Unbelieveable: Catholic Bishops Defend Human-animal Hybrids

[Budge]

[quote]Budge, you are both offensive and uneducated.

The embryos in question are h sapiens that have been modified post-fertilization (conception). It is no more licit to kill or otherwise persecute them than it would be to harm Ashanti Silva (first human to recieve gene therapy for a deficient immune reaction).

The Bishops are (wisely) not attempting to close the barn door after the Biotech horse is gone, but trying to head the "what is human" debate off at the pass. If modified h sapiens are not entitled to protection under the law, we're paving the way for the next Holocaust. The Abortion industry has nothing on what will happen if human-derived organisms are classified as simply experimental subjects.

Nephilim? Please. Dan Brown territory...


Everyone else: My degree is in Molecular Biology (well, my BS anyway. My MS is Mech Engineering). I'm not current on the State Of The Art, but much has occured in the last 5 years. Between the research into turning Adult Stem Cells into pluripotent pseudo-Embryonic Stem Cells (which will likely torpedo the use of "spare" embryos for SCs), artificial wombs, and gene therapy......the world is changing rapidly. It's incumbent upon us to educate ourselves and to be swayed neither by the scaremongering nor the utilitarian arguments.
This is a largely positive branch of Science and Technology, but it's also largely market driven.[/quote]

If this is where education takes you, maybe less is better! It sounds like you have been personally involved with these things. It is itneresting to me that you go on about scare-mongering rather then having the ethics to ask if this stuff should even be done?

Anyhow let me rephrase things, since I have never been a molecular biologist, I am sure you were quite gleeful to jump upon the lay persons error, regarding the mix and match.

Sorry but this doesnt make things "better":" Thus, the human embryos will be the substrate that non-human genes or tissues are implanted onto."

When a embroyo is "modified"with animal DNA added then that is when the "death" of the human being occurs

Even I know "gene therapy" ius something far different, then this chimera stuff.

One thing VERY NOTICEABLE about your thread, is the use of the phrase 'h sapies"

I suppose you could not use the WORD HOMO SAPIENS. {after all human animal hbrids} are anything but homogenious.

Can you explain why you wrote it that way. Homo is not that long of a word requiring an abbrievation.

By the way how many Catholics here would want a hybrid as a son-in law?

[MichaelF]

[quote name='Budge' post='1304051' date='Jun 28 2007, 05:25 AM']If this is where education takes you, maybe less is better! It sounds like you have been personally involved with these things. It is itneresting to me that you go on about scare-mongering rather then having the ethics to ask if this stuff should even be done?

Anyhow let me rephrase things, since I have never been a molecular biologist, I am sure you were quite gleeful to jump upon the lay persons error, regarding the mix and match.

Sorry but this doesnt make things "better":" Thus, the human embryos will be the substrate that non-human genes or tissues are implanted onto."

When a embroyo is "modified"with animal DNA added then that is when the "death" of the human being occurs

Even I know "gene therapy" ius something far different, then this chimera stuff.

One thing VERY NOTICEABLE about your thread, is the use of the phrase 'h sapies"

I suppose you could not use the WORD HOMO SAPIENS. {after all human animal hbrids} are anything but homogenious.

Can you explain why you wrote it that way. Homo is not that long of a word requiring an abbrievation.[/quote]


I'm currently an Officer in the US Army (Infantry), and as I stated previously, my MS is Mechanical Engineering (the Army paid for it). My Undergraduate research time (required for my BS in Moly Bio) was spent as part (lab assistany/dish monkey)of a team studying gene therapy protocols, specifically the generation of EPO (Erythropoietin) in non-native tissues (it's normally synthesized only in the Kidney).

There is no such thing as "animal DNA" in this equation. Full DNA molecules would be impossible to fuse or graft, so only specific genes are used. Genes don't have an identity (you share ~99.8% with [i]p troglodytes[/i], and 90% with every other mammal on the planet).

So, yes, in that specific case, it is [b]exactly[/b] gene therapy.

In the case of intact-tissue grafting, the [i]h sapiens[/i] genetic structure is not affected in any way (and it's unlikely to work, anyway, due to immuno-rxn). People with xenotransplants (artificial or animal organs) are not inhuman in any way. Same order of operation.

