, and a bit of biological property is in smithereens.

So we (Americans) are right back where we were at the time of the Dred Scott decision of 1857, with the law unable to distinguish between a human being and a piece of property. Except at a potentially worse degree of complexity, since the human genome can now be altered through the introduction of heterologous genes, and the embryo manipulated into forms of abnormal development, so that distinguishing between "human" and "not-human" becomes almost impossible.

When Aldous Huxley wrote "Brave New World," he assumed --- didn't he? --- that people would want to prevent this from happening. There must be somebody out there who is thinking strategically about how to stop this whole race to total depersonalization. I think it should be done.

29 posted on 01/07/2007 11:40:51 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
Well, you just can't have *too* many babies, right?

Ironically, for those folks, babies is the only thing you CAN have too much of! ;o)

30 posted on 01/07/2007 12:09:56 PM PST by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
babies is the only thing

Crap Grammar alert!! LOL!
Correction: Ironically, babies ARE the only things of which you can have too many!

31 posted on 01/07/2007 12:12:12 PM PST by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Popocatapetl
If you actually read the entire article, you'll see that the author refutes the initial thesis that two highly intelligent parents produce one autistic child. Thus:

Demographics are always tricky to decipher, and it is easy to make too much of too little, but at some point all sorts of families began having autistic kids, and that ominous pattern may well be visible in the first 100 cases.

The latest research (not from 1938) that I've seen on the causes of autism seems to show at least one link to older fathers.

32 posted on 01/07/2007 12:58:42 PM PST by Hetty_Fauxvert (Kelo must GO!! ..... http://sonoma-moderate.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Hetty_Fauxvert

Nothing is terribly clear in complex genetics. For example a predisposition to autism that doesn't manifest as autism may tend to make people very intelligent.

There may be an environmental window for an outside factor to occur to activate autism; if the child makes it past that window, they are no longer susceptible.

I agree that parental age may be a factor, but is it age, or is it something else the parents "picked up" along the way, like smoking, drinking, diet, etc., that had a cumulative effect.

And yet, in practical terms, intelligent people may well be statistically more likely to have autistic children.

But as with another recent discovery, Fragile X Syndrome, it might be very obvious or very subtle.


33 posted on 01/07/2007 1:21:00 PM PST by Popocatapetl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: GSlob; TigerLikesRooster; SuzyQ
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to think that extensive human genetic engineering ("rewriting the human genome") is both inevitable, and a good thing. I doubt it, on both counts.

I remember reading an article in a Howard County (MD) newspaper in which the author was trying to figure out why Howard County had one of the worst rates of child abuse in the USA. Howard County is home to a high percentage of wealthy and very well-educated people, and is where one of the earliest and best of the "planned communities," Columbia MD, is located.

The upshot was that intensely wanted and meticulously planned children tend to be very much the vehicles of their parents' egos. They are expected to be irresistably cute, invariably emotionally rewarding, hyper-bright, high-achieving from the earliest age, etc. And when they "fall short" in any way --- when they cry a lot as babies or have a persistent rash, or dribble fudge sauce on the white-and-gold brocade sofa, or fail to be interested in the Teach-Your-Toddler-Japanese tapes, etc. --- the parents tend to either get terribly frustrated and angry, or they detach emotionally and lose interest in the child altogether.

Kids who are the result of expensive laboratory procedures, will be under enormous pressure to repay the investment in many ways. Their parents have expections related to their childrens' status as products, rather than as persons.

There's more than a whiff of the inhuman in the genetically engineered, ubermensch dream.

34 posted on 01/07/2007 2:42:08 PM PST by Mrs. Don-o (Begotten, not made.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

It is inevitable - true. Whether it will be good or not, will depend on how it will be done. If done by ignoramuses and illiterates, then there are good chances it will be done poorly. Accumulation of necessary knowledge could be expected to take several generations.


