Posted on 03/15/2005 10:00:29 AM PST by mojito
> I've seen some statements made by scientists about 'curing diseases' and 'creating sources for organs that can be transplanted' and blah, blah, blah.
How terrible! What evil motives! How selfish!
> But the ends don't justify the means.
So... saving human lives (the ends) don't justify transplanting a few animal cells into some other animals (the means)???
I want you to think good and hard. Ponder this deeply, and don't just respond with a knee-jerk: if a pig can be created that gives transfusable human blood and transplantable organs... what is your *real* problem?
Apparently, you didn't read the rest of my post very well. These 'motives' are lip service. "So... saving human lives (the ends) don't justify transplanting a few animal cells into some other animals (the means)???"
No, the ends (maybe coming up with some use down the road) don't justify the means (transplanting human brain tissue into a mouse).
"if a pig can be created that gives transfusable human blood and transplantable organs... what is your *real* problem?"
I've already stated the *real* problem. Mankind trying to play at being God.
After all, if we can transplant cells into a pig to 'create' transplantable organs, what's wrong with creating humans with a pig's brain for the same purpose?
Evil and sick.
> These 'motives' are lip service.
I'm sure that if *YOU* were doing these experiments, that would be so. But you are improperly trying to view the motives of other people through your own worldview. You are almost certainly wrong.
I might as well see every single person who is evangelising, preaching, witnessing, etc. as being selfish bastards tryign to bribe their way into heaven... any motives given about caring for the souls of their fellow man is just "lip service."
> Mankind trying to play at being God.
People made the same complaint throughout all of medical history. Would you turn down a blood transfusion?
> if we can transplant cells into a pig to 'create' transplantable organs, what's wrong with creating humans with a pig's brain for the same purpose?
Ye gods. The Eurocrats "Precaution Principle" strikes again.
Besides: if you can create an entire human, ostensibly for transplant purposes, why give it a brain *at* *all*? You can't tranplant brains, and all a brain would do would be to give the body ideas. Create it with just a minimal brain stem to keep the organs running. No brain, no mind, no soul, no problem. Creepy, maybe, but hardly unethical or even "playing god."
LOL So I'm wrong, but you, of course, are right. Got it.
"I might as well see every single person who is evangelising, preaching, witnessing, etc. as being selfish bastards tryign to bribe their way into heaven"
See what you want. You've obviously put human beings above God anyway.
"People made the same complaint throughout all of medical history. Would you turn down a blood transfusion?"
A human being willingly giving a pint of blood to help another human being is a far cry from 'creating' new creatures that never existed before, only to kill them. Apparently you can't see the difference.
"Besides: if you can create an entire human, ostensibly for transplant purposes, why give it a brain *at* *all*?"
So you'd be okay with cloning human beings without brains?
> So I'm wrong, but you, of course, are right.
I know scientists. The idea that they do what they do to "set themselves up as God," "usurp the Creator," or any similar foolishness, is just ludicrous. They do science to get paid, they do it from curiosity, they do it from the hope to help mankind (or critters, depending), they do it to gain personal fame, they do it to score with the chicks (a decidedly unsuccessful strategy, generally). But the scientist who tries to replace God largely exists only in cheap monster movies.
> A human being willingly giving a pint of blood to help another human being is a far cry from 'creating' new creatures that never existed before, only to kill them.
What, you mean like how we've genetically modified crops, in order to eat them; have bred more docile cattle, in order to eat them; created fatter sheep and pigs, in order to eat them? Humans have been creating new forms of life for 10,000 years in order to kill and eat them.
> So you'd be okay with cloning human beings without brains?
Turn it around. What arguement can you come up with regarding the unethicalness of that? Don't just give me "it's sick and evil..." reason it out.
If something is helpful and is not unethical... then I'm generally ok with it.
And I'm still waiting for an answer to this one:
---
> It is an attempt that will fail, of course. No one can usurp God.
Umm... it has *already* succeeded. Read the article, there are a number of successes already. What does that imply?
Nothing like hyperbole to distract from the issue. Maybe you weren't aware that I wasn't talking about the cackling mad scientist who wants to take over the world. I'm talking about someone who is so full of pride, he must do something just to prove he can do it rather than care whether to do it is right or wrong. Maybe that's to subtle for you to grasp.
