Would anyone care for frankenstein food?

[springbreeze]

Brendan:

springbreeze:

Brendan:

Teresa,

What defines ‘human’

Is a gene or genes.

Or is it body and soul together.

If human is defined as body and soul together, then a gene is not human, correct?

Can you morally destroy a gene?

What are you asking me that for? Why would you want to destroy a gene? Would you like to destroy any part of my body (probably my fingers so I cannot type eh? )? I would say you have asked this question as a good trap for me. We are not talking about destroying genes Brendan, we are talking about making them survive and function in other species. I would say it would be immoral to destroy a gene that causes a human to be impeded in any way from the healthy function they have previously enjoyed, yes that would be immoral and would of course in destroying that gene affect the human and humanness of any given individual that a gene has been destroyed in.

You can only think of the gene as something outside of and seperate to the human body, you desire for it to be seen as a seperateness so that humanity does not view it as a HUMAN gene. I would say it would be immoral for the gene to be destroyed that has been removed from an human for purposes of implantation in other species and is destroyed in a laboratory, that is immoral in the context that the whole process is immoral, the gene should never be there in the first place

Sure he did. All your appearance is an Accident. Does your hair color define you as a human? Does your height?

No that is simply my humanity as manifest in my looks, my body. Yes all of these define my humanness…this is the uniqueness of my humanity that God made me in…He made each human unique and this includes outward appearance as well as inward and my soul, personality etc etc

I have answered all of your questions to the best of my ability (I am sure if you debated this with Pope John Paul II or Pope Benedict XVI you would get a far superior debate and answers, but I have answered you as best as I can) but you will not answer mine…that is not how to hold an intelligent or courteous debate. I am beginning to believe you are arguing for agruments sake and are not willing to answer specific questions posed to you.

In capitals so you notice my question and not because I am shouting…

WHY ARE HUMAN GENES BEING USED IF THERE IS COMMONALITY IN OTHER SPECIES?

You answer my question and return courtesy to me and until you do, I will not reply until you do!!!

God Bless you and much love and peace to you

Teresa

 

[Brendan]

springbreeze:

WHY ARE HUMAN GENES BEING USED IF THERE IS COMMONALITY IN OTHER SPECIES?

The gene for insulin in other species in not the same as the one in humans.

Human diabetics require human insuling and that must come from insuling created by human genes.

If they put a pig insulin gene into the E.Coli, pig insulin would be created and that is chemically different from human insulin.

Human users of pig insulin will develop an resistance to this insulin and they can no longer use it. Without a long term source of human insulin, diabetes is a death sentance.

Does this answer your question?

Teresa

 

[springbreeze]

Brendan:

The gene for insulin in other species in not the same as the one in humans.

Human diabetics require human insuling and that must come from insuling created by human genes.

If they put a pig insulin gene into the E.Coli, pig insulin would be created and that is chemically different from human insulin.

Human users of pig insulin will develop an resistance to this insulin and they can no longer use it. Without a long term source of human insulin, diabetes is a death sentance.

For anyone who would like reference of how insulin is made and further info on diabetes click here:

schoolscience.co.uk/content/4/biology/abpi/hormones/horm5.html

Does this answer your question?

No it doesn’t answer my question, we are not talking about making insulin we are talking about the thread topic. Why are they using human genes in transplanting them into plants if there is such commonality in other species?

God Bless you and much love and peace to you

Teresa

Teresa

 

[Brendan]

[t I have answered you as best as I can) but you will not answer mine…that is not how to hold an intelligent or courteous debate. I am beginning to believe you are arguing for agruments sake and are not willing to answer specific questions posed to you.

,
God Bless you and much love and peace to you

Teresa

My apologies Teresa,

I

I had a longer answer in an earilier post and this last post of yours seemed somewhat rude, as if my previous answer wasn’t enough. I saw just now that my post wasn’t there.

thought my post with the answers to this went through, but it did not ( i guess it timed out while i was giving the kids their baths)

Hopefully my shorter answer is still satisfactory and not too curt.

