> 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?