Catholic Bishops say human-animal hybrids deserve rights
 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070627/...ain_embryos_dc

Hybrid animal-human embryos created for medical research should be viewed as human and permitted to develop into children, Roman Catholic bishops have urged the British parliament.

Scientists want to use the hybrid embryos -- known as "chimeras" after the mythical half-man, half-animal creatures -- to understand better and find cures for illnesses such as Parkinson's, Alzheimer's and cystic fibrosis.

Under draft legislation to be debated in the British parliament this year, the chimeras would have to be destroyed within 14 days and it would be against the law to implant them in a woman's womb.

But Catholic bishops of England and Wales want women to have the right to bear the chimeras, which would be more than 99 percent human, as their own children, they told a parliamentary committee examining the legislation on Tuesday.

In their submission to the committee, the bishops said:

"It should not be a crime to transfer them, or other human embryos, to the body of the woman providing the ovum, in cases where a human ovum has been used to create them."

"Such a woman is the genetic mother, or partial mother, of the embryo; should she have a change of heart and wish to carry her child to term, she should not be prevented from doing so."

Scientists, who have been pushing for approval of hybrid embryos because of a shortage of human eggs for research, said the bishops misunderstood the science.

"If we are using cow eggs, there is no woman involved," Dr Stephen Minger, stem cell researcher at Kings College in London, told Reuters on Wednesday.

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.

"Using non-human eggs is really just a pragmatic way of accelerating the pace of research," Minger said.

"And we think it is more ethically justified to use non-human eggs rather than ask women to donate for research that is still very much in its infancy."

Britain is a leading centre for stem cell research, attracting scientists with a permissive environment that allows embryo studies within strict guidelines. The government has appointed a committee of legislators to recommend the best way to allow hybrid embryo research.

The bishops said they opposed creating embryos purely for research, but wanted to minimize harm to such life once created.

Raph's Girl note: So...Catholics like mutants....good to know.

Whoa....this is pretty fascinating stuff! Thanks for posting it.

The embryos are 99% human eh. So is chimp DNA. So they have everything against admitting we are descended from monkeys, yet they have nothing against women giving birth to chimps.

That's my weird moment for the day.

That means that mutant turtles have rights like the rest of us they can go and find work and sign on

Yeah, because we all know mutant turtles are real. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't hire a turtle for a job. Even if they had rights, I'd use a workaround.

They are tho! Or rather were. They went extinct a long time ago. Remains so far have only been found in Australia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninjemys

So let me get this straight. Stem cell research is evil and bad and wrong but genetic manipulation is A-f*cking-OK? TMB makes a good point as well.

And no, freaks of nature should not be viewed as human because, I don't know, they're not? The real crime here would be to consider them as such.

How poigantly racist of you.

Hehe... that made me laugh. So true, so true. *nodding*

You know, if it had been ruled that it was okay to continue with this research the Catholics probably would've said, "No can do. That's an abomination towards man-kind."

And this really is awesome news. I didn't have a clue that research like this was being done. I took biotech in high school and I've decided to major withing that field cause DNA is cool. God, I'm a geek.

We are not descended from monkeys. They're on a different branch. :p

So far as I know, the catholic church neither supports nor denies the theory of evolution. It's under deliberation, and the vague POV is that evolution isn't inherently incompatible with the idea of God having created everything.

The Church is against any embryo creation and destruction, including chimera. That's why these people (who don't necessarily represent the Church) have arrived at the rather... interesting... conclusion that if you do create them, they have the right to live. They clearly don't understand the science or the consequences, because some traits are inherited from the ovum cell itself, not just from the DNA you inject in there.

But when I adopt my chimeric mouse-baby, I will name him Stewart.

The theory of "intelligent design" might come in handy here.

Along with the theory of "intelligent falling" maybe.

That theory actually isn't that popular with the Catholic church. Scientists in the church say intelligent design isn't scientific enough to be advocated in science class. Darwin's Origin of Species book is better. Not that Darwinism is right, wink-wink.

This is all totally entertaining to me.

Bite me. I didn't even mention race; this has nothing to do with race, do not try to spin it into a racial issue. If you think a genetic hybrid created solely for the purpose of experimentation should be viewed as equally valueable as a human being, you are a fool and you have no idea of the consequences of what you are saying.

