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.