Since the embryo has already begun to differentiate at the time of intervention, it is a human being. It will be so until it is dead. Your arguments are similar in premise to that of the Abortionists.

[i]h sapiens[/i] (note the use of lower case) is a standard abbreviation used in biological discussion when the species is already defined. This would be part of the education you lack. Most Universities require at least Integrated Principles of Biology for non-Science Majors. had you taken that (very basic) course, you would likely know what you were talking about. Whoops.

[quote]By the way how many Catholics here would want a hybrid as a son-in law?[/quote]

Remove "hybrid" from that statement, insert "black", and you'll see why people do not find you a good debater. Appealing to bigotry is the last resort of someone who knows they are full of it.

Edited June 28, 2007 by MichaelF

[Winchester]

Certainly posting on an internet message board is REAL action. Unlike the Bishops, who merely made a public statement.

[jckinsman]

Hello MichaelF,
Can you tell me why budge would care if you used the word homo or not? I do not carry a degree in what you do,so why is that important?

..........And by the way,I do not care whatever son-in-law I get,as long as he serves the Lord first and truly loves my daughter and is very pro-life!.................Nuns don't marry though!

Edited June 28, 2007 by jckinsman

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Budge' post='1304051' date='Jun 28 2007, 06:25 AM']When a embroyo is "modified"with animal DNA added then that is when the "death" of the human being occurs[/quote]

What are your qualifications to make this statement? A biology degree, theology or philosophy degree maybe?

Any qualification, other than your own opinion?

[Budge]

[quote name='MichaelF' post='1304108' date='Jun 28 2007, 08:18 AM']I'm currently an Officer in the US Army (Infantry), and as I stated previously, my MS is Mechanical Engineering (the Army paid for it). My Undergraduate research time (required for my BS in Moly Bio) was spent as part (lab assistany/dish monkey)of a team studying gene therapy protocols, specifically the generation of EPO (Erythropoietin) in non-native tissues (it's normally synthesized only in the Kidney).

There is no such thing as "animal DNA" in this equation. Full DNA molecules would be impossible to fuse or graft, so only specific genes are used. Genes don't have an identity (you share ~99.8% with [i]p troglodytes[/i], and 90% with every other mammal on the planet).

So, yes, in that specific case, it is [b]exactly[/b] gene therapy.

In the case of intact-tissue grafting, the [i]h sapiens[/i] genetic structure is not affected in any way (and it's unlikely to work, anyway, due to immuno-rxn). People with xenotransplants (artificial or animal organs) are not inhuman in any way. Same order of operation.

Since the embryo has already begun to differentiate at the time of intervention, it is a human being. It will be so until it is dead. Your arguments are similar in premise to that of the Abortionists.

[i]h sapiens[/i] (note the use of lower case) is a standard abbreviation used in biological discussion when the species is already defined. This would be part of the education you lack. Most Universities require at least Integrated Principles of Biology for non-Science Majors. had you taken that (very basic) course, you would likely know what you were talking about. Whoops.
Remove "hybrid" from that statement, insert "black", and you'll see why people do not find you a good debater. Appealing to bigotry is the last resort of someone who knows they are full of it.[/quote]


You dont have a reason to be so rude. You sure seem pretty proud of yourself and smug as well.

So I made an error about how the genes are transferred in...no mix and match just animal DNA added to a fully human embryo. {I believe when that it is done the human embryo "dies", there now we got the distinction down}

Guess what dude, that doesnt make things "better"....

What you havenst said, is telling to, you SUPPORT THIS GARBAGE obviously. You didnt say one thing about this being wrong.

Reading your post, you just seem to be one more godless scientist full of way too much ego and arrogance. Im not impressed with your "education" because very few ethics, or compassion seemed to go along with it. I know on this board all these folks bow down before every doctorate wannabe and intellectual but the BIble says different.

1Cr 1:20 Where [is] the wise? where [is] the scribe? where [is] the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

the comments about black people {all races are homo sapiens} was just dumb, how do you know what race I am? {ive never said}

[Budge]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1304393' date='Jun 28 2007, 01:13 PM']What are your qualifications to make this statement? A biology degree, theology or philosophy degree maybe?