-Brendan
[/quote]

 

[springbreeze]

Brendan:

My apologies Teresa,

I

I had a longer answer in an earilier post and this last post of yours seemed somewhat rude, as if my previous answer wasn’t enough. I saw just now that my post wasn’t there.

thought my post with the answers to this went through, but it did not ( i guess it timed out while i was giving the kids their baths)

Hopefully my shorter answer is still satisfactory and not too curt.

-Brendan

It may have seemed rude, but I wasn’t being rude and have not been rude. I apologise if it appears that way to you. I could say you have been rude to me by not answering the question, but I would rather think it is my fault for not phrasing it properly. You still have not answered my question…are you trying to say that human genes are the only genes that can be placed into plants and animals to bring about what the scientists desire. This cannot be true. so why are they using human genes in other species if commonality is to be found in other species?

OR…to put it more explicitly…

If all species share a majority commonality, why then are human genes being put into plants when other species genes could be used?

Cute about your kids, I hope they sleep well, God Bless to them.

God Bless you and much love and peace to you

Teresa

 

[springbreeze]

greens.org/s-r/19/19-08.html

%between%

God Bless you and much love and peace to you

Teresa

 

[rastell]

greens.org/s-r/19/19-08.html
God Bless you and much love and peace to you
Teresa

Teresa,

I took a couple of paragraphs out of this article you found. They make me shutter:

"If human genes were successfully introduced into plants, their transgenic pollen could contaminate neighboring fields. Despite industry propaganda denying the likelihood of such “genetic pollution,” it has happened repeatedly… Unlike cars with exploding gas tanks, genetic alterations cannot be recalled. Human genes introduced into potatoes or any other crop could become a permanent part of that species. "

**"Some have challenged my saying that ‘human genes are quite different from other genes’ with the objection that over 99% of human genes are shared with chimpanzees. This ignores the fact that even if there were no more than 0.1% of human genes which were not shared with other species, it is precisely this 0.1% which the genetic engineers are targeting for transplantation. A non-reductionist world view understands that genes interact with each other to produce activity which cannot be explained by analyzing them in isolation-only a tiny number of distinctly human genes may be necessary for interaction with other genes to produce the unique aspects of humanness. "
**

 

[rastell]

Brendan:

Without a long term source of human insulin, diabetes is a death sentance.

**This seems similar to the scare tactics that pro-embryonic stem cell research people use when they say it is necessary to save people with Alzheimer’s and Parkenson’s disease. **

**Diabetes sufferers have got along up until now without this evil (human genes implanted in plants and animals) **

 

[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?

“Some have challenged my saying that ‘"human genes are quite different from other genes’ with the objection that over 99% of human genes are shared with chimpanzees. This ignores the fact that even if there were no more than 0.1% of human genes which were not shared with other species, it is precisely this 0.1% which the genetic engineers are targeting for transplantation. A non-reductionist world view understands that genes interact with each other to produce activity which cannot be explained by analyzing them in isolation-only a tiny number of distinctly human genes may be necessary for interaction with other genes to produce the unique aspects of humanness.”

Source: greens.org/s-r/19/19-08.html

 

[rastell]

springbreeze:

It may have seemed rude, but I wasn’t being rude and have not been rude. I apologise if it appears that way to you.

Your posts are not rude. You have shown great restraint in responding to people who advocate the outrageous act of combining human and animal genes, as well as human and plant genes.

 

[Brendan]

springbreeze:

No it doesn’t answer my question, we are not talking about making insulin we are talking about the thread topic. Why are they using human genes in transplanting them into plants if there is such commonality in other species?

I thought the thread topic was a discussion of the immorality of inserting human genes into other species.

If something is objectively immoral, it is immoral in all cases.

With the insulin case, there is a specific requirement for a human gene to be inserted into another species.

If that is moral in this case, then the use of human genes in other species, is, by definition, not objectively immoral.

