Would anyone care for frankenstein food?

[rastell]

StJeanneDArc:

These arguments seem similar to the ones advanced when organ transplantation first became possible.

There is a world of difference between this and organ transplantation. In the latter the genetic makeup of the organism was not manipulated.

 

[rastell]

dirtydog:

Ummm… this is exactly what I was referring to. We have been combining DIFFERENT SPECIES for millenia, and as I said before, something like 97% of human genes are already in chimpanzees. Even 50% of our genes exist in simple microbes. Genetically, you aren’t too separated from E. Coli. The fundamental functions of life dictate that cells on an individual level function basically the same way. There are only a few genes that actually cause differentiation. It’s that whole evolution thing… So if we find a gene in some sponge that lives in the thermal vents, and that gene can prevent 50% of cancer, are you going to be against using it through gene therapy because you’re afraid you will turn into a sponge?

Please read the article linked below. It’s not just right-wing Christians like me who are concerned with this. The scientific community is also divided.

cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/04/29/human.animal.mixing.ap/index.html

 

[rastell]

dirtydog:

Ummm… this is exactly what I was referring to. We have been combining DIFFERENT SPECIES for millenia, and as I said before, something like 97% of human genes are already in chimpanzees. Even 50% of our genes exist in simple microbes. Genetically, you aren’t too separated from E. Coli. The fundamental functions of life dictate that cells on an individual level function basically the same way. There are only a few genes that actually cause differentiation. It’s that whole evolution thing… So if we find a gene in some sponge that lives in the thermal vents, and that gene can prevent 50% of cancer, are you going to be against using it through gene therapy because you’re afraid you will turn into a sponge?

How do we know that these human genes and the chimpanzee genes are EXACTLY the same?

 

[springbreeze]

Dear friends

I just peeked back in to see what was going on in this thread since last time I looked and wow, the debate is in full throttle!

The thing I have noticed is the desire to seperate genes from being ‘part’ of the body, well you take my genes away and you have taken part of my body away, if it’s inside my body it IS my body and as such IS sacred. I can’t see how anyone even looking at this from a logical viewpoint can even begin to argue with that unless they manufacture protracted claims to deny that genes are part of the human body.

God Bless you and much love and peace to you

Teresa

 

[Brendan]

It’s not just a “blueprint” It is found in every cell. It is the body. Without it there can be no body.

And is your premise that; if one removes the gene from a single cell, there is no body anymore?

 

[Brendan]

springbreeze:

Dear friends

I just peeked back in to see what was going on in this thread since last time I looked and wow, the debate is in full throttle!

The thing I have noticed is the desire to seperate genes from being ‘part’ of the body, well you take my genes away and you have taken part of my body away, if it’s inside my body it IS my body and as such IS sacred. I can’t see how anyone even looking at this from a logical viewpoint can even begin to argue with that unless they manufacture protracted claims to deny that genes are part of the human body.

God Bless you and much love and peace to you

Teresa

Springbreeze,

Your premise seems to be that if genes are taken from your body, it is still your body.

Does this apply to blood transfusions as well? There are certainly genes present there.Would ‘your body’ now circulating inside someone elses?

And if so, is that an immoral thing, or one to be praised?

Should blood transfusions be condemmed because genes are now outside the body, and that should be kept sacred?

I don’t think anyone here is denying that genes are part of the body. But, in the light of transfusions and organ donation, can anyone here say such a transfer is immoral?

 

[Brendan]

How do we know that these human genes and the chimpanzee genes are EXACTLY the same?

Because we have mapped both the human and chimp genome. And that of E.Coli and fruitflies and pigs and a host of other organisms. About 98% of the chimp and human genones are exact matches.

 

[Brendan]

dirtydog:

Ummm… this is exactly what I was referring to. We have been combining DIFFERENT SPECIES for millenia,

No kidding.

A mule is a prime example. it’s a genetic mix of two different species; a donkey and a horse.

