Man-animal embryos no longer outlawed in UK

[Jennifer123]

timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article1444186.ece

"Plans to outlaw the creation of human-animal hybrid embryos for potentially life-saving stem cell research are to be dropped after a revolt by scientists. "

“Ms Flint justified a ban initially by citing a public consultation in which most participants were opposed to the creation of hybrids.”

…which is why soon science will think of a clever manipulation to obsfucate the issue so we can get on to what they think the public does best…obessing over Britney Spears and eating in front of the TV watching a cute catchphrase sitcom. Sorry.

 

[ble]

Sadly, if you take God out of the equation, you open a pandora’s box… anything can come out. I can’t imagine a human/animal hybrid, to be created and killed for their cells. This is very disburbing.

Warmest regards,
Ben

 

[apricot_yogurt]

This article in most of the papers today gets a teeny tiny column on page 6 or something. Front page news is that Prince Charles thinks Mc Donald’s hamburgers should be banned.

 

[rayne100]

Let’s just be clear- I am not condoning this AT ALL,
but this brought up a question…would the embryo have a human or an animal soul? would it have a soul at all?

 

[Wolseley]

Once again, I would point out that in 1900, the “hot” science was physics.

And over the next 90 years, physics gave us the atomic bomb, the hydrogen bomb, arms races, Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and vast tracts of radioactively-polluted land that will be lethally toxic virtually forever.

Now it’s 2007, and the “hot” science is biology.

Considering what mucking around with splitting atoms gave us, and considering that history does tend to repeat itself, the prospect for the next 90 years quite frankly scares the living daylights out of me.

 

[Jennifer123]

Let’s just be clear- I am not condoning this AT ALL,
but this brought up a question…would the embryo have a human or an animal soul? would it have a soul at all?

I think it’s a good question, certainly interesting in a sad sort of way…

I would think that because “man” is present that there would be a soul. Even animals for that matter have souls. Whether a hybrid could attain an immortal soul? I dunno! We need the big brains in here - I guess we could ask an apologist?

 

[Ferdinand_Mary]

If a discussion on whether or not the soul of a man-animal hybrid would be simply a material soul (like the souls of all animals) or an immortal soul (like the souls of all humans) is desired, please start a new thread in the Moral Theology forum.

Please return to the topic.

Mane Nobiscum Domine,
Ferdinand Mary

 

[rayne100]

If a discussion on whether or not the soul of a man-animal hybrid would be simply a material soul (like the souls of all animals) or an immortal soul (like the souls of all humans) is desired, please start a new thread in the Moral Theology forum.

Please return to the topic.

Mane Nobiscum Domine,
Ferdinand Mary

Thanks for the suggestion, I have started a seperate thread on the Moral Theology section entitled - Animal-Man Hybrid: Material or Immortal soul?

Sorr that I hijacked the thread…
Rayne

 

[Rosalinda]

This article had a disturbing attitude which suggests the (name removed by moderator)ut of anyone with religious beliefs is suspect.

…Ms Flint justified a ban initially by citing a public consultation… Scientists pointed out that the exercise drew just 535 responses…Many of the responses critical of hybrids also came from religious groups…

In April 2005, then Cardinal Ratzinger, on reception of the St. Benedict Award for the Promotion of LIfe and the Family said:

that "the most serious danger at this time is precisely the imbalance between technical possibilities and moral energy…that “Europe has developed a culture that, in a way previously unknown to humanity, excludes God from the public consciousness, either by denying him altogether or by judging that his existence cannot be demonstrated, is uncertain and, therefore, somewhat irrelevant to public life.”

An attempt is being made “to build the human community absolutely without God,” the cardinal stressed.

“The rejection of reference to God is not an expression of tolerance which wishes to protect non-theist religions and the dignity of atheists and agnostics, but rather an expression of the desire to see God banished definitively from humanity’s public life, and driven into the subjective realm of residual cultures of the past.”

Conclusion. Banish God so that we can become our own gods and recreate life into our nightmarish images.

The full article, "Cardinal Ratzinger on the Banishment of God from Public Life" can be found in the archives of zenit.org/english/ date: April 11, 2005