As to the use of the human liver enzyme gene in rice, I am unfamilar with the specific need. My thought is that such a need would occur for

1. The human liver enzyme is more effective at neturalizing the pesticides in question

or

1. The use of the human enzyme (as opposed to cow, for example) would likely reduce allergic reactions. Humans develop no immunity to their own enzymes. Therefore a human could eat this rice and develop no restistance to it.

 

[Brendan]

springbreeze:

It may have seemed rude, but I wasn’t being rude and have not been rude. peace to you

Teresa

No you are not rude

I had answered your question in a post I thought went through. Then I went to bathe the kids.

I came back from the bath and you are asking for me to answer the question I had just answered.

“well that’s pretty rude,” I though," I could see her not agreeing with my answer, but saying I didn’t answer it at all…"

Well I looked back and didn’t see my post. I then notices a Catholic Answers “Problem with the database error message”, and then I realized my post with the answer didn’t go through.

Does that make sense?

 

[Brendan]

**This seems similar to the scare tactics that pro-embryonic stem cell research people use when they say it is necessary to save people with Alzheimer’s and Parkenson’s disease. **

**Diabetes sufferers have got along up until now without this evil (human genes implanted in plants and animals) **

The difference is that embryonic stem cell research is immoral because it involves the death of an innocent person.

Embryonic stem cell research using stem cells gained from umbilical cord fluid, or adult stem cell research is not immoral.

The use of human genetics in other organizms involve no death and therefore does not fall under this moral restriction.

You are comparing apples to oranges.

And diabetics sufferers have have NOT gotten along well without this new technology. Up until genetic engineering, a diabetic could only use animal insulin for maybe 10-12 years as the slowly would develop an allergic reaction to the animal insulin.

In addition, the means of production (slaughtered animals) limited the supply, and thus insulin was expensive.

 

[Brendan]

only a tiny number of distinctly human genes may be necessary for interaction with other genes to produce the unique aspects of humanness. "

Once again, defining ‘humanness’ by genes instead of the soul.

I have a question for both of you. Do identical twins the same people? They have identical genes. According to the above statement, the unique aspects of ‘humanness’ come from genes.

Or is ‘humaness’ definded by something more?

 

[Brendan]

Teresa,

This is from the article you posted on insulin production

Where does the insulin come from?
Insulin used to be extracted and prepared from the pancreas of cows and pigs. Nowadays, using a technique called genetic engineering, bacteria can be used to produce enough insulin for all diabetics. Bacteria are given a human gene, which instructs them to make a hormone – in this case, insulin. The insulin made by the bacteria is exactly the same as normal human insulin.

Is this practice immoral?

 

[springbreeze]

Brendan:

I thought the thread topic was a discussion of the immorality of inserting human genes into other species.

If something is objectively immoral, it is immoral in all cases.

You know that is not the case. It is not immoral for me to give you blood nor is immoral for me to donate certain organs after my death. It is not immoral for me to donate a kidney whilst I am alive and it is not immoral for me to donate a gene that will aid another human being as long as it will not harm them in the long run or myself and as long as that bacteria is already present in a human being, that it is part of the human state to have that bacteria live in the body as it is with bacteria found in the human small gut/intestines (as used in making insulin) and that bacteria is necessary for the human function of the small gut/intestines, without it the small gut/intestine fails. Furthermore bacteria does not ‘breed’ as humans do during it’s lifespan, it replicates itself, it takes no part in reproduction as do plants, animals and humans and thus there is no possibility of environmental contamination of other bacteria etc.

I am not about to donate blood to an animal nor am I about to have an organ of mine grafted into a plant! This is immoral and a gene is part of my body just as any other part of my body, however small or large it may be.

Should we have designer babies who they call ‘saviour babies’ born to save their siblings who are ill. The babies are genetically matched and those that are not genetic matches are destroyed.

Just because a medical procedure has benefits does not mean it is without fault and has ethical issues as well as moral issues.

