Human-Animal Embryos Created in Britain
Wednesday, April 2, 2008 at 12:13PM Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton use the term “Bush’s war on science” to paint the President as an uneducated, religious ultra-fundamentalist who’d rather pray for healing rather see a doctor. The war on science actually refers to embryonic stem cell research and Bush’s insistence that the pro-life position cannot support the destruction of a human embryo.
In reality, the so-called war on science is a war on the unborn. Militant abortionists like Obama and Clinton want research using human embryos to continue because they have no respect for the unborn, nor do they care about the ethical and moral implications.
In November 2007, a scientific breakthrough backed up Bush’s assertion that that there is no need nor benefit to using human embryos, or embryonic stem cell research. In fact, there have never been any benefits to patients treated with embryonic stem cells.
The journey down the road of medicinal ethics, if resorting to the use of the unborn for scientific purposes, can potentially lead to concoctions such as mixing human and animal embryos. In fact, it has already been done.
Now, we learn that a team at Newcastle University has successfully generated “admixed embryos” by adding human DNA to empty cow eggs in the first experiment of its kind in Britain. Essentially, researchers created human-animal embryos.
The implication, if not the morality, is stunning. Cardinal Keith O’Brien, the head of the Catholic Church in Scotland, described the work last month as “experiments of Frankenstein proportion.”
Where does it end? At what point doesn’t human embryo experimentation resemble Hitler’s eugenics practices?
PREVIOUSLY:
Science Backs Bush on Embryonic Stem Cell Research
Trackback URL:
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/1732966
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (32)
I always get a bad feeling when I read things like this. Just because something can be done, doesn't mean it should be done.
Crossing humans with animals is, as the cardinal said, "Frankensteinish".
cockroach + human = ?
The "unborn?" Is that like the "undead?"
If they "created" embryos, then they didn't destroy one.
As usual, Amy, you logic and ability to discern junk science from actual science in in evidence.
The article reads:
A human-animal embryo is produced, mudkitty. Then it dies.
And "unborn" means "not yet born". Death is finality, which is why your use of the word doesn't work. "Unborn" is life waiting to exist outside the womb.
We're talking about a few-days-old embryo, a handful of uniform unspecialised cells, so no brain, no nervous system. My point being that such a being is clearly incapable of supporting any kind of thought or consciousness, or having any will or exhibiting any voluntary behavior, or feeling any sensation such as pain. Any objections arise from religious convictions about souls etc.
Religious convictions are fine, but should they constrain me, an atheist? Should any of my convictions constrain you, a catholic? Our societies are home to people with various beliefs. How best to accommodate and protect us all is a difficult question. What principle should a government follow to be fair to everyone? Should any religion be given special legal privilege?
They took the nucleus from a cell, not an embryo...they created the embryo's, rather than killing it.
And something that's never born doesn't die. Pregnancies end, but a baby has to be born in order to be a life.
Don't forget, in order for there to be birth, there has to be a pregnancy. You leave the woman out of the equation.
So... babies aren't ALIVE in the womb.
The woman was in the equation when she had sex. That was her choice.
we're talking about in vitro embryos that never even get implanted, there is no womb involved. This is not just unborn, but ungestated.
Jez, that's not the point. Human beings have been created from test tubes (like the test tube baby of the 1980's... can't remmber her name off hand). Human life isn't always contingent on a womb.
Is a soul in every human cell nucleus? When and where do new souls come into being?
Why would god place a soul in a human dna + animal egg anyway?
Actually, test tube babies need to be born -- guess what...by pregnant women. And the so-called test tube baby is now a woman's named Louise.
This is not a matter of a woman choosing to have sex or not. Obviously.
*****
And no, baby's aren't alive in the womb. A fetus grows in the womb, but until birth, it's part of the woman's body. It's very simple. Didn't any body here ever take a sex ed or a health class? Surely you weren't all home schooled, although that would explain a lot.
The Bible itself says that a human being is only alive upon the first breath - as in inspire, and respire...in spire, meaning "in spirit." Don't believe me, look it up. I dare you...look up first breath in the Bible. Look up all the references to pregnancy in the Bible.
