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.

 

Spliced Human-Animal Hybrids Banned by Ohio, now US Considers

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 12:55 PM
link   
It appears prohibition continues based on refer madness and sci-fi thrills. Haven't we learned yet that more crime is committed by prohibitions enacted then without them... not yet.

Ohio Senate passes bill banning human-animal hybrids




The sci-fi movie Splice seems to have scared the Ohio’s State Senator Steve Buehrer.

The Ohio Senate has passed Sen. Buehrer’s bill banning human cloning and the use of human-animal hybrids.

Senate Bill 243 prohibits “the creation, transportation, or receipt of a human-animal hybrid, the transfer of a nonhuman embryo into a human womb, and the transfer of a human embryo into a nonhuman womb.”

Violators could face up to five years in prison and $250,000 in fines.


Source

Now the U.S. Senate has a similar bill based on "forward-looking" text of "could", "maybe", "might", type language that isn't based on anything determinate.

Human-Animal Hybrid Prohibition Act




Congress finds that--

(1) advances in research and technology have made possible the creation of human-animal hybrids;

(2) human-animal hybrids are grossly unethical because they blur the line between human and animal, male and female, parent and child, and one individual and another individual;

(3) human dignity and the integrity of the human species are compromised by human-animal hybrids;

(4) the uniqueness of individual human beings is manifested in a particular way through their brain and their reproductive organs/cells; and

(5) with an increase in emerging zoonotic infection threatening the global public health, human-animal hybrids present a particularly optimal means of genetic transfers that could increase the efficiency or virulence of diseases threatening both humans and animals.


Source


Zoonotic infection???

This whole issue I think goes even quite deeper when I looked at the comment on the article "submitted by guest":


I am glad there are good Christian senators like Sen. Buehrer who understand that basic human values cannot be violated for the sake of science.


What if the creator spliced an animal gene in some fashion in order to create humans? What is this question usually avoided and ignored? How do they know that humans never had any zoonotic infection from the Creator?

Is it possible the Creator did this to evolve? Possible, yet let's get back to here and now.

Does this mean that no one else can act like the Creator because they prohibit such progenitor technocracy? Medical conspiracy or Origin conspiracy/cover-up?

There are other countries that have already approved the hybridization of the cells for medical reasons. This bill may prevent this method to save your life.

[edit on 3-6-2010 by dzonatas]




posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 01:13 PM
link   
I'm tired of frightened people who do not understand science at all getting in the way of scientific advancements due to sci-fi movies they have watched. Bleh.



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 01:16 PM
link   
I saw another article today that said eating lithium ion battery's is dangerous and a warning would be put on them.
Now this...
Don't we have more important things to worry about?



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 01:31 PM
link   
What???

Look, if you think this issue is religious you are out of your mind!

I am not religious, but I am also against this big time.

The people are going to take a rifle to any human-animal hybrid that's created. They will shotgun your chimera down.

These creatures you want to create could be more fit than humans, and could easily destroy us.

This is pure foolishness. Just like trying to create a full blown AI and then give it robot arms with rocket launchers and machine guns; its DUMB!

Trust me it's for your own good. You must be stopped before you open pandora's box and trigger a biotic crisis or a extinction-level event.

You have no right to unleash death upon me due to ignorance. That is why the citizenry has a right to stop you before you do it.

You have no right to create frankenstein monsters, NONE! But we the people do have a right to stop you.

Cry me a river. Call us unscientific.

But in reality we are RATIONAL. We can foresee potential hazards ahead of time, unlike these short-sighted geneticists.

And saying "Oh you just watch too many movies" that is so BS.

Argue the REAL POINTS. Why is human-animal hybridization ok???

Back it up! Why should Homo Sapians not have any fear of the new human-like species that you want to create???

Transhumanists can never back up their junk. It's funny.
They just hate humanity so much they will do anything to kill us all off. That's what it boils down to IMHO.



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 01:32 PM
link   
It seems the legislature, both in Ohio and the nation at large, is suffering from a profound lack of understanding when it comes to genetics. No one is proposing putting any sort of "non-human" embryo into a human womb, nor vice-versa. Additionally, "human-animal" hybrids are created on a daily basis in labs, and are a vital tool for researching human genetic diseases. We can insert human genes into a mouse/rat/whichever genome, and it will express that gene to some extent, allowing us to create models for autism, Parkinson's, and many other fairly rare conditions.

Once again, fear and misunderstanding will attempt to slow the advance of science. And, once again, science will shrug it's shoulders and go about it's business. It's not like these politicians stay informed, anyways. They won't even know if we violate this silly law.



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 01:39 PM
link   
It is plain and simple. Clueless politicians trying to legislate science and medicine again.
If people didn't push the envelope we would still be stuck in the middle ages thinking the world was flat.

We need to keep politics and religion out of science. Science is for advanced minds, not mindless scare tactics as practiced by the other above groups I mentioned.



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 01:40 PM
link   
Hmm, very interesting. A fine of $250,000? That amount is nothing at all for the sort of corporations that could potentially be trying to do this, that's hardly a deterrent at all.

I'm not sure how I feel about this, I generally don't think it's a good idea but the future of it will no doubt hinge upon its usefulness.

A question to those who would be for this kind of research:

If you were to create a mermaid - which way round would you do it? Fish head or fish tail?
...and why?