35 posted on 01/07/2007 2:47:57 PM PST by GSlob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: GSlob
Nothing is inevitable. Many "inevitabilities" failed to develop for many reasons; many innovations which they told us, in the 1950's, were "inevitable" by "the Year 2000" --- personal jet-packs of individual flight, World Government, tourist voyages to Mars, urban spaces transformed along the lines of Habitat '67 by Moshe Safdie --- turned out to be "futures whose time has passed."

Hydrogen dirigibles were the "wave of the future" until the Hindenburg disaster. A large and well-publicized human-genetic-engineering horror could take elaborate artificial-reproduction and human genetic engineering off the agenda for centuries.

One can hope.

36 posted on 01/07/2007 3:10:54 PM PST by Mrs. Don-o (Begotten, not made.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
Quite a lot of things are inevitable. Death and taxes come to mind. Evolution is inevitable, too - and homo super is a logical progression from homo sapiens.
37 posted on 01/07/2007 3:14:15 PM PST by GSlob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: GSlob
Waitaminnit. I thought evolution was supposed to be non-directional, non-teleological, random, unplanned, and unpredictable, You seem to think, either than evolution has some "goal" (as in Teilhard's "Omega Point") or that intelligence produces a positive selection pressure. 'Tain't necessarily so.

Death and taxes may be inevitable, but evolutionary selection for high IQ is not inevitable at all; and neither is the prospect of some elite group of humans seizing control of the evolutionary direction of humanity.

Possible, yes. Inevitable, no.

38 posted on 01/07/2007 3:26:32 PM PST by Mrs. Don-o (Begotten, not made.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: TigerLikesRooster

This is sinful beyond belief. I am shocked and appalled. Evil triumphs when good men do nothing. I hope the Texans outlaw this firm and shut them down. Or force the company to raise every one of the "embryos" to adulthood - including paying for their collegte.


39 posted on 01/07/2007 3:36:40 PM PST by Puddleglum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
Re #34

Great comments.

40 posted on 01/07/2007 4:31:30 PM PST by TigerLikesRooster (kim jong-il, kae jong-il, chia head, pogri, midget sh*tbag)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: GSlob
Time for the Clone Wars:


41 posted on 01/07/2007 4:34:59 PM PST by bannie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: TigerLikesRooster

What a unique notion, creating a market for human beings.


42 posted on 01/07/2007 4:36:08 PM PST by jwalsh07 (Duncan Hunter for President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
"I thought evolution was supposed to be non-directional, non-teleological, random, unplanned, and unpredictable,"
When purposefully carried out by sentient humans it will become non-random, planned [thus predictable] and teleological towards the purposes we ourselves will designate after duly considering the possibilities and limitations inherent in the chosen design. The same difference as between natural selection and artificial selection.
43 posted on 01/07/2007 4:42:30 PM PST by GSlob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: bannie; TigerLikesRooster; Mrs. Don-o

Did you all see the movie "Gataka"? Great movie, relates to this subject, thought-provoking - go rent it.

Also, I want to know way Americans are not being allowed to see the movie Children of Men, based on PD James' novel of that name. It was released in Europe when I was there in October, and was still playing when I was there in Dec. It was supposed to have a general release here on Christmas Day. But it disappeared, and was released in only 3 US theatres that day.

Not wanting to tighten the tinfoil too much, but an interesting thing is that Tom Cruise bought a major share in United Artists a few months ago, and I would suspect that is why it has not been released here. It's anti-euthanasia and, unspokenly, anti-abortion, and Scientology is totally pro-death.


44 posted on 01/07/2007 4:43:53 PM PST by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: GSlob
But when a purposeful, intelligent agent intervenes and alters biological development, it's not evolution; it's ---

---

---

---

(Wait for it)---

---

---

---

Intelligent Design. :o)

45 posted on 01/07/2007 7:03:31 PM PST by Mrs. Don-o (Begotten, not made.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Popocatapetl
However, with more and more questions, people started to admit that they would really like their children to have more 'feline' and 'canine' qualities. People seem to get along better with their pets than each other, so these people figured that if their children were more like cats or dogs, then everyone would like them.