Any qualification, other than your own opinion?[/quote]

Cmother I know your religion has taught you to take the "experts" opinion for everything.

I think the experts are wrong a lot of the time and what is taught in universities half of it is nonsense.

When I was UU, I was fully immersed in the world of wealthy liberal academics, some a long the science route.

Im NOT impressed.

Edited June 28, 2007 by Budge

[Budge]

[quote]Since the embryo has already begun to differentiate at the time of intervention, it is a human being. It will be so until it is dead. Your arguments are similar in premise to that of the Abortionists.[/quote]

Bull.

You cant add animal DNA to a human embryo and still claim it is a human.

[quote]. People with xenotransplants (artificial or animal organs) are not inhuman in any way.[/quote]

That example is a strawman, with the embryos we are talking about the building blocks of the person, if aniumal DNA are added to a human embryo, every cell will contain animal DNA.

Edited June 28, 2007 by Budge

[Budge]

[quote name='jckinsman' post='1304202' date='Jun 28 2007, 11:01 AM']Hello MichaelF,
Can you tell me why budge would care if you used the word homo or not? I do not carry a degree in what you do,so why is that important?

..........And by the way,I do not care whatever son-in-law I get,as long as he serves the Lord first and truly loves my daughter and is very pro-life!.................Nuns don't marry though! [/quote]


So youd be ok with a half animal and human son-in-law. Beastiality is against the Bible you know...Sheesh


[i]{sheesh what is wrong with you folks, ok its spiritual blindness that it is only thing to explain it}[/i]

enesis 1
21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly,[b] after their kind[/b], and every winged fowl [b]after his kind[/b]: and God saw that it was good.

24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature [b]after his kind[/b], cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth [b]after his kind:[/b] and it was so.
25 And God made the beast of the earth [b]after his kind[/b], and cattle [b]after their kind[/b], and every thing that creepeth upon the earth [b]after his kind[/b]: and God saw that it was good.





On to the flood.



Genesis 6:20 Of fowls [b]after their kind[/b], and of [b]cattle after their kind[/b], of every creeping thing of the earth a[b]fter his kind,[/b] two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.


Genesis 7:14 They, and every beast [b]after his kind[/b], and all the cattle [b]after their kind[/b], and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth [b]after his kind[/b], and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort.



God didn’t let anything on that ark except what was after it’s kind.

[rollingcatholic]

[quote name='Budge' post='1304407' date='Jun 28 2007, 02:36 PM']You dont have a reason to be so rude. You sure seem pretty proud of yourself and smug as well.[/quote]

Pot calling the kettle...

[Budge]

With this issue I know I am definitely wasting my time, someone has to believe in the bible literally to understand why this is a great evil and why it is unacceptable.

I suppose part of me had hoped thered be a few here with some God-given conscience to realize that chimeras are unacceptable instead of being more brainwashed by PC society and the mushy-headedness of leaders who do not believe in Gods Word.

ONe person here said to me..
[quote]And don't fall for a strict literal interpretation of Genesis Protestant.[/quote]

and really meant ONLY A FOOL would believe God's Word meant what it said: WE KNOW BETTER.

Right there is the crux of the problem.

So when some science guy shows up, being rude and who by his post definitely shows no inkling that he is against this sort of thing, what side do you folks take?

You accept godless unethical "science" over Gods Word, full stop.

Edited June 28, 2007 by Budge

[MichaelF]

[quote name='Budge' post='1304407' date='Jun 28 2007, 02:36 PM']So I made an error about how the genes are transferred in...no mix and match just animal DNA added to a fully human embryo. {I believe when that it is done the human embryo "dies", there now we got the distinction down}

[b]Your "error" was the base of your argument.[/b]



What you havenst said, is telling to, you SUPPORT THIS GARBAGE obviously. You didnt say one thing about this being wrong.