 

[Brendan]

BTW Rastell,

You still haven’t answered my question,

Specifically, which natural law was broken, and where was that law reveiled (Scientist or Catholic Theologian)?

 

[rastell]

springbreeze:

Dear friends

I just peeked back in to see what was going on in this thread since last time I looked and wow, the debate is in full throttle!

The thing I have noticed is the desire to seperate genes from being ‘part’ of the body, well you take my genes away and you have taken part of my body away, if it’s inside my body it IS my body and as such IS sacred. I can’t see how anyone even looking at this from a logical viewpoint can even begin to argue with that unless they manufacture protracted claims to deny that genes are part of the human body.

God Bless you and much love and peace to you

Teresa

Thank you Teresa. I appreciate there are other people who can see that.

Rastell

 

[rastell]

Brendan:

Springbreeze,

Your premise seems to be that if genes are taken from your body, it is still your body.

Does this apply to blood transfusions as well? There are certainly genes present there.Would ‘your body’ now circulating inside someone elses?

And if so, is that an immoral thing, or one to be praised?

Should blood transfusions be condemmed because genes are now outside the body, and that should be kept sacred?

I don’t think anyone here is denying that genes are part of the body. But, in the light of transfusions and organ donation, can anyone here say such a transfer is immoral?

In blood transfusions you are not taking apart the genetic material. You are not mixing the very things that make a human a human or a sheep a sheep.

 

[springbreeze]

Brendan:

Springbreeze,

Your premise seems to be that if genes are taken from your body, it is still your body.

Does this apply to blood transfusions as well? There are certainly genes present there.Would ‘your body’ now circulating inside someone elses?

And if so, is that an immoral thing, or one to be praised?

Should blood transfusions be condemmed because genes are now outside the body, and that should be kept sacred?

I don’t think anyone here is denying that genes are part of the body. But, in the light of transfusions and organ donation, can anyone here say such a transfer is immoral?

Dear friend

You say it yourself…inside another human.

Not another species. Even then there are certain things a Catholic should not donate from their body to another person.

Why are you pro putting human genes in another species?

You are correct when you say that 98% of some species are the same as human genes, but then they are not human, that 2% matters, it is not that the majority of genes then can be permissable to share just because there is a prominent comminality, if that is the case, why not share genes allover the place, there are other considerations which you will not consider. You analyse this from a clincial viewpoint and do not look at the moral, ethical, environmental nor eternal consequences of this, of which you cannot predict nor can you offer any evidence to say it is without problem or error…therefore lacking prudence and advocating a procedure just because it can be done.

As another poster said, if these genes are to be found exactly the same in the animal kingdom, why not use those instead of using human genes…in the light of this commonality? You didn’t answer that, why didn’t you answer that? why use human genes at all? It should never happen, it is abohrrent to me and to anyone who respects human beings and holds them sacred. Are you Catholic, do you believe the human body is sacred?

God Bless you and much love and peace to you

Teresa

 

[rastell]

Brendan:

BTW Rastell,
You still haven’t answered my question,
Specifically, which natural law was broken, and where was that law reveiled (Scientist or Catholic Theologian)?

For my definition of “natural law” I go to the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

**"Man participates in the wisdom and goodness of the Creator who gives him mastery over his acts and the ability to govern himself with a view to the true and the good. The natural law expresses the original moral sense which enables man to discern by reason the good and the evil, the truth and the lie: **

**"The natural law is written and engraved in the soul of each and every man, because it is human reason ordaining him to do good and forbidding him to sin . . . But this command of human reason would not have the force of law if it were not the voice and interpreter of a higher reason to which our spirit and our freedom must be submitted." **

 

[rastell]

springbreeze:

Dear friend

You say it yourself…inside another human.

Not another species. Even then there are certain things a Catholic should not donate from their body to another person.

Why are you pro putting human genes in another species?

