picchick Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 [quote name='Veridicus' post='1766077' date='Jan 29 2009, 07:15 PM']You really get into these fantastical hypotheticals don't you? [/quote] ooohhh yeah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkwright Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 [quote name='abercius24' post='1765420' date='Jan 29 2009, 01:04 AM']The biggest question would be one of our approach toward justice if they grew into a juvenile or adult stage. If one killed another, would we be morally obligated to have a trial and enforce a just punishment? Or would simply putting them down like we do man-eating bears be our solution? If it ever came to this, the Church has a general definition of the soul that would allow her to guide us to a right answer. Frankly, if these "humanimals" demonstrate an intellect and a free-will, then I'd be happy to consider them sentient beings just like the rest of us humans.[/quote] I have to disagree. What makes us a human with inherent dignity is not the existence of sentience or evidence of free will. Consider this: An infant barely exhibits any signs of sentience or free will (maybe no more than a dog). Certainly we wouldn't say this is not a human. Extend it to a fetus, and we have a justification for abortions. My point is that what defines us a humans has nothing to do with our capabilities. A fetus, and infant, a 20 yr person and an 80 yr old person are all humans and have the same dignity regardless of their capabilities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkwright Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1764763' date='Jan 28 2009, 03:00 PM']Yea, what I heard in this news report from the UK is that the hybrid embryos are destroyed very quickly. The fact that this is the regular practice though, doesn't mean that it will always be that way.[/quote] Can you explain how this works? Is it a human egg and sperm that are implanted in an animal? Or a human egg and animal sperm? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatherineM Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 The funny thing about hypotheticals in science is that have the nasty habit of becoming reality. I love the line from Jurassic Park that the scientists were so busy trying to see if they could do something, that they didn't stop to think[i][b] if[/b][/i] they should do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 [quote name='rkwright' post='1766099' date='Jan 29 2009, 08:32 PM']Can you explain how this works? Is it a human egg and sperm that are implanted in an animal? Or a human egg and animal sperm?[/quote] read post 23 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Veridicus Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 [quote name='rkwright' post='1766099' date='Jan 29 2009, 07:32 PM']Can you explain how this works? Is it a human egg and sperm that are implanted in an animal? Or a human egg and animal sperm?[/quote] It is not a human egg and an animal sperm. First off the chemical specificity of the sperm receptor is highly, HIGHLY specific for a human egg...sot he sperm would never penetrate the zona pellucida in order to deliver its DNA into the egg. Secondly, they are chromosomally incompatible. The chromosomes must align appropriately (humans and rabbits for example have different numbers/shapes to their chromosomes so they can't align appropriately and then the resulting daughter cells die) And it isn't a human egg and sperm implanted in an animal either...that would just be a weird form of surrogate maternity...and I don't think that would work immunilogically or hormonally either. From what I can tell is they take an early stage human embryo (say less 8-16 cells total) and stick a few animal embryo cells in with the mix. The cells start talkin to eachother in their sophisticated chemical languages and each tries to grow into what it was destined to be. The problem is that cross-species hybrids just aren't viable. Heck horses and donkeys barely can breed together (don't forget mules are sterile). Humans and rabbits are definitely incompatible for life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 [quote name='Veridicus' post='1766215' date='Jan 29 2009, 10:20 PM']It is not a human egg and an animal sperm. First off the chemical specificity of the sperm receptor is highly, HIGHLY specific for a human egg...sot he sperm would never penetrate the zona pellucida in order to deliver its DNA into the egg. Secondly, they are chromosomally incompatible. The chromosomes must align appropriately (humans and rabbits for example have different numbers/shapes to their chromosomes so they can't align appropriately and then the resulting daughter cells die) And it isn't a human egg and sperm implanted in an animal either...that would just be a weird form of surrogate maternity...and I don't think that would work immunilogically or hormonally either. From what I can tell is they take an early stage human embryo (say less 8-16 cells total) and stick a few animal embryo cells in with the mix. The cells start talkin to eachother in their sophisticated chemical languages and each tries to grow into what it was destined to be. The problem is that cross-species hybrids just aren't viable. Heck horses and donkeys barely can breed together (don't forget mules are sterile). Humans and rabbits are definitely incompatible for life.[/quote] Then how did they make a geep? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Veridicus Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 [quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1766221' date='Jan 29 2009, 09:23 PM']Then how did they make a geep?[/quote] They mixed very early stage sheep and goat embryonic stem cells. So long as the embryos are early enough they haven't differentiated into cells destined to become 'legs' or 'brains' or organs. This is a highly simplified explanation, but should help. Apparently the signalling pathways between these related animals were similar enough to produce a viable (don't know if it was fecund) geep from the early stage embryonic cells. That doesn't mean that the mother's immune system still didn't try like heckfire to reject the conception. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
picchick Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 [quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1766221' date='Jan 29 2009, 09:23 PM']Then how did they make a geep?[/quote] I that it was a loat...or lid....or shoat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tinkerlina Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 [quote name='icelandic_iceskater' post='1762860' date='Jan 26 2009, 08:55 PM']Assuming there's no other morally impermissible acts involved (ESCR, etc) is the cloning of human organs permissible? If so, how much can you clone before it's morally impermissible? Where do you draw the line?[/quote] Hmm, I would think it would be ok if the issue were very strictly confined to the cloning of consenting humans and individual organs. -Katie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 [quote name='Tinkerlina' post='1766418' date='Jan 30 2009, 12:03 AM']Hmm, I would think it would be ok if the issue were very strictly confined to the cloning of consenting humans and individual organs. -Katie[/quote] Humans should never been cloned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tinkerlina Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 (edited) [quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1766431' date='Jan 30 2009, 12:09 AM']Humans should never been cloned.[/quote] That's why I said indiviudal organs. Although, I don't really forsee modern scientists being restrictive in their use of cloning, which is an issue...I certainly don't think any complete life form should be cloned.-Katie Edited January 30, 2009 by Tinkerlina Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Veridicus Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 (edited) Back to topic....Organ Cloning is morally permissible so long as it doesn't involve the destruction of human embryos or entail the creation of totipotent stem cells capable of individuation into an entire human being. So long as we are only talking about tissue and cells in culture and NOT the potentiality of a human person, there really is no moral issue so far as I can tell... As a side thought, the most probably technique for growing replacement organs would be to take adult stem cells or to take adult epithelia and treat it with the necessary factors to induce a pluripotent state; from there it may be possible to chemically induce the development of an organ. And since the recipient IS the DONOR of the tissue, there is virtually no chance of rejection of the syntheticall grown organ. Edited February 2, 2009 by Veridicus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lil Red Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 +J.M.J.+ all posts concerning animal testing have been moved [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=90192"]here.[/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Veridicus Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 [quote name='Lil Red' post='1769817' date='Feb 2 2009, 01:31 PM']+J.M.J.+ all posts concerning animal testing have been moved [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=90192"]here.[/url][/quote] Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now