In the movie "A.I." - a company pioneers the development of robotic children capable of feeling and expressing true love, as an alternative for people unable to qualify for biological children under a population-control regimen. The robot children are perfect in every way - dutiful, obedient, loving children who never grow up.

In the epilogue of the film, the population-control regimen was too successful, and the robot children were too marketable, and the human race has gone extinct, leaving the descendants of the feeling robots searching for ancient clues to the nature of their human creators.

Given the demographics of reproductive rates, it seems that western civilization is headed down the same road, but without the solace of robotic heirs who care that our civilization ever existed.

46 posted on 01/07/2007 8:21:18 PM PST by mvpel (Michael Pelletier)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: mvpel

A far greater possibility is the creation of several species of "homo superior", of several varieties with a multitude of variables.

This creates what could be called "Darwin's dilemma". When two similar species are in competition for a wide variety of things, the one that is distinctly superior will prevail and the other will become extinct. This holds true even in the social Darwinism of humanity. Primitive peoples just cannot coexist with modern peoples without either socially evolving or dying out.

For this reason, higher animal species intentionally destroy their own offspring that evidence superior or even significantly different characteristics from the norm. Humans, likewise, are very conscious of children born with abnormalities, and seek to "correct" them--or kill the children, in many circumstances.

But were we to intentionally make "homo superior", in the plural, that was, in fact, superior to ordinary people, we would, as a species, be in danger of dying out. Not because we were exterminated by the better ones, but just because we "gave up", not being able to compete with them and win.

Initially, we would try modifying "deficiencies" from our genetic code, doing things like eliminating hemophilia from families that suffer from the genetic disease.

Next, we would try replacing known-to-be inferior blocks of genetic code. This could be anything from congenital blindness to a high preponderance of breast cancer in females.

Then would come blocks of genetic code with less desirable traits, much more along the lines of vanity. This would be to change the features of offspring, such as appearance, height, weight, intelligence, athleticism, etc.

Intermediary to this is a tremendous problem: the genetic definition of a human being. Since humans share 96% of their genetic code with chimpanzees, for example, what do you call a being that shares 98% of its genetic code with humans? Is it a chimpanzee that looks and acts like a human, or a human that looks and acts like a chimpanzee?

People and corporations can legally patent a chimpanzee with an unusual genetic code. It has no civil rights, and can be abused and killed without legal recourse. Intelligence is far to ill-defined to use it as a discriminator, and appearance means nothing.

So once this problem has been hashed out, comes the next stage in genetic manipulation: giving people characteristics that make them superior in some way to ordinary people. These to not even have to be animal characteristics, as the DNA might be provided by plants or even bacteria.

These are your first generation "homo superior", and a distinct threat to the human species.

But that is not all. The second generation comes into existence when DNA is constructed with traits that do not exist in nature. These would be based on computer models, which would then be added to human DNA.

The end result might be so many intelligent species in theoretical competition with each other that all would be forced to specialize, to occupy different biological niches not in direct competition any more. To effectively divide the human species into several new species, each of which would have their own prerogatives.

Last but not least would be creating people with far more chromosomes than the human 23 pairs. The purpose of this would be so that they could voluntarily change their "active" genetic code, and modify themselves into a different creature, over the course of several years. That is, doing something as radical as a cat growing into a rabbit.

There are some really staggering possibilities here, and right now we can only speculate what the future holds. However, advancement in all of these directions continues, so all too soon, which doors are open to us, and which are impossible, will make themselves known.


47 posted on 01/08/2007 10:31:56 AM PST by Popocatapetl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

Couples Cull Embryos to Halt Heritage of Cancer
 
Many U.S. Couples Seek Embryo Screening (designing the dream child Alert!)
 
Ethicists debate issues about beginning of life
 
THE CODE FOR HUMAN LIFE

48 posted on 01/11/2007 7:22:53 PM PST by Coleus (Woe unto him that call evil good and good evil"-- Isaiah 5:20-21)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson