AmericanPapist Comments
Well, this sounds like one way to beg a terrible judgment upon ourselves.
As if all the Moloch sacrfices weren't enough.
I sometimes think that the great biblical flood that wiped out all life except for Noah and his family was brought upon because of evil and barbaric deeds such as this. It looks as if we humans are heading straight towards the same totally dark ages again with a hell-bent vengeance.
Anyone ever notice that even the secular humanists of 200 years ago had better moral compasses than this? Can't wait to re-see "The Island of Dr. Moreau." What's the point of doing this anyway-- just to see what nature does when we deconstruct it physically rather than with words? Soylent Green is People I tell you, ITS PEOPLE!!!!!
If they're not really human (99.9% human is the same as chimpanzees) what's the problem? Especially because they aren't being implanted in humans. If it was completely human DNA there would be more of a problem, I think.
It's not clear yet that the products of these procedures would not in fact be human. At any rate, scientists don't seem to be bothering themselves with those sorts of questions, and mixing human reproductive material with animal reproductive material is against human dignity and uniqueness.
p.s. Teep, I was sorely tempted to delete the end of your comment and replace it with something along the lines of "this information has been deemed unsuitable for public dissemination in accordance with section 263 (e) of the public health committee." ;)
I feel fairly certain that if this were left alone and allowed to develop [rather than being used as testing material] it would not be fully human.
It isn't the duty of scientists to worry about ethical problems, their job lies with testing the limits of knowledge. Ethics are best left to non-scientists. Scientists should be more concerned with the potential dangers of their experiments [making black holes, super diseases, explosions etc.] than the moral problems. It remains after all to the individual to determine their own actions; whether they choose to act morally or immorally.
I don't agree with that premise. If, as a scientist, I wanted to test how many pieces a live human being's skull will fracture into when I hit it with a bullet, you can bet I'm ethically bound to determine whether or not it's licit to perform that test which will result in the death of the patient.
Similarly, a scientist cannot simply combine genetic material in a petri dish if in fact he is bringing about and then ending human life. This follows because I do believe that a zygote with the epigentic properties of a human being is in fact a human being.
... and you can't kill innocent human beings, that's the final normative part of my argument. :)
That's what ethics boards in scientific and research communities are for. I do not believe the scientists themselves are duty bound by their profession to act ethically, as they seek physical, not moral truth; it's a social responsibility of the people backing the scientists and the scientists themselves to act ethically.
2 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
