It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Human-Animal Chimeras Are Gestating on U.S. Research Farms

page: 2
13
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 06:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Painterz

I do think that there are lines than must not be crossed. Just because you can, you shouldn't. Creating a whole new species is not our place.

Notice I said IMO. I am not choosing between life or death...they are. Something will be created for the sole purpose of MAYBE helping a human live longer. Maybe.

Look, if you have issues with the statements from the article link, take it up with the man who said it.




posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 06:39 PM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

MIT disagrees with you.



posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 06:41 PM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

Again...it's for the children??

Doubtful that was their motivation.



posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 06:44 PM
link   
a reply to: woodsmom

Your are spot on. They are creating new species and, I understood it was for a one time harvest. Poor things.



posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 06:47 PM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

You are okay with creating a being for the sole purpose of maybe extending a human life?



posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 06:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Skid Mark

It makes me want to weep. This is gruesome, IMO.



posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 06:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

As always, I disagree with you. You create a being that has no skeleton from two or three beings that do....how is that not a new species?

From the article: “We can make an animal without a heart. We have engineered pigs that lack skeletal muscles and blood vessels". AND

"The new line of research goes further because it involves placing human cells into an animal embryo at the very earliest stage, when it is a sphere of just a dozen cells in a laboratory dish. This process, called “embryo complementation,” is significant because the human cells can multiply.



posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 06:58 PM
link   
This is why I quit eating hot dogs.

This reminds me of the Hanibal episode where they grew a baby in a pig uterus.



posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 06:59 PM
link   
Growing some organs inside another animal isn't the same thing as a human-animal hybrid that's walking/talking and running around.

A pig with a human kidney inside of it is still a pig, not a human.



posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 07:09 PM
link   
a reply to: NewzNose

I am ok with correcting the imbalance between the number of people requiring organ transplants, and the number of people who will get one.

I am ok with allowing science to do the best it can to give life to little kids with kidney problems, liver diseases, upper respiratory problems, malformed organs, tissues, and other failures of genetics and environmental factors, who would otherwise die without the vital research and advances being made now.

Would I prefer that it was not necessary at this point in time to harvest organs from the inside of a pig? Sure. And WHEN it is possible to 3D print a viable organ, I will be the first to call for a cessation of the practice of using animals to grow organs and tissue for human implantation. But not until then. Until that printing becomes a regular part of hospital procedure across the board, I must insist that the science available now, be used, not shelved.



posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 07:10 PM
link   
a reply to: tigertatzen

Feel free to aim your disapproval at the source.




I wonder if you would be so quick to buy into the hype if it were you or someone you care about, lying there suffering, waiting for a viable organ


You assume I cannot be suffering now, in need of something viable to keep me alive.



posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 07:11 PM
link   
a reply to: cmdrkeenkid

I can get behind 3D organs, under certain conditions.



posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 07:15 PM
link   
a reply to: InFriNiTee

I assure you, if we shared medical issues, you would retract your snarky comment and apologize. Since you don't know, I'll simply chalk it up to ineptitude.



posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 07:17 PM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

So, ok to take a life to save a life. Got it.



posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 07:20 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

If this was all they were doing, there would be zero concern about it developing human traits, growin hair, and asking to be set free....all noted in the article.



posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 07:24 PM
link   
*sigh* Why don't we just clone ourselves and figure out a way to transfer conciousnesses between brains? Then the only people we're taking advantage of is ourselves.

"Hey clone, I'm going to die. So...you're me, and I'm going to download everything I've seen/done into you so you can carry on and do the same down the road to another clone...got it?"

I'm sure my clone would be up for that.



posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 08:55 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom
You know, there's a movie exactly like that starring Arnold Schwarzenegger. It's called The 6th Day

edit on 14-1-2016 by Skid Mark because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 10:56 PM
link   
a reply to: NewzNose

Most disturbing



posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 11:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: NewzNose
a reply to: Ghost147
As always, I disagree with you. You create a being that has no skeleton from two or three beings that do....how is that not a new species?


Because a new species doesn't arise simple because it has a single mutation.

Is a mouse without a spine not still a mouse?

A species is often defined as a group of individuals that actually or potentially interbreed in nature. In this sense, a species is the biggest gene pool possible under natural conditions. (source)

My comment isn't based on opinion, it's based on what biology actually describes a species as. The definition of a species is far more broad than that, quoted above, but it is a good place to start. If we artificially add one single organ, or an otherwise non-functioning growth that can be later removed, it's not creating a new species because the organisms genetic makeup hasn't changed so much that it displaces it from the rest of the species.

Again, this isn't a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact.



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 08:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

A mouse without a spine who can say "set me free", is not a mouse without a spine.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join