From the National Post
Personally I have no objection to cloning, (if they could get it right and not produce monstrocities). But I feel there are too many unresolved - and possibly unresolvable - issues to allow human/animal hybrids to be created.
I dont like the idea of cloning.
I dont like the idea of animal-human hybrids.
I am thinking more and more of moving into a secluded cabin and writing my manifesto.
OK, here’s where we need to get our ethical principles straight. Here is one: any genetic engineering performed on a human zygote/embryo/fetus should have the same ethical guidelines as a conventional medical procedure on human.
Therefore, all genetic engineering on humans must be done with the concept of implied consent. If you are lying there unconscious and bleeding, a doctor doesn’t wait for you to sign a consent form before he performs surgery on you. We recognize that the overwhelming majority of people would give consent to the lifesaving surgery if only they were conscious and able to give that consent.
If you don’t want to give consent to such procedures then you have to arrange things ahead of time. If an unconscious Christian Scientist is rushed to the hospital he is going to get surgery unless his lawyer is there with papers proving that the victim wouldn’t have wanted the surgery.
Therefore, any genetic engineering done on humans should follow similar rules. We can imagine that almost any reasonable person would wish to avoid dangerous or painful genetic diseases. Therefore, genetic engineering to remove such diseases passes the implied consent test.
If, in the future, genetic engineering is generally considered safe and moral, then we could also imagine that the average person would give consent to improved eyesight, intelligence, general health, looks, etc. We may never reach this point, where courts hold that a reasonable person would give consent to such procedures. But it is not hard to imagine that this might happen.
But reasonable people generally do not consent to being transformed into circus freaks or slaves. Some people do, remember Tiger Man and Lizard Guy from the pit? But your average person would not consent to such procedures. Therefore, consent cannot be implied. And therefore, such procedures would be unethical, and doctors would refuse to do them. If someone later in life who is capable of giving consent wishes to be transformed into a Tiger-Man, then fine. But not even parents can give such consent for their children.
Therefore, the creation of human-animal hybrids is unethical, because we cannot reasonably assume that the resulting being would have consented to have such a procedure performed.
Lemur,
I don’t follow your reasoning. You appear to be assigning rights to a theoretical person that never existed and never will. IOW, you are theorizing a real person, and then theorizing that person being turned into a half person half animal. But in reality we can only deal with the half person half animal itself - would this creature prefer to exist or not? I don’t think the answer is so clearly that it would not.
My objections are more along the lines of looking at the overall action of creating the hybrid - will it create more good or harm in the world? If you think the latter, as I do, then the action is wrong.
I should have been more clear about the fact that there are really two issues. One: should a scientist create such a being? And two: should the government outlaw it? I would say no and yes, but I’m more sure about the former.
When they can combine me with a barnacle, let me know.
Actually, I’m sure a hybrid human could easily object to its own existence, if it considers that it is negatively different from the rest of humanity and is marginalised from normal society.
But if it can win a billion dollar law suit and then move to the French Rivera, it will be happy.
I think the whole issue raises good questions on ‘human’ rights. Would these hybrids be entitled to the same rights? Can their existence be patented by the lab they were created in?
I imagine that the labs would hold onto them as private property–but I’d be hard-pressed to believe that even the most cranky of judges wouldn’t rule in the hybrid’s favor if they appeared before a supreme court.
The issue of ethics is harder to untangle…does a hybrid have a soul? Are they truly not Man’s creation, instead of God’s?
-Ashley
Back to the hybrid wanting to exist or not. If we were to create a human/horse embryo who is to say that this creature would have the mental capacities to decide on this. Anyway what purpose would a hybrid serve?
Lost In Reality
Not Having A Quote Since 1985
T’hell with Ethics… what about the legal issues? Do we consider a half-human, half-animal to be a “person”? Does it enjoy the same rights that an all-human enjoys? If not, why not? If so, why so?
I’m with you on the first two points and I’d like a copy of your manifesto when it’s completed please.
Given that: [list=A]
[li]God Exists[/li]
[li]God created the entire Universe[/li]
[li]The matter that comprises the Hybrid was created at the same time that the Universe was.[/li]
[li]Each individual Human is not created by immediate application Divine intervention, but by a sexual act–i.e. an act of volition by Human beings.[/li]
[li]And that this does not mean that every Human born after the creation of the first Human is not one of God’s creations.[/li]
[li]And that the act of creating the Hybrid is conscious & deliberate on the part of Humans.[/li]Therefore----
[li]The act of Man intending to create Hybrid Man/Animal being does not deny this being of the status of one of God’s creations.[/li]
[li]This leaves open the possibility that the Hybrid has a soul.[/li][/list]
Forget human/pig hybrids. I want a cow/pig hybrid! A pig
that chews its cud twice would provide kosher bacon. As a Jew, I await the arrival of the first glatt kosher hog.