Different races of people are all human beings with a different color icing on the top. People think racism is bad? Try species-ism. I'm not even going to try to imagine that on a global scale.

Ha, just because I view an oppertunity to expand on the original purpose and offer larger ideas and learning from these creatures, I'm a "fool"? I'm a "fool" for having an open and objective approach?

Yep, surpressing freedom of expression, you're a Yank alright.

Go back to firehosing in Philli you narrow-minded tool.

And that isn't prejudiced? :roll:

...

BTW, Darwin's theories have yet to be scientifically proven. And that is not an opinion, it's a fact. Theories have to be supported by actual evidence. :D

As far as mutant turtles, (now stating an opinion) I'd say it's plausible. Intelligent ones who understand ninjitsu taught by a giant, sentient rat, well, uhm... jury's out on that one.

:sleep:

Expand on the original purpose? Offer larger ideas? When exactly did this happen? Your post consisted solely of calling me a racist, a claim which you did not back up at all, by the way. Are you honestly pretending you added anything of value to this discussion?

My point is that once you start seeing artificially engineered genetic test subjects as human beings, you are effectively advocating human experimentation. These test subjects are the freaks of nature I was referring to, which in hindsight was a poor choice of words as they are not products of nature but of science. It has nothing to do with intolerance, and certainly not race. It's easy to bitch and moan that these things are alive and have rights, but consider how despicable it would be if this were true; because they are still nothing more than test subjects designed to be experimented upon. Their very purpose would be a tremendous violation of these rights.

And I'm Dutch, you moron. However, it is adorable that you'd call someone racist and narrow-minded and then proceed to condemn them based on their supposed nation of origin.

Now, I don't think you understood my original point and I believe I have made it clear enough now. I do not wish to quarrel on this with you any further, please do not attempt to continue this argument, at least not in such an antagonistic fashion.

Hang on, hang on... I don't think it's that the church is supporting the creation of such beings; nor do I think it goes into the evolution debate. They're merely saying that (not supporting HOW they came to be) these beings have rights.

That's all.

Mecha, do you think that 'freaks of nature' should have rights, if they're intelligent?


There's no evidence for Darwin's propositions? Honestly?

Population change through "survival of the fittest" occurs every day, in measurable ways. There are plenty of solid, documented cases. Evolution of bacterial 'superbugs' through the use of antibiotics is the easiest example.

I do. The extent of these rights would depend on the level of intelligence, of course (Just like a cat does not have the same rights as a human being). However, in this discussion I am referring to fetuses. I guess it boils down to the age-old question of what life is and when it begins, but that's neither here nor there.

If what's proposed in the article were to actually be carried out, I think what you'll get is a 100% human being, genetically, but with an uncomfortably high probability of birth defects. A clone, essentially, if I understand the procedure under debate.

That's not the only outcome possible, since there are other things you can do with those cells. Right now scientists are talking about guidelines so you don't get really frightening chimeras, like mice with human brains or something.

From what I understand the issue being discussed is whether or not these hybrid fetuses should have rights as if they were living human beings (For the sake of convenience, let's assume that they are not, at this point). You bring up an interesting point though. Would it be ethical to allow a fetus (Regardless of its genetic level of 'humanity') to fully develop when the risk of birth defect is extremely high?

Wow, this thread definately heated up since I was last here.

Anyhow, I agree with a number of you. Evolution has evidence to support it, but there isn't enough to make it more than a theory. These chimeras being given human rights even though their sole purpose was for scientific experimentation leaves me scratching my head. If these embryos were allowed to become living, breathing creatures... I'm just not sure where I stand on that. Even if the percentage of human DNA would be 99% it was still created by science and I can honestly see Catholics turning up their noses at something like that because, well, it wasn't created by nature and therefore an abomination.

And intelligence shouldn't be reason why a creature should or shouldn't have rights. What about people with special needs? Since their level of intelligence is lower than that of a "normal" human being should they not have rights, or at least less rights than that of "normal" people?

And I also agree that it's absurd that the Church is against stem cell research but it's okay to do this. That doesn't make sense to me.

Okay, this thread has turned into a religious debate, and threads such as that are specifically forbidden because they start fights, and one is brewing here. I'm pouring water on the kettle before it lights up in flames.