[b]I fully support the advancement of Biotechnology. I (like the Bishops) do not support experimentation on those who cannot provide Informed Consent.[/b]


the comments about black people {all races are homo sapiens} was just dumb, how do you know what race I am? {ive never said}

[b]You used a classical appeal to bigotry as a template for your conclusion statement. I merely pointed that out.[/b][/quote]

[MichaelF]

[quote name='Budge' post='1304409' date='Jun 28 2007, 02:40 PM']Bull.

You cant add animal DNA to a human embryo and still claim it is a human.
That example is a strawman, with the embryos we are talking about the building blocks of the person, if aniumal DNA are added to a human embryo, every cell will contain animal DNA.[/quote]

[b]DNA[/b], being the intact molecule containing the genetic information of an organism, is not being transplanted in this case.

Individual genes (no such thing as a "cat gene", in the same way there is no such thing as a
"house brick"), or gene clusters, are being inserted.

To become a different species, the capability to interbreed with the baseline [i]h sapiens[/i] population would have to be disrupted. Short of changing the number and/or gross structure of the Chromosomes themselves, this is not going to happen.

To conclude, the result of these (ill-advised, IMO) experiments will be no different than those of standard (if ambitious) gene therapy protocols.

[Budge]

[quote]So I made an error about how the genes are transferred in...no mix and match just animal DNA added to a fully human embryo. {I believe when that it is done the human embryo "dies", there now we got the distinction down}

Your "error" was the base of your argument.[/quote]

NO it was not.

The only error I made was thinking some human DNA was TAKEN AWAY for the animal DNA to be added. THATS IT. In fact you think this is BETTER, to add ANIMAL DNA to fully human DNA. Its just as SICK DUDE.
[quote]I fully support the advancement of Biotechnology. I (like the Bishops) do not support experimentation on those who cannot provide Informed Consent.[/quote]

I dont, and I have conditions they supposely says it will cure. I dont want these experiments done. They are EVIL. The price is too high.

Informed Consent as defined by WHO? Now thats a freaking joke. I dont think you want me to talk about how people have suffered at the hands of even "informed" medical experimentation, so called volunteers.

[quote]the comments about black people {all races are homo sapiens} was just dumb, how do you know what race I am? {ive never said}

You used a classical appeal to bigotry as a template for your conclusion statement. I merely pointed that out.[/quote]

Youre the one who brought the race card into an argument that had NOTHING to do with it. a Classic liberal debate technique

Go join PETA or something, and add CHIMERAS to their animals equal humans clauses.

You might as well.

Edited June 28, 2007 by Budge

[Budge]

[quote]DNA, being the intact molecule containing the genetic information of an organism, is not being transplanted in this case.[/quote]

Dont change the subject, the subject of this thread is animal-human hybrids.
[quote]Individual genes (no such thing as a "cat gene", in the same way there is no such thing as a
"house brick"), or gene clusters, are being inserted.[/quote]

BULL.

If the genes come from an animal source they are not human.

are you going to give me the chimps are 98% human excuse?

[quote]To become a different species, the capability to interbreed with the baseline h sapiens population would have to be disrupted. Short of changing the number and/or gross structure of the Chromosomes themselves, this is not going to happen.[/quote]

How do you know it wont happen.

Britain in the law these Bishops were dealing with felt the need to OUTLAW the embryos being implanted in human mothers.

If thats not going to happen whyd they make arrangements for its POSSIBLITY?

[MichaelF]

[quote name='jckinsman' post='1304202' date='Jun 28 2007, 12:01 PM']Hello MichaelF,
Can you tell me why budge would care if you used the word homo or not? I do not carry a degree in what you do,so why is that important?[/quote]

It's not important, merely the shorthand used in biological/zoological discussions. If you have already established that you are discussing the higher hominids, you do not need to restate the Genus (Homo, "man"). Especially since the only other modern [i]homo[/i] species ([i]h sapiens idaltu[/i]) is extinct.

Budge, desperate for a rhetorical weapon, tried to portray my comment as a denial of the dignity of Man. Incorrectly.

Edited June 28, 2007 by MichaelF

[MichaelF]

[quote name='Budge' post='1304449' date='Jun 28 2007, 03:28 PM']Dont change the subject, the subject of this thread is animal-human hybrids.
BULL.