I think it would do more good to create a human/animal hybrid. All of us proper humans could unite in our prejudice against the ungodly freaks.* See, I already started.
*This statement is for rhetorical purposes only and is not meant to be taken literally. Yeah, when was I worried about the godliness of anything?
I’m not sure what the point of a pig or chimpanzee/human would be. Usually, there needs to be some sort of financial motivation in order for it to become reality.
What I have heard of is creating animals with some specific human attribute, like say expressing particular antigens so that their organs can be used in xenotransplantation with reduced risk of rejection. These creatures are not “human” in any significant way; certainly not more than a person with a baboon heart is a baboon.
But let’s say someone did create a monkey-man. Why would that need to be a negative thing (lowering a human partway to monkey status), why couldn’t it be a positive thing (elevating a monkey partway to human status)?
As to any legal/ethical issues regarding the chimeras, I fail to see how they would be different than the legal/ethical issues of experimenting on chimps. After all, chimps are already “95% human.” Oddly enough, there’s an article about this in this month’s Discover magazine. It’s an interview with Steven Wise, an animal rights lawyer who advocates giving certain animals “legal personhood.”
It seems to me that he takes his argument a little bit too far, but I would certainly be open to the idea of a continuum of “rights” for animals up to and including humans. Then the question of what to do about hybrids becomes not “human or animal” but “where on the scale”.
What if we find a way to give animals intelligence equal to humans? Say scientists finally break down the physical nature of intelligence and realize, hey, we cand soup up these chimps so they really can understand and communicate with us (in a complex way: they already can communicate with a few hundred words ((sign language))).
Are we morally obligated to do it? Or not to do it? Have you seen Planet of the Apes? It’s tricky stuff.
I would love soupin’ my cat up to where we could discuss a few things, mainly his view of the nice chair as a scratching post.
As far as the OP, I would only be down if the benefit to humanity was great. Not just for the hell of it. But if you could eliminate death and disease with what you learned doing it . . . well do it. A couple hundred freaks is worth billions of lives. Tough stance, but I don’t want to die.
DaLovin’ Dj
The real benefit that I can forsee from this kind of reaearch is if (and it’s a big if) there were some kind of biological ‘plague’-type disease that humans were vulnerable to, and a certain species of higher mammal were immune to it because of genetics (say, the ability to produce a certain enzyme), and scientists could isolate those genes responsible for the immunity and graft them to the DNA of a fertilized human ova.
Wouldn’t we consider this hypothetical being human? I would.
I would consider this to be an ethical aim, but to complete this research, it would have to be carried out without the general public’s knowledge. Yeah, I know it sounds like the sci-fi channel’s crappy movie of the week, but I said it’s a big ‘if’.
Surely you know that the Babirussa, a wild pig from the jungle islands of Indonesia, is the only member of the pig family to chew its cud?
That’s right my friend, kosher bacon is available right here right now. All you have to do is secure some breeding stock, set up a ranch in Florida and you’ll be a millionare. Mmmmmm…kosher pork chops. Kosher ham sandwich. Kosher BLT.
Heck, forget all this high-tech recombinant DNA gene-splicing bullcrap.
Humans and chimps are so closely related that we could probably cross them the old-fashioned way, the same way we cross horses with donkeys to produce mules.
Now, admittedly, these human/chimp hybrids (“himps”?) will probably not be capable of reproducing themselves, much the same way that mules and lion/tiger hybrids (“ligers”) are sterile. If you wanted to make more himps, you’d have to cross more humans with more chimps.
But think – if we can breed humans with chimps, we might also be able to breed humans with gorillas. Gorillas are our third-most-closely-related ape relatives, close behind chimps and bonobos. Imagine the upright gait of a human, combined with the body weight of a gorilla. It would be … BIGFOOT! Aha! And you thought Bigfoot was just a myth made up by the National Enquirer! When in reality, Bigfoot is real, and every Bigfoot ever seen is actually the love-child of human/gorilla matings in the wild.
Well, okay, that’s a bit far-fetched. But still … human/chimp crossbreeds ought to be possible. No, really.
Does the Babirussa have a split hoof like a regular pig? If it does (and I’m not Jewish, so take this with a grain of salt), then I think it’s still a no-no.
On the OP, I haven’t fully made up my mind, but I’m leaning towards the “No” side. The main reason I’m doubtful is, there’s a great deal of diversity within the human race as is, and we still can’t manage to live together without one section of humanity wanting to thwap another section just for being what they are. If we - as a group - can’t work out how to live peacefully with people of a different country, different skin colour, religion, sexuality, take your pick, how well will we - again, as a group - cope with people who have genes from a different species?