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 01:45 PM
link   
One thing to note, to the above comments, to consider, is how animals have survived in aftermath of Chernobyl despite the mutations that humans experienced. Does this mean there is some kind of radiation resistance to animals that research to continue hybridization may help prevent undesired mutations in humans?

This law may prevent such cure.

There was another thread here that featured this video:




posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
Look, if you think this issue is religious you are out of your mind!


Someday it may happen, and then people will cry for their freedom to exist and their bill of rights.

We can't ignore the religious aspects in medical issues like this.

Thoery of Evolution teaches we evolved from monkeys, so isn't this now a form of hybridization today to exist as humans? What if the prohibition bill only hides any notion of evolution from monkeys, and makes it against the law to teach such subjects. This law is just a start.

If you believe you came from monkeys, this law makes you illegal.


We can foresee potential hazards ahead of time, unlike these short-sighted geneticists.


We can foresee the potential hazards of ignorance. Is this bill really only about medical issues?



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 01:59 PM
link   
Could we maybe agree to disagree and perhaps think of Religion coming/paralleling with Ethics? Scientific Ethics?

It'd be a shame to bog down a topic this interesting in an atheist/theist pissing contest.

Edit: Typo

[edit on 3/6/1010 by jokei]



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by dzonatas
 


Evolution doesn't teach that we "evolved from monkeys" as some sort of hybrid. It explains that there was a common ancestor that we share with modern apes as a result of divergent evolution, not hybridization.



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by jokei
Hmm, very interesting. A fine of $250,000? That amount is nothing at all for the sort of corporations that could potentially be trying to do this, that's hardly a deterrent at all.


That's exactly what I thought when I read this. Oh, another prohibition... another new mafia trade on the black-market. All it does is say hide it from public view if it happens.

It's no different from drugs now that have been prohibited. Where do the cartels flock for their business... prohibited substances and trades.

Does this push legalization of anything that Israel did to snatch body parts from war victims?

[edit on 3-6-2010 by dzonatas]



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
It explains that there was a common ancestor that we share with modern apes as a result of divergent evolution, not hybridization.


People still argue how that act happened. If somebody intended such action to "splice" together two ancestries, then it all gets put under progenitor technocracy rather it be religion or evolution.

If we are to avoid the atheist/theist debate, then the progenitor technocracy angle is the one I suggest.

Hybrid really becomes a buzzword to the issue, but you can expect it to mean "dissimilar parents" in this context. How do we really know if the origins are similar or not?

If they really are similar, then another splice made today is no different to an act made yesterday.



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Phlynx
 


Seconded

The more people get sucked into the belief that something presented by Hollywood is "fact" the sicker I get hearing about their reactions.

Next they will be banning quiddich because Harry Potter broke his arm playing it !


Actually in all seriousness the advances in animal / human by products is amazing and offers so real medical advances. I imagine these people are against stem cell research offering cures to huge diseases like childhood leukaemia - well hybrid research offers alternatives.

Their tune would soon change if they had an offspring afflicted or their own health could be improved.



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by dzonatas


People still argue how that act happened.


The only people who argue about how we evolved from a common ancestor are those who don't understand evolution.



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Silk
Their tune would soon change if they had an offspring afflicted or their own health could be improved.


Let's say a particular species is on the brink of extinction and one way for it's possible survival is create a hybrid. Is it worth to let the species completely die off, or is it worth a splice in order to save the future of that species.

If we want to apply sci-fi, we can even say it might save the past of that species. There have been movies of how to travel in the past to help prevent the destruction of the species. Then further work could be done to undo the hybridization once the species is saved from extinction. This are just possibilities if we deny ignorance.



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by jokei
A question to those who would be for this kind of research:

If you were to create a mermaid - which way round would you do it? Fish head or fish tail?
...and why?


I want to splice on the wings of Tink:




posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by dzonatas

Originally posted by Silk
Their tune would soon change if they had an offspring afflicted or their own health could be improved.


Let's say a particular species is on the brink of extinction and one way for it's possible survival is create a hybrid. Is it worth to let the species completely die off, or is it worth a splice in order to save the future of that species.

If we want to apply sci-fi, we can even say it might save the past of that species. There have been movies of how to travel in the past to help prevent the destruction of the species. Then further work could be done to undo the hybridization once the species is saved from extinction. This are just possibilities if we deny ignorance.


You don't even have to go back in time to save a species from extinction. If you can get a sample of an animal, you can take the DNA and clone it. If the DNA is damaged you can find a closely related species, and insert the DNA that is needed into the animal you are planning on cloning.

The same thing applies to the dying off species.



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phlynx
If the DNA is damaged you can find a closely related species, and insert the DNA that is needed into the animal you are planning on cloning.


What is the difference to do that with any particular species?

This means they literally banned being able to do it with humans.

I still wonder what if someone doesn't want to be human any more and wants to try to splice animals on them just to give themselves as different life.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 01:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by webpirate
I saw another article today that said eating lithium ion battery's is dangerous and a warning would be put on them.
Now this...
Don't we have more important things to worry about?


Anyone who is stupid enough to eat a battery is better off eating the battery imo. Puting a lable on it doesnt help children or others that cant read. But yes I agree we do have more important things to worry about.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join