"Humans have been creating new forms of life for 10,000 years in order to kill and eat them."
Selecting breeding is a far cry from slicing and dicing, mixing DNA from different species. And yes, we eat animals. Not sure of your point there. Are you a member of PETA?
"What arguement can you come up with regarding the unethicalness of that?"
The argument is that human life is special - made in the image of God. Based on your posts, you don't seem to see a difference between humans and mice. If that is the case, then I'm sure you have no issues with all kinds of things, like abortion and euthansia for humans with bad tempers.
"Umm... it has *already* succeeded."
I don't think you meant to reveal so much of your mindset with that comment. Just because someone slices and dices some DNA doesn't mean they have usurped God. (They can't. He's God, they are mere humans.) But they are attempting to (even if subconsciously). You've shown that very attitude with your post.
> I'm talking about someone who is so full of pride, he must do something just to prove he can do it rather than care whether to do it is right or wrong.
Perhaps, unlike you, they have actually put some reasoning power behind the ethics of these experiments, and have concluded that they are *not* wrong.
> Selecting breeding is a far cry from slicing and dicing, mixing DNA from different species.
In this context, no it's not. It's still humans alterring things for our own ends.
Of course, this story is not about genetic engineering either, so there ya go.
> The argument is that human life is special ...
That's nice. How is that relevant here? That's not an arguement; that's a platitude, and an off-topic one. What would be unethical about, say, growing a human heart in a jar? How about a set of lungs in a jar? How about both organs in a jar? How about an entire human torso? How about an entire human body sans brain?
The human brain is the only thing that is, at least so far, irreplacable. If humans have a soul, it sits in there. You could have every organ in your body replaced with machines except for your brain, and you'd still be you. If you had just your brain replaced by a machine... your body wouldn't be "you" anymore. Your body is just what your brain uses to get around.
So... again I ask you: where is the logical arguement that shows that a cloned human body sans brain is unethical?
> Based on your posts, you don't seem to see a difference between humans and mice.
Hogwash. Post your reasoning for coming to such a patently and obviously flawed conclusion, I'm honestly interested.
Specifically, what makes you believe I haven't applied any 'reasoning power' here?
"In this context, no it's not. It's still humans alterring things for our own ends."
Wow, so you claim that selective breeding is the same as slicing/dicing DNA. Can you explain why they are the same, ethically, in your view?
" That's nice. How is that relevant here?"
Did you not read the article? Did you put your mind on hold while we've been posting back and forth? It is relevant because it is human DNA they are 'reshuffling' with non-human DNA. For you to suddenly claim this is 'off topic' is completely disingenous on your part.
"What would be unethical about, say, growing a human heart in a jar? How about a set of lungs in a jar? How about both organs in a jar? How about an entire human torso? How about an entire human body sans brain?"
I wouldn't be in favor of any of those things. I can say growing the heart of the lungs alone are fine as long as no human (at any stage of life) is destroyed to accomplish it, but that just takes us down the slippery slope, which your question has shown. People (well, at least some of them) don't seem to be able to differentiate ethically.
"If humans have a soul, it sits in there."
Talk about being off topic. I didn't say anything about the soul residing in the DNA, or any particular part of the human body. If you say it 'sits in the brain', then why would you be in favor of growing human brain tissue in a mouse?
"So... again I ask you: where is the logical arguement that shows that a cloned human body sans brain is unethical?"
Do you believe in God? I'd have to guess no at this point. And if that's the case, then of course to you, anything can be made to be 'ethical' since you are not held to any standard other than your own.
"Hogwash. Post your reasoning for coming to such a patently and obviously flawed conclusion, I'm honestly interested."
So are you saying you DO see a difference between a human being and a mouse? Based on your posts, I have to say that is a surprise. Then tell me, what is this difference from your point of view?
> Specifically, what makes you believe I haven't applied any 'reasoning power' here?
Because:
1: You have not demonstrated that you've reasoned things through, while...
2: You've demonstrated a stereotypical knee-jerk "Ah! It's evil!" response.
> Can you explain why they are the same, ethically, in your view?
Yes.
> It is relevant because it is human DNA they are 'reshuffling' with non-human DNA.
