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.