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.

 

Animal-Human Embryos Deserve Human Rights

page: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 01:07 PM
link   
**Oops**

[edit on 1-7-2007 by Cloak and Dagger]




posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ahabstar
I think we will start seeing things of this nature in the near future if nothing else than a vainity fad. Cat eyes, forked tongues, angelic wings (from a swan I guess), horns, whiskers, scales, feathers and tails of all kinds. It will become like cosmetic surgery only on a genetic manipulation scale.


I for one would potentially be interested in getting those kinds of cosmetic changes, even if that makes me less "human".



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 05:27 PM
link   
This is sooo stupid. I bet that idiot judge who sued his cleaners$80 million for not giving him his pants is spear.ing this one. I cant believe that if research is done on "chimeras", that some ignorant fools think that that lifeform should have rights. Does that mean that we have to give rights to all of the living bacteria that swarm our body 24/7? What is this going to do. Can they have elections and petition officials for governmental grants on housing? What do they mean by rights? Because the rights that I am thinking of dont apply to scientific reseach creations. Or should they?

It is issues like this that cause so much trouble in the world. This research is going to be done to save lives indirectly, not create some sort of cyclops/grendel hybrid, but people have to go and interject some completely irrational thoughform to F it up for everyone else.

These people weigh society down.



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by hikix
This breeds the question "when does it stop". Who knows what the hell is going on in these laboratories. They may start with embryos but you know damn well that someone somewhere will try to, for lack of better words, make "something grow up". God knows if this has already happened, but this is a matter of man playing god and it really is a step in the wrong direction. I truly believe that they are using the mask of treating disease to experiment.


I agree with you. Personally, I fall on both sides of the fence on this issue. I think that if science can create beings that are genetically similar to us for study, then they should be allowed. However, if said beings become self conscious or sentient, then I think that they should deserve all the rights that we expect.

Genetic manipulation is a scary thing, and as long as the field continues to accelerate at the speed that it has been (and will probably grow exponentially faster due to scientific pace) I will fully expect to see a "Chimera" in my lifetime, walking down the street reading the paper. However, just because the idea seems scary now does not mean that such a sentient creature would not be any less human. Possibly more... which I will explain further if anyone wants.



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Don WahnIt is issues like this that cause so much trouble in the world. This research is going to be done to save lives indirectly, not create some sort of cyclops/grendel hybrid, but people have to go and interject some completely irrational thoughform to F it up for everyone else.


In this specific case, you might be right about the intended uses of the technology. However, that does not mean that creation of a hybrid is beyond the pale. Quite the opposite. One of the things that history teaches us is that there is always someone willing to push the envelope, to take science or technology into new realms...

With the advent of this kind of technology, the idea of The Island of Dr. Moreau is becoming more plausible every day. I think it would be best to have an open, intelligent, frank discussion on the topic before the technology become a reality... for once in our existence.



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 05:47 PM
link   
Not that this is the first time this is happening. The ancient egyptians were into crossing humans and animals as becomes obvious by looking at their pictures in which cross-breeds are a main theme.



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 06:01 PM
link   
I'll just give in my two cents:

If any creatures are created, discovered, etc that have equal intelligence to humans, AKA sentience, then they should have the exact same rights and be treated as equals.

Embryos, on the other hand...I'm not so sure about. Atleast, when they are embryos. Afterwards...who knows.



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Not that this is the first time this is happening. The ancient egyptians were into crossing humans and animals as becomes obvious by looking at their pictures in which cross-breeds are a main theme.


Wrong. On so many levels you are wrong.

It is a reoccurring theme throughout mythology - the half-man half-animal - but that does not imply any kind of crossing between the races. If anything, its archetypal, but you'll have to talk to someone more knowledgeable on that particular subject than I am.



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Not that this is the first time this is happening. The ancient egyptians were into crossing humans and animals as becomes obvious by looking at their pictures in which cross-breeds are a main theme.

Wrong, wrong, wrong...I'm something of an "armchair expert" on the ancient Egyptians. Those were pics of their gods, not any attempt at eugenics breeding programs. Those gods were religious interpretations of certain concepts to define their views on religious cosmology.

Besides, without the modern science of Genetic Engineering, humans cannot crossbreed with animal species anyway. Even with Gengineering, such hybrids cannot be created by breeding...They must be created under strict laboratory conditions.

So how do these "pro-Rights" people decide to draw the line at defining any kind of creature as "human" or "non-human?" By the amount of "human-like" DNA in their genes?

If that's the case, then they should also start advocating Human Rights to Chimpanzees & other "near-human" primates...After all, human DNA is more than 90% identical to Chimps anyway!

Please note that I do make a distinction between Human Rights & Animal Rights...But to give Human Rights to something that's not human doesn't sit right with me.

I mean, these liberals...Sometimes I'd like to liberate them from their ignorance...


[edit on 1-7-2007 by MidnightDStroyer]



posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 12:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kacen
I'll just give in my two cents:

If any creatures are created, discovered, etc that have equal intelligence to humans, AKA sentience, then they should have the exact same rights and be treated as equals.