No, they aren't. Read the article again. It's not about genetic engineering. It's somethign quite different
> that just takes us down the slippery slope
Ah. The old "slipepry slope" arguement. Yes, if we repeal one gun law, soon enough we'll have vending machines in schools doling out dum-dum rounds...
You know, people *can* use their brains to understand that there are certain transitions that occur. Look at criminal law... beating the tar out of someone carries different penalties depending on whether the person beaten lives or dies... regardless of what the beater did specifically. There is a clear transition there. Growing *minds* for the purpose of chopping them to bits is clearly different to growing insensate bits and pieces.
> If you say it 'sits in the brain', then why would you be in favor of growing human brain tissue in a mouse?
Because a bit of human brain tissue is not the same as a human brain. Many people have had bits of their brains surgically removed for various reasons, and few have argueed that those bits have human rights. A mouse-brain-sized chunk of human brain carried no promise for being any smarter than a mouse-brain. Human brain cells are not substantially more efficient or better than mouse brains; we jsut have a better brainn mass/body mass ratio. That seems to be one of the defining characteristics of intelligence and sentience.
A mouse with a brain composed of human brain cells might well be comatose (or at least terribly confused), as the mousey instincts would not be there. It would be *dumber* than a conventional mouse, but the brain would respond to toxins and drugs in much the same way as a human brain.
>> "So... again I ask you: where is the logical arguement that shows that a cloned human body sans brain is unethical?"
>Do you believe in God?
Is your repeated failure to answer this question because you refuse to, or because you can't?
>So are you saying you DO see a difference between a human being and a mouse? ... what is this difference from your point of view?
Humans ain't mice. Mice might well feel the need to respect mice rights, but mice are not humans, and thus are logically not accorded human rights.
Actually, I've rather clearly stated that this is evil because humans were created in God's image. Since it seems you do not believe in God, I'm sure that doesn't hold water with you. Nevertheless, for you to dismiss that idea out of hand as 'knee-jerk' shows a bias on your part. Not unusual, however.
"Can you explain why they are the same, ethically, in your view? Yes."
And yet you don't even attempt to. How interesting. Apparently, you are afraid your 'reasoning' won't be so sound after all.
"You know, people *can* use their brains to understand that there are certain transitions that occur."
The 'arguments' you've attempted to use in your posts show that human beings do tend to slide down that slippery slope much more easily than we'd like to believe.
"Because a bit of human brain tissue is not the same as a human brain."
It seems you are claiming that it takes a whole human brain for the soul to exist. What is your argument to support that view?
I asked if you believe in God. Although you didn't answer, the answer seems pretty clear. Therefore, you will never accept the reasoning I have used, and will, in fact, dismiss it out of hand. So be it.
BTTT
It is clear that you have ethics based on something you've worked out for yourself. My ethics are based on scripture. Therefore, we cannot possibly understand the 'logic' of the other. I say it's sick and evil because humans were created in the image of God. You say "Hey, as long as they are doing something that some day might be used to help someone, it's all good." (Or something to that effect.)
Because I haven't answered in the way you'd like me to, you consider the questions unanswered. My answers aren't going to change just because you demand that they do. So it seems our discussion has become circular.
You may post back to me if you wish, but I prefer not to spend any more time running the hamster wheel with you.
Have a nice day.
> I say it's sick and evil because humans were created in the image of God.
So I guess mirrors are evil too, then.
The manufacture of gloves is evil because humans were created in the image of God.
The production and sale of contact lenses is evil because humans were created in the image of God.
Driving cars is evil because humans were created in the image of God.
Rabbits are evil because humans were created in the image of God.
Barney the dinosaur is evil because humans were created in the image of God.
Microscopic carbonaceous chondrite dust particles in chaotic orbits around binary star systems are evil because humans were created in the image of God.
*Anybody* can play this game, and for any cause. Only when you choose to use clear, objective standards as a basis for makign decisions can you be taken seriously. "Because humans were created in the image of God," even if absolutely true, provides absolutely no guidance whatsoever.
> Because I haven't answered in the way you'd like me to
No... you haven't answered *at* *all*.
> I prefer not to spend any more time running the hamster wheel with you....
... because humans were created in the image of God.
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.