Scientists announced today that they have created the first successful human-animal hybrids

  • Thread starter Thread starter Blood_Angel
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
grannymh said:
As usual, I had a bit of trouble reading the whole the link.:o

However, the info at the top demonstrated that a first successful human-animal hybrid did not occur even with all the hype.
From the top.
“This pig embryo was injected with human cells early in its development and grew to be four weeks old.”

It is scientifically obvious that human cells are matter in space and time. Samples from the human genome are studied. What cannot be put under a microscope, is the very thing (rational spiritual soul) which animates human cells, at conception, into real functioning human nature.

Therefore, injected human cells are not automatically human nature per se. Therefore, intellectually correct, a human-animal hybrid is simply material mater injected into animal material matter.
Click to expand...
I agree that chimeras (even the human part) do not necessarily have human souls just because they have human cells. But I am concerned that this is a very ethically complicated area and meddling with some types of chimeras can undermine the dignity of the human person, reducing us to nothing more than machines and chemical reactions to be improved on or manipulated.
 
Brendan said:
Actually, the Vatican has already looked at this, and it is morally acceptable, under certain criteriavatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdlife/documents/rc_pa_acdlife_doc_20010926_xenotrapianti_en.html
Click to expand...
Using animals to produce organs or tissues for transplant to humans for medical reasons sounds perfectly ethical to me. The donor animals are certainly not hybrids.

Chimeras–human/beast combinations meant to give animal traits to humans–sound very evil.
True animal/human hybrids sound much more evil, and also not possible.
 
AClaire11 said:
Some of my good friends are scientific researchers and I can tell you that offending God is not the goal of anything they are doing. That assertion is absolutely insane.
Click to expand...
Of course they’re not offending God and doing evil on purpose.

In vitro fertilization — they intend to do good.

But it’s still not good.
 
EIF5A said:
Of course they’re not offending God and doing evil on purpose.

In vitro fertilization — they intend to do good.

But it’s still not good.
Click to expand...
The post I replied to said that was the goal.
 
Come on. Who doesn’t want cat ears or the ability to have a thirty minute orgasm? Transhumanist.
 
The troubling part is this is only the beginning.

It may be permissive now because no human life was destroyed, but this technology will allow unscrupulous scientists to create actual human:animal hybrids with fertilized human embryos.

Human embryos are already researched on. And since secularists don’t view embryos as humans, in their eyes, there is nothing unethical with human-animal hybrid embryos.

Or there will be some sort of justification to continue vile scientific practices.

Something has to be done to stop this from happening.
 
Wesrock said:
I agree that chimeras (even the human part) do not necessarily have human souls just because they have human cells. But I am concerned that this is a very ethically complicated area and meddling with some types of chimeras can undermine the dignity of the human person, reducing us to nothing more than machines and chemical reactions to be improved on or manipulated.
Click to expand...
You are absolutely correct about undermining the dignity of the human person. We cannot ignore Genesis 1: 27.

While material science is a gift from God especially in the medical and communication arenas – Material science is not supreme as some people believe.
 
But for lead study author Jun Wu of the Salk Institute, we need only look to mythical chimeras—like the human-bird hybrids we know as angels—for a different perspective.
Click to expand...
:rotfl:

If figures that a magazine promoting transgenderims for children would use a line like this.

The perfectly divine angels being compared to a morally ambiguous (at best) lab experiment.

St. Michael and the choirs of Heavenly Host could not be reached for comment…😊
 
Science operates in a moral vacuum. That is the problem. Oppenheimer learned this the hard way, though there are many other offenders. And of course as a culture we worship science, not God. I question if science really sets any ethical barriers for itself.
 
EIF5A said:
The troubling part is this is only the beginning.

It may be permissive now because no human life was destroyed, but this technology will allow unscrupulous scientists to create actual human:animal hybrids with fertilized human embryos.

Human embryos are already researched on. And since secularists don’t view embryos as humans, in their eyes, there is nothing unethical with human-animal hybrid embryos.

Or there will be some sort of justification to continue vile scientific practices.

Something has to be done to stop this from happening.
Click to expand...
I understand your fear, but this could lead to saving many many lives in need of organ transplants. Are we supposed to decry an experiment that is going to save lives because of what may become of this discovery? All knowledge can be used for good or evil. Is it not good to want to give people organs that they desperately need?
 
Hope_Philomena said:
I understand your fear, but this could lead to saving many many lives in need of organ transplants. Are we supposed to decry an experiment that is going to save lives because of what may become of this discovery? All knowledge can be used for good or evil. Is it not good to want to give people organs that they desperately need?
Click to expand...
On average, 22 people die each day while waiting for a transplant.
 