Sentience and human intellect are not the same thing. Dolphins are sentient, but they are not as 'intelligent' as humans (so it's understood). That said, I don't think ones smartness should necessarily factor into the rights that protect its well-being. Sentience, the ability to perceive feelings, should be the main, if not the only, prerequisite for 'rights'.

[edit on 2-7-2007 by Cloak and Dagger]



posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 01:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by MidnightDStroyerPlease note that I do make a distinction between Human Rights & Animal Rights...But to give Human Rights to something that's not human doesn't sit right with me.
[edit on 1-7-2007 by MidnightDStroyer]


This is just my take on the subject, but if man created something which has a high percentage of human DNA and it was a sentient and/or somewhat intelligent creature, they should be protected.

Especially if they develop basic human conditions, such as emotion, pain, communication (especially verbal) and others.

But I would be interested in hearing arguments about why they shouldn't. It would definitely make for a good discussion.



posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 02:17 AM
link   
Its not that I dont know the mythhology-explanation, its just that I dont agree with it. I believe mythhology reflects actual, older events. I therefore believe we had the technology for cross-breeding a long time ago....you can "wrong" me all you want.

But since that is not the topic in this thread I`ll rest my case.



posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 02:44 AM
link   
I do not think scientists should be messing around with chimeras. As long as they do not exist, then we do not have to debate what rights they are entitled to. We cannot take care of the species that are on our planet presently, so there is no business creating new ones. Science would be better served by figuring out what is causing the die off in the oceans which have huge dead zones in them right now. It would also be nice to get a handle on AIDS and Cancer. I suppose that someone will now post and say that AIDS and Cancer research require chimeras



posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 05:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by groingrinderI do not think scientists should be messing around with chimeras.


Why?

Do you not think we can gain anything by this type of research
Or do you think there is little to gain and much to lose?


As long as they do not exist, then we do not have to debate what rights they are entitled to.


So you're suggesting we shouldn't create them so we don't have to worry about what rights to give them? Hah, I am glad God didn't share your enthusiasm :p


We cannot take care of the species that are on our planet presently


Things are bad, I admit, but we are still alive and we still have our society.


Science would be better served by figuring out what is causing the die off in the oceans which have huge dead zones in them right now.


There are enough scientists in the world to cover both topics.


It would also be nice to get a handle on AIDS and Cancer.


There were threads recently about HIV and Cancer cures.


I suppose that someone will now post and say that AIDS and Cancer research require chimeras


If it did require it; what would your stance be?


[edit on 2-7-2007 by Cloak and Dagger]



posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 12:23 PM
link   
Wake up guys !!!

To make a chimera between a mouse and a human embryo would take me less then one week.

To make the genetic changes of specific genes I want takes me another week.

Then I'd just have to let the embryo grow a little bit (72hours) to make sure the modifications driven by the "foreign" DNA were accepted.

Then we would have to implant the embryo like from a normal in vitro fertilization.

This is really old technology. We even managed to grow mice teeth on a chicken embryo. If this is something I could do already 7 years ago imagine what's already out there.

Don't think about "how would it be" it's more like, "how it is".

Tell me something it's not ancient already



posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 12:33 PM
link   
The way part of the scientific community is thinking to solve the problems of some families with genetic diseases is really to manipulate embryos.

It's really very easy. No science fiction, real current science...

You get some cells from the mother. Remove the nuclei. Substitute the nuclei by already modified nuclei without the deficiencies (takes about one month to correct the deficiencies).

Then you get eggs from the woman and replace the eggs nuclei by the corrected DNA you have created.

Fertilize the eggs with the father sperm and proceed with the normal implantation.

No BS, yesterday science

P.S. I don't give you the details because it makes no sense to give you a protocol of how to do it.



posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 12:37 PM
link   
WOW I didnt know they were doin this either. If they grow to be adults we're going to have a really really really really crazy civilization in the future integrated with these creatures.



posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 01:39 PM
link   
I think the main point of the issue is being missed on this one. The article referenced to by the original poster specifically states "Eggs from animals, such as cows or sheep, would be stripped of their nuclear and species identity, he said. Human cells would then be placed in the empty egg vessels, creating stem cell lines for research."

They are not talking about the development of a "Half-chicken Half-Man" mutant here. What they are alluding to is the use of non-genetically coded host eggs, stripping out the "guts" of the host egg to create an embryo. To create the "Half-this and Half-that" of popular folklore would require far more genetic manipulation than humans are currently capable of conducting with any precision, so you can rest assured this will not be happening anytime soon. Nuclear replacement techniques are currently capable of relocating human DNA into a host, but the technique does not rely on the process of genetic recombination with the host. In short, what they would be doing is exposing a human cell nucleus to the chemicals that are needed in production of life and that trigger the embryo to grow in a certain manner so that the cultivation of embryonic stem cells will be easier to obtain from the animal host cell.



posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 12:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mezzanine
This is just my take on the subject, but if man created something which has a high percentage of human DNA and it was a sentient and/or somewhat intelligent creature, they should be protected.