You are correct when you say that 98% of some species are the same as human genes, but then they are not human, that 2% matters, it is not that the majority of genes then can be permissable to share just because there is a prominent comminality, if that is the case, why not share genes allover the place, there are other considerations which you will not consider. You analyse this from a clincial viewpoint and do not look at the moral, ethical, environmental nor eternal consequences of this, of which you cannot predict nor can you offer any evidence to say it is without problem or error…therefore lacking prudence and advocating a procedure just because it can be done.

As another poster said, if these genes are to be found exactly the same in the animal kingdom, why not use those instead of using human genes…in the light of this commonality? You didn’t answer that, why didn’t you answer that? why use human genes at all? It should never happen, it is abohrrent to me and to anyone who respects human beings and holds them sacred. Are you Catholic, do you believe the human body is sacred?

God Bless you and much love and peace to you

Teresa

Excellent points.

 

[Zooey]

Blood transfusions are from human to human. When they start trying to transfuse my blood into a chimpanzee, they are going to have a fight on their hands…
This is comparing apples, not even with oranges, but with Big Macs…

 

[Brendan]

For my definition of “natural law” I go to the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

"Man participates in the wisdom and goodness of the Creator who gives him mastery over his acts and the ability to govern himself with a view to the true and the good. The natural law expresses the original moral sense which enables man to discern by reason the good and the evil, the truth and the lie:

"The natural law is written and engraved in the soul of each and every man, because it is human reason ordaining him to do good and forbidding him to sin . . . But this command of human reason would not have the force of law if it were not the voice and interpreter of a higher reason to which our spirit and our freedom must be submitted."

I didn’t ask for your definition of Natural Law, I asked which specific law was broken?

And besides, that covers Thomistic Law, which Newtonian Law was broken? You specifically said laws in both these categories were broken

So, which ones??

If we were discussing time travel, I could point towards General Revaltivity.

If we were discussing human cloning, I could point towards Humane Generis and Humane Vitae to prove it’s incompatibility with Natural Law.

Where is your proof?

 

[Brendan]

springbreeze:

Dear friend

You say it yourself…inside another human.

That wasn’t specified in your post. You objected to

Not another species. Even then there are certain things a Catholic should not donate from their body to another person.

Why are you pro putting human genes in another species?

Because it will help feed people

You analyse this from a clincial viewpoint and do not look at the moral, ethical, environmental nor eternal consequences of this, of which you cannot predict nor can you offer any evidence to say it is without problem or error…therefore lacking prudence and advocating a procedure just because it can be done.

I am most certainly looking at it from the moral perspective. I see more people having more food. That is a moral good.

The stopper would be if the causia was immoral. I have yet to see anything presented there to demonstrate such immorality.

Ergo,

As another poster said, if these genes are to be found exactly the same in the animal kingdom, why not use those instead of using human genes…in the light of this commonality? You didn’t answer that, why didn’t you answer that? why use human genes at all?

That was presented in the initial article. A human liver enzyme is desired to make the rice less affected by pesticiedes

God Bless you and much love and peace to you

Teresa

Et cum spiritu tuo.

 

[springbreeze]

Brendan:

That wasn’t specified in your post. You objected to

Not another species. Even then there are certain things a Catholic should not donate from their body to another person.

Because it will help feed people

I am most certainly looking at it from the moral perspective. I see more people having more food. That is a moral good.

The stopper would be if the causia was immoral. I have yet to see anything presented there to demonstrate such immorality.

Ergo,

That was presented in the initial article. A human liver enzyme is desired to make the rice less affected by pesticiedes

Et cum spiritu tuo.

Dear Brendan

There is no doubt about it, you are a very skilled debater. A blessing from God no doubt. For anything I say to you, you have an answer and at first sight it seems a plausible answer, one that a person might nod their head and say, that seems reasonable, one that many people like yourself agree with. I can see you have read material in respect of genetic engineering, I can see you have an interest and spent time understanding such things and gaining knowledge. I can see you are intelligent and I can see you have compassion for your fellow human beings because you want to feed them. I like yourself, have studied things in order to understand them, I have spent time trying to understand God and His world.