I have a disease in my spine. Say it was possible to take a human gene and grow me new discs for my back by first placing the donor human genetic material into a bacteria not found indigenous to the human body, animal or plant in order for the new disc to be produced, I would not have it, even if the benefits would mean I regain full mobility…why? because it is immoral. It is and always will be immoral to introduce human genetic material into a subject that is not the same species. Further than this it is also immoral to introduce genetic material from humans into ANY subject that causes them to eat their own genetic material.

You cannot make this argument across the board. Again you do not address the moral issues.

With the insulin case, there is a specific requirement for a human gene to be inserted into another species.

If that is moral in this case, then the use of human genes in other species, is, by definition, not objectively immoral.

As to the use of the human liver enzyme gene in rice, I am unfamilar with the specific need. My thought is that such a need would occur for

1. The human liver enzyme is more effective at neturalizing the pesticides in question

Whether it is or it is not more effective this does not stop it being immoral and against natural laws and God’s laws. Scientists should use genetic material from the animal or plant kingdom. It does seem most weeds are resistant to pesticides and increasingly so, due to it’s over use. It is still dangerous however to genetically engineer plants rather than to cross breed them.

or

1. The use of the human enzyme (as opposed to cow, for example) would likely reduce allergic reactions. Humans develop no immunity to their own enzymes. Therefore a human could eat this rice and develop no restistance to it.

What human will want to eat food that contains their own genetic material?

What an evil to put human genes into rice to negate an allergy! If plant material were placed into another plant, then it is up to research to define if there is any possible allergic reaction.

This theory of yours would open the floodgates for human egnetic material to be introduced into all manner of foods, medicines, cosmetics etc etc. You cannot put human genes into a subject simply to avoid allergy, that is absolutely evil!!

So your answer is to make all ‘species’ in essence possess some humanity in ‘itself’ so that humanity can tolerate it, regardless of any health issues, pyschological issues, environmental issues, morality issues and offending God!!

This argument you present is the most protracted of all of them.

It is just not jusitfyable my friend whichever way you want to paint it, it is and always will be immoral.

God Bless you and much love and peace to you

Teresa

 

[Brendan]

springbreeze:

If something is objectively immoral, it is immoral in all cases.

You know that is not the case
Teresa

Teresa,

The definition of objectively immoral is that it immoral in all cases.

Abortion is objectively immoral, there is no circumstance where abortion is justified.

My question is this “Is the use of human genes in other species objectively immoral?”

Is it immoral in all cases, including the production of insulin?

Whether it is or it is not more effective this does not stop it being immoral and against natural laws and God’s laws.

I asked this of Rastell and I ask it of you. Exactly which laws are being broken?

If it is a natural law, then it will be declared so by a competent science body, such as Newton’s Laws, Ohm’s Law, Boyle’s Law, Law of Conservation of Mass\Energy, etc…

If it is God’s Law, then it will be declared so by the Vatican.

I would like to see the specific instance of violation of Law.

You cannot put human genes into a subject simply to avoid allergy, that is absolutely evil!!

The declaration of morality is Authority reserved to the Holy See. You or I cannot declare something to be ‘evil’. We have no Authority to do so. This is a new field and no specific encyclical has been issued.

As I mentioned above, and I would like an answer on this.

I have issued a dubium to a Moral Theology Professor at Sacred Heart Seminary, where I am a student.

The Seminary is on semester break right now, so I do not expect a response until next week.

I have also requested a seminarian friend at Mount St. Mary’s Seminary in Maryland to have the dubium reviewed by a Moral Theology professor there.

I have also emailed The Pontifical Academy of Life (PAV) in the Vatican with the dubium. (hopefully my Italian is readable )

It will take a few weeks, but we should have a official response.

When I hear the response, I will PM both you and Rastell with a notification and the contact information of the responding Moral Theologian (so you can verify the answer if desired)

I will also post their response here.

Is that acceptable?

If you have another resource you are aware of, or would prefer, please feel free to contact them.

I would state that for me to consider the source authoritative, I would ask that the person have an S.T.D. in Moral Theology or equivalent, and a Mandatum from their Bishop.

If you have a local Seminary for your diocese, they would surely have a Theologian with those credentials. Your pastor could recommend such a person.