If the genes come from an animal source they are not human.[/quote]

So red-headed people are inhuman? They carry the 1MCR gene which is responsible for that pigment in all mammals.

[Kirisutodo333]

[quote name='Budge' post='1304438' date='Jun 28 2007, 04:17 PM']With this issue I know I am definitely wasting my time, someone has to believe in the bible literally to understand why this is a great evil and why it is unacceptable.

I suppose part of me had hoped thered be a few here with some God-given conscience to realize that chimeras are unacceptable instead of being more brainwashed by PC society and the mushy-headedness of leaders who do not believe in Gods Word.

ONe person here said to me..
and really meant ONLY A FOOL would believe God's Word meant what it said: WE KNOW BETTER.

Right there is the crux of the problem.

So when some science guy shows up, being rude and who by his post definitely shows no inkling that he is against this sort of thing, what side do you folks take?

You accept godless unethical "science" over Gods Word, full stop.[/quote]

[quote]With this issue I know I am definitely wasting my time, someone has to believe in the bible literally to understand why this is a great evil and why it is unacceptable.[/quote]

By believing in the Bible literally, you're wasting our time and what is infinitely more important, God's time.

[quote]I suppose part of me had hoped thered be a few here with some God-given conscience to realize that chimeras are unacceptable instead of being more brainwashed by PC society and the mushy-headedness of leaders who do not believe in Gods Word.[/quote]

Budge, you need to do a lot of hoping for a lot of things.
[quote]ONe person here said to me..[/quote]

That was me...much appreciated.

[quote]and really meant ONLY A FOOL would believe God's Word meant what it said: WE KNOW BETTER.[/quote]

You are correct. Only a fool would believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible, and more interestingly, only a fool would believe in Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide. To understand the Bible, you must completely understand the World of the Text, the World in the Text and the World in front of the Text. You must identify and understand the literary devices that the writers used to get their message across. And you do not. And that is why you fail.

[quote]So when some science guy shows up, being rude and who by his post definitely shows no inkling that he is against this sort of thing, what side do you folks take?[/quote]

We take the side of the educated person, of that one that lives by [i]fides quaerens intellectum[/i] and [i]fides quaerens veritas[/i].

[quote]You accept godless unethical "science" over Gods Word, full stop.[/quote]

Budge, you are showing your ignorance. True science explains God's creation, it warrants a Creator. People like you destroy the amicable relationship between science and religion. We must work together to understand the infinite mind of God. But to you, God is finite, because he only lives in your personal interpretation of the Bible.

[jeffpugh]

I am personally insulted by Budge's lack of charity and acknowledgment of scientific studies... get her off of here...

[quote name='Kirisutodo333' post='1304492' date='Jun 28 2007, 05:59 PM']By believing in the Bible literally, you're wasting our time and what is infinitely more important, God's time.
Budge, you need to do a lot of hoping for a lot of things.
That was me...much appreciated.
You are correct. Only a fool would believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible, and more interestingly, only a fool would believe in Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide.[b] To understand the Bible, you must completely understand the World of the Text, the World in the Text and the World in front of the Text. You must identify and understand the literary devices that the writers used to get their message across.[/b] And you do not. And that is why you fail.
We take the side of the educated person, of that one that lives by [i]fides quaerens intellectum[/i] and [i]fides quaerens veritas[/i].
Budge, you are showing your ignorance. True science explains God's creation, it warrants a Creator. People like you destroy the amicable relationship between science and religion. We must work together to understand the infinite mind of God. But to you, God is finite, because he only lives in your personal interpretation of the Bible.[/quote]

Very eloquent, Kirisutodo333. Especially the part I bolded.

[Kirisutodo333]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' post='1304614' date='Jun 28 2007, 06:47 PM']I am personally insulted by Budge's lack of charity and acknowledgment of scientific studies... get her off of here...
Very eloquent, Kirisutodo333. Especially the part I bolded.[/quote]

Thanks for the kind words sir!

My Theology professor taught me the importance of the "Three Worlds." He explains it in detail in his book [i]Reading the Bible: A Study Guide[/i] by Dr. Timothy R. Carmody. I recommend it to everyone.

paz

Kiris