In the end I realised that all the knowledge in the world will not make me educated in the ways of God, I can only glimpse Him as though I am looking at a dim reflection and the glory of that is dazzling on it’s own. In pursing knowledge I came to realise that I actually knew very little indeed. I also realised that there are innate truths in a human, truths that are indelible and fired in the soul by the Holy Spirit.

I too want to feed people, I want all people to have food and no-one to starve or suffer malnutrition. I am sure that is true for most of humanity, though not true of some (Terri Schiavo Case).

You and I know it is already possible to feed the whole world with the food that is presently farmed, there just isn’t the political will, so in committing one evil of actually destroying food, we then go on to commit another evil and put human genes into food…two evils do not cure a wrong, they never will.

If you truly believe that human genes should be present in the food chain that humans consume, that is your right, you can buy into anything you like. But I don’t agree with you and for the most part I believe that most humans would not want to sit down to lunch and eat food that contains ‘humanity’. I pull a human hair out of my sandwich should one get in there by mistake, I don’t happily much it down!

So I ask you these questions…

Why is it moral to eat human genes in everyday food?

Do you admit that we have this problem due to humans interfering too much in nature and using poisons on crops in the first place thus setting up a resilience against them in what humans call ‘weeds’ and ‘pests’? Do you not at least consider that had it not been for our interference and mass farming to specifications that we would not have problems with crop manufacture and therefore would have no need to intervene?

Are you against organic farming? Are you against companion growing? Are you against sustaining crops by natural means ie introducing preditors (hedgehogs, ladybirds, wildlife habitat for birds etc) to the land to naturally dispose of the ‘pests’?

Do you think God created creation in a balance and initially the fall of the angels and our original sin and later our intervention that has not been positive has further disturbed the natural order, thus causing a snowball effect of continued intereference? It is well known among medics that once a medical intervention has taken place on a human being it is highly likely that further medical intervention would be needed, say as in childbirth)

God Bless you and much love and peace to you

Teresa

 

[Brendan]

But I don’t agree with you and for the most part I believe that most humans would not want to sit down to lunch and eat food that contains ‘humanity’.

This is the crux of the problem that I find in your viewpoint. Somehow, you have the view that ‘humanity’ is defined by genes.

Humanity is a creation of God and takes the form of the union between body and soul. There is no such union in a gene. It is not human, it is not ‘humanity’. It is no more ‘sacred’ that nail clippings.

Why is it moral to eat human genes in everyday food?

Morality is defined by the Church and the Church alone. The Church has made not restrictions on this issue, and until it does, it is not immoral.

Do you admit that we have this problem due to humans interfering too much in nature and using poisons on crops in the first place thus setting up a resilience against them in what humans call ‘weeds’ and ‘pests’?

I do not see what you call ‘too much interference’. Where does the ‘too much’ line exist? Using irrigation instead of relying on just rain? Fertilization using manure, Fertilaization using manure products Fertilization using chemicals.

Do you not at least consider that had it not been for our interference and mass farming to specifications that we would not have problems with crop manufacture and therefore would have no need to intervene?

No I don’t. Why is it that these mass farms have greater production that ‘organic’ farms? Is not that the point of farming, to produce?

Are you against organic farming? Are you against companion growing? Are you against sustaining crops by natural means ie introducing preditors (hedgehogs, ladybirds, wildlife habitat for birds etc) to the land to naturally dispose of the ‘pests’?

Against it no? Do I consider it ideal? No way/

Do you think God created creation in a balance and initially the fall of the angels and our original sin and later our intervention that has not been positive has further disturbed the natural order, thus causing a snowball effect of continued intereference?

Yes, the Fall of Man introduced many ill effects into the world. Sickness, Death, pestilence, hatred.

It is a Christian’s duty to help restore the world God invisioned, and to do so on many levels. To practice love instead of hate, and likewise to combat pestilence and sickness.

The tools such as genetic engineering, as well as things like anti-biotics help man to restore the damage he did to Nature in the Fall.