 

[jjwilkman]

i just want to throw in my two cents worth, and it is probably worth about that.

i am pretty sure that american food has been tampered (monkeyed?) with since before i was born.

why does food taste different/better in almost any other country?

why does home made bread taste vastly better than wonder?bread?

why do eggs from home chickens taste so much better? or for that matter the chickens themselves?

mass produced chickens have diseases that make them unsanitary. could it be overcrowding? or hormones? or genetic manipulation???

etc, etc

 

[Brendan]

Et all,

There are a few links from the PAV website

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdlife/documents/rc_pa_acdlife_doc_28091998_cloning-notes_en.html

Only the reproduction of cells starting from cells taken and separated, without doing any damage, from a human individual (who is procreated naturally and not purposely cloned to provide cell lines), is to be considered licit, as well as the reproduction of DNA fragments for which, however, the cloning of a human individual is not foreseen as a premise or an aim in order to obtain them.

netlink.de/gen/Zeitung/2000/000113.html

“I have stopped all those who demand condemnation of these ( genetically modified ) products,” said Bishop Elio Sgreccia, Vatican director of Bioethics and vice-president of the Pontifical Academy of Life (PAL).

He emphasized that biotechnological research could resolve global problems such as hunger since it enables agricultural productivity even in arid lands.

“We (PAL members) are increasingly encouraged that the advantages of genetic engineering of plants and animals are greater than the risks,” explained Bishop Sgreccia. “The risks should be carefully followed through openness,
analysis and control, but without a sense of alarm.”

Now I agree that this only refers to genetic engineering in general being acceptable, not specifically to insertion of human genes into other organisms.

I would note that the first comment, on reproduction of human DNA segments begin licit. You will note the lack of restrictions, it does not specify how and to what purpose human genes may be replicated.

 

[paladinan]

[Rastell]

I really do not see how anyone cannot be horrified by the
mixing of human genes in animals and even plants.

[Brendan]

Why should I be ‘horrified’. Should I be horrified to see
diabetics have a plentiful supply of human insulin?

I may be mistaken, but I think Rastell was fearing the rather chevalier attitude that usually accompanies the mentality of “my body is just chemicals, so I can do anything I want to it, so long as it doesn’t obviously influence the human soul (by death, etc.)”. Pope John Paul II wrote rather extensively about this (rather Manichean) mindset which allows these thoughts.

I wouldn’t suggest that any possible manipulation of our genes is necessarily immoral… but some of the arguments which you (and others) have used to defend the option are rather eerily reminiscent of the dualist “I can do whatever I want with my body” idea. Comparisons such as your comment of:

Brendan:

The fact is, humans ARE up of the same elements. Does that mean that a carbon from a human is any more special than a carbon from a cow?

…leave the impression that chemicals are chemicals, regardless of whether they were united to a human body or not. That, I’m afraid, **is **rather a slippery slope. When an apple is eaten and assimilated into a human body, for example, then its constituent chemicals become a part of a human body which is intimately and substantially united to a human soul. Our bodies and souls make a unity, not a loose confederation of spirit and matter. As such, any manipulations of “mere chemicals” of a human body are far more grave than are any manipulations of the exact same chemicals in a non-human object.

I don’t mean to imply that all physical manipulations of the human body (including genetic) are necessarily wrong, by definition; I do mean to imply that the proportionate reasons for doing so must be far more grave. It is not simply enough to assert, “we can do it, so the makes it morally permissible.” Too many scientists are following that morally bankrupt credo.

I’d strongly encourage everyone to read the Holy Father’s Theology of the Body (or Christopher West’s excellent adaptations of it); it covers a great many of these (rather difficult to spot) implications. Just as a teaser: do you think it would be permissible to tear apart and alter bits of a consecrated Host? According to the world, it’s just a collection of carbohydrates, and such. And yet, no one could argue that we’d be “killing anyone” by doing so, correct? The only offense would be an outrage against the dignity of the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ.

In Christ,
Brian