In other parts of the bible, the fetus is nothing more than the property of the future father.
A baby isn't alive in the womb? um then how does it grow in utero if it isn't alive?!? Actually the bible also says in the new testament that when Elizabeth saw Mary her baby leaped for joy in her womb - doesn't that say something? I'm with you Amy P - this news story is simply disgusting and despicable, how low can the human race go?
If a heartbeat doesn't mean life than I don't know what does. How do we normally check to see if someone is still alive? We check his pulse.
It grows as part of the woman.
But if it grows doesn't that it's alive, like a tree or an animal?
A baby grows with the help of the woman but is a completely separate entity. It has its own DNA, heart, nervous system, own blood type... the woman's function is to provide a healthy and safe place for the baby to grow and develop.
Amy, you're 100% right. If it grows, which the embryo does from conception, than it is alive. And of course it is human.
The post has nothing to do with babies. Where did we get off the point?
DNA from a human cell is, in itself, a separate human?
No it is not a completely separate entity. That's nutty. A pregnancy is required for birth. That's hardly separate. And Amy, my hair grows too. I don't consider my hair to be a live separate entity.
Actually, your DNA is half from your bio mother, and half from your bio father. That's how science is able to trace DNA back to the time of the Egyptians. So no, you're DNA is not all that unique, in fact, it's not unique at all. That is a anti-abortion/creationist myth.
It's like a jet and a refueler plane... just because the refueler flies like the other jet and attaches it to the jet to give it fuel which it needs to continue to fly doesn't mean the refueler becomes the other jet.
Uh, how romantic. What a poetic way of putting it. And even then, I disagree. I'm not even sure what you mean by "it."
lmao these comments are cracking me up, half the dna from each of your parents is a myth? wow! So why do I look like both my father and my mother?
If you want to step away from the silly stuff, I'd love to hear your responses to the comments you choose to ignore.
grumpy, this post has to do with human embryos whether created by man or God.
The embryo in this case is formed by the dna from a human cell being placed in the egg of another animal.
I assume, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that your church claims that souls are specially created in humans, and that this soul is what makes them human, correct? At what point is that soul created? When does God inject it?
Amy - I said that half your DNA is from your mother and half from your father. That's why our DNA is not unique. I think you must have misread.
Old Fart - according to the bible, the Judeo/Christian god interjects the soul into the body upon the first breath. They knew that the lungs were the last organs to develop. That is why you don't see many Jews participating in anti-abortion activities. Abortion is legal under the bible.
Also, these are some of the earliest terms and references for inspire, and respire...to breathe.
"It has its own DNA, heart, nervous system, own blood type"
Not an embryo of this age, it's cells have not yet begun to specialise, so it has no heart, no nervous system, and no blood.
"If it grows, which the embryo does from conception, than it is alive. And of course it is human."
The relationship between growth and life can be quibbled with (eg. snowflakes grow and are not living), but ok. However I'd say a sperm and an unfertilized ovum are just as much alive too (of course they are human). What protection should those entities be afforded?
I'm not being awkward, sperm are clearly "alive" -- they don't grow, but they move about and have DNA and react to their environment. Actually, they're far more lively than a week-old embryo.
Bringing a hybrid animal-human to term (or any human cloning) would be dreadfully irresponsible, since the majority of cloning experiments on sheep etc. end in failure (failure in a human case would be horrific).
But no entity suffers when a week-old embryo is not carried further, so I really don't know how legislation can be justified.
This is all scientifically illiterate talk.
The 0.1% non-human DNA is in the mitochondria, which only the egg cytoplasm can pass on (no room at the sperm inn). The mDNA is responsible for basic sugar-->energy cell activities.
Chimerical (mixed species) embryos are indeed possible, but this isn't one.
Brian: My objection to part-human hybrids is the same as my objection to cloning. The hybrid idea is an interesting thought experiment for those who believe that humans acquire a unique sole at the moment of fertilisation.
(also don't neglect the impact of the set of sugars in the cell, the "glycome"; sugars are at least as varied as proteins and used in various ways. The effect of starting off an embryo with a cow ovum's sugars (and the continuing effect of the bovine mitochondria) could well be significant).