It is well known among medics that once a medical intervention has taken place on a human being it is highly likely that further medical intervention would be needed, say as in childbirth)

So would you encorage medics NOT to give medical attention in the first place?

What are the childbirth deaths rates were medical intervention is not practices vs where it is. Which one should a Catholic support.

What is the stand of the Vatican on issues such as medical support in pregnacy?

 

[springbreeze]

Brendan:

This is the crux of the problem that I find in your viewpoint.

Why would you say that? I am defined by ALL that I am, including genes… and all that I am I can truly only know in relation to God.

Humanity is a creation of God…

Why do you say that as well? ALL that I am is sacred, you cannot remove any part of me and say that it is not sacred. ALL human life is sacred, as God said ‘I can number the hairs on your head and know when one of them falls from your head.’ paraphrased, but that’s the sum of it.

Morality is defined by the Church and the Church alone.

The Church is constantly reacting to situations. If you believe to mix genes from different species is not against Church teaching, then I can’t convince you otherwise. You will react as you wish, but you can be sure that the Church does not condone this. I don’t know presently, but I am willing to try and find out and present the official Church teaching on this. Until I find that teaching from the Church I will listen to my conscience that says this is a whole heap of trouble we are getting ourselves into.

Are you Catholic, I did ask you and you didn’t answer that question, if you are Catholic why are you asking me this question? If you claim to know so much about genetic engineering surely as a Catholic and even a Christian you would have looked at this before being pro- genetic implanation of human genes in other creatures. Not knowing myself exactly what the church teaches, I will err on the side of caution. I believe that would be most prudent.

I do not see what you call ‘too much interference’. Where does the ‘too much’ line exist? Using irrigation instead of relying on just rain? Fertilization using manure, Fertilaization using manure products Fertilization using chemicals.

Can you honestly tell me mixing our genes up with the genes of other creatures is not ALOT of interference? If that is what we need to do to feed the world, well I would rather not eat. You know we do not need to do this, you know there is enough food in the world, it is just with those who have plenty and do not possess the political will to share it.

No I don’t. Why is it that these mass farms have greater production that ‘organic’ farms? Is not that the point of farming, to produce?

Yes they have greater production but almost half of their production is destroyed each year!!! Never eaten, never sees a cooker, never given to the starving, poor or needy, no, it is just destroyed.

It is a Christian’s duty to help restore the world God invisioned, and to do so on many levels. To practice love instead of hate, and likewise to combat pestilence and sickness.

I agree, so why destroy what could be used to stop poverty and people starving.

The tools such as genetic engineering, as well as things like anti-biotics help man to restore the damage he did to Nature in the Fall.

I don’t think in this instance it is viable to compare genetic engineering with anti-biotics, that is purely protracted.

So would you encorage medics NOT to give medical attention in the first place?

All medics are taught not to use invasive measures on a patient until it is absolutely necessary. Period, that’s the hypocratic oath.

What are the childbirth deaths rates were medical intervention is not practices vs where it is. Which one should a Catholic support.

Most deaths are due to insanitary conditions, lack of manipulation of the infant in the womb, inadequate scanning, diet, pre-eclampsia, all NON-INVASIVE. Of course a Catholic supports non-invasive measures across the board. All medics record and recognise that once intervention in ANY medical situation has taken place it increases the likelihood of further intervention, period. This is the basis of all medicine…only do to the patient what is absolutely necessary to preserve life, but in all instances preserve life without using extra-ordinary means.

What is the stand of the Vatican on issues such as medical support in pregnacy?

Seeing as the missionaries were the first to go out and give medical care to those in poorer countries I would say that they are well versed in medicine and the hypocratic oath…same is applicable. The main function being to vaccinate and provide education and mostly non-invasive care.

Dear friend

Again you have not answered the questions I asked you.

You did not answer why are they using human genes if these genes are present in other creatures?

I think you will fight your corner and you have every right to, that’s your perogative. I’m not typing back and forth with you to change your mind.

You look at it your way.

God Bless you and much love and peace to you

Teresa