Hope_Philomena said:
I understand your fear, but this could lead to saving many many lives in need of organ transplants. Are we supposed to decry an experiment that is going to save lives because of what may become of this discovery? All knowledge can be used for good or evil. Is it not good to want to give people organs that they desperately need?
Click to expand...
I’m not against growing human-compatible organs in animals.

I’m against what will inevitably arrive: experimentation of human embryos with animal cells.

Not only does that destroy a human life, it degrades the human nature and being.

It is a slippery slope that will be used to attempt to justify unethical experiments. In the name of “science”.

Something must be set in place to make unlawful human embryo:animal research.
 
Sciencists should be using what God gave them to help people not using what God gave them to become gods
 
EIF5A said:
I’m not against growing human-compatible organs in animals.

I’m against what will inevitably arrive: experimentation of human embryos with animal cells.

Not only does that destroy a human life, it degrades the human nature and being.

It is a slippery slope that will be used to attempt to justify unethical experiments. In the name of “science”.

Something must be set in place to make unlawful human embryo:animal research.
Click to expand...
I’m a bit confused by your standpoint.

When scientific discoveries are made, regulations are put in place. I believe someone mentioned Oppenheimer? Well the nuclear weapon has been discovered and cannot be un-discovered, nor can the research done in this article be un-discovered. Regulations are put into place on nuclear weapons internationally to avoid mass destruction, since we can’t just forget how to build them.

There will be regulation, ethical regulation. Newfound knowledge is neutral, not evil, and it is being used for good in this case. Try to avoid immediately assuming that this is going to lead to a slippery unethical slope, and remember that lives are going to be saved with this.

Knowledge is power but not all power is corrupt.
 
Hope_Philomena said:
I’m a bit confused by your standpoint.

When scientific discoveries are made, regulations are put in place. I believe someone mentioned Oppenheimer? Well the nuclear weapon has been discovered and cannot be un-discovered, nor can the research done in this article be un-discovered. Regulations are put into place on nuclear weapons internationally to avoid mass destruction, since we can’t just forget how to build them.

There will be regulation, ethical regulation. Newfound knowledge is neutral, not evil, and it is being used for good in this case. Try to avoid immediately assuming that this is going to lead to a slippery unethical slope, and remember that lives are going to be saved with this.

Knowledge is power but not all power is corrupt.
Click to expand...
No, there is no ethical regulation.

People experiment with in vitro fertilized human embryos. For the purpose of “understanding human development”.

We’re already on the slippery slope. Question is how fast are we going to go down it?

If regulations are not put in place NOW to prevent human embryo and animal hybrid research, it will be more difficult to regulate later.
 
Initially I misread the article, which is why I like we have people commenting because it cleared up my confusion that human embryo had been used, when just regular cells had been used. Also nice to see the Vatican approves this.

That said, bring it on because frankly, this is pretty cool. Ever since I first read about the possibility of growing personal organs on a scaffold, I’ve always wondered if it’d become the new reality. So this, if it’s able to be done on a mass scale, will be a revoultion. (Just hope it doesn’t go farther than what’s moral.)
 
EIF5A said:
No, there is no ethical regulation.

People experiment with in vitro fertilized human embryos. For the purpose of “understanding human development”.

We’re already on the slippery slope. Question is how fast are we going to go down it?

If regulations are not put in place NOW to prevent human embryo and animal hybrid research, it will be more difficult to regulate later.
Click to expand...
Even if human embryo and animal hybrid research saves lives?

EDIT: Wait, this experiment doesn’t even use the embryo, so why are we discussing this? Because it’s inevitably going to happen?
 
Hope_Philomena said:
Even if human embryo and animal hybrid research saves lives?

EDIT: Wait, this experiment doesn’t even use the embryo, so why are we discussing this? Because it’s inevitably going to happen?
Click to expand...
Yes, it would be unethical if human embryos are used.

Nothing justifies destroying human lives.

Someone will attempt to use human embryos with animal cells. Human embryos are already used for research. For atheist-heavy field of science, it doesn’t make much difference to add animal cells to their experimental protocol.
 
EIF5A said:
Yes, it would be unethical if human embryos are used.

Nothing justifies destroying human lives.

Someone will attempt to use human embryos with animal cells. Human embryos are already used for research. For atheist-heavy field of science, it doesn’t make much difference to add animal cells to their experimental protocol.
Click to expand...
Okay, but.

This isn’t about embryos at the moment, so why can’t you just acknowledge that this feat is going to have a positive effect on millions and how it is not related to human embryos?

You have no idea what will “inevitably arise”.

We’re talking about two completely different things, so I’m just going to stop replying :confused:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top