> 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.