A major mis-assumption here...In this case, Man has not created anything--Merely combined DNA that already exists. As far as "sentience" or "intelligence" goes, it's more a matter putting together the "right DNA sequencing" or teach-and-train but Man has not actually created anything.


Originally posted by Cloak and Dagger

We cannot take care of the species that are on our planet presently

Things are bad, I admit, but we are still alive and we still have our society.

Only until we've overpopulated to the point where planetary resources will no longer sustain such vast numbers...


Originally posted by novrod
This is really old technology. We even managed to grow mice teeth on a chicken embryo. If this is something I could do already 7 years ago imagine what's already out there.
Don't think about "how would it be" it's more like, "how it is".
Tell me something it's not ancient already

I'd tend to agree: Even as far back as 1995, Gene Therapy techniques were already starting to have positive results in curing certain types of inheirent blood disorders. What they did was introduce modified DNA into the subjects' bone marrow & let the new DNA grow & spread until it would "overwhelm" the defective DNA in the subject.

Back in 1990, I worked for a plastics extrusion industry: In a technical journal I read there, the plastics industry was already capable of building a small capsule for the purpose of holding the new DNA-material until it could "grow itself" right out of the microfilter-size capsule walls: The "filter-size" was engineered at a scale to allow growing DNA to escape, but small enough to restrict the body's natural immune system from entering the capsule & destroying the new DNA. This is how they were able to avoid the initial "rejection syndrome" long enough for the new DNA material to assert itself. Of course, this also involved modifying the DNA sample that came from the individual "subject" first.

Originally posted by novrod
To make a chimera between a mouse and a human embryo would take me less then one week.
To make the genetic changes of specific genes I want takes me another week.
Then I'd just have to let the embryo grow a little bit (72hours) to make sure the modifications driven by the "foreign" DNA were accepted.
Then we would have to implant the embryo like from a normal in vitro fertilization.

Theoretically, yes...But it would never survive to the equivalent of "birth-stage" because there's too many DNA chains that would be incompatible. The best you could hope for (as far as indepedant survival goes is one species that has some minor qualities of a different species...The major DNA chains would have to remain intact otherwise the various internal organs probably won't develop correctly. It would only be able to continue surviving for as long as it had full life-support hookup & even that wouldn't be certain.
If you can actually prove that you can do better than that, then I'd challenge you to prove it...That is, actually grow a "chimera" up to at least the equivilant of "birth-stage" then post some pics. Be aware that ATS is full of graphic experts & trying to use an "cross species" animal with taxidermy skills that can easily detect such a deception.


Originally posted by Skyfloating
I therefore believe we had the technology for cross-breeding a long time ago....you can "wrong" me all you want.

Yes, eugenics has been in use since the first "cross breeding" of crops at the beginning of Agriculture about 10,000-12,000 years ago...But genetics is a lot more complex than that. When "inbreeding" was being done by "noble families" all the way through the Renaissance Age (& quite probably still being practiced even today), that was still using eugenics, not genetics.

However, I don't see how building "chimeras" actually helps in Gene Therapy sciences, even if it were possible; Genetic Science can't even really handle Human DNA with 100% certainty yet (because it's the most complex of any known species), so "hybrid" species would have too many genetic incompatabilities to survive. If species could "cross-mate" in the natural world, what kind of a biosphere would we be living in now?!

I think that working on correcting inheirent medical problems (or replacing organ loss due to traumatic injury) should be granted a higher priority. Granted, such a "chimera" may be useful as far as helping to solve problems with "cross-species" viral infections, but I'd also tend to think that the Human Genome by itself has genetic problems enough to keep Gengineers busy for quite a long time yet.


Originally posted by Jazzerman
I think the main point of the issue is being missed on this one. The article referenced to by the original poster specifically states "Eggs from animals, such as cows or sheep, would be stripped of their nuclear and species identity, he said. Human cells would then be placed in the empty egg vessels, creating stem cell lines for research."

Yes, I can see the benefits of stem cell research in the terms of Genetic Sciences...Since the stem cells would need to be "harvested" long before any embryo could fully form (& gain sentience or intelligence), then there shouldn't be any such "Human Rights" issue involved at all. This is due to the fact that, by the time a human egg gets near the "embryo stage," the already-growing organ-cells continue to reproduce on their own & stem cells start shutting down.

Stem cells (before they "deactivate" themselves) could be further modified to literally grow new organs to replace malfunctioning organs: That's how versatile stem cells are...They can grow to become any biological organ, if the DNA is altered at the stem cell level (or earlier).

[edit on 3-7-2007 by MidnightDStroyer]



posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 01:01 AM
link   
Are you kidding me? No! We are not God, we should not play God, or anything of the sort! What does it mean to be human if you start making human-whatever hybrids? Get out of our genes, and leave the human race alone!



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join