[_ Old Earth _] This is SO Sick!! Disgusting!

[Biblereader]

I'm SOOO glad I never ever considered banking any of my eggs.
What a nightmare!
This is severe sin, and I'm sure God is not going to let this go unaddressed.


British House backs creation of human-animal embryos
The London Times

British scientists will be allowed to research devastating diseases such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's using human-animal embryos, after the House of Commons rejected a ban yesterday.

An amendment to the Human Fertilization and Embryology Bill that would have outlawed the creation of "human admixed embryos" for medical research was defeated in a free vote by a majority of 160, preserving what Gordon Brown regarded as a central element of the legislation.

The Government is braced for defeat today, however, on a separate clause that would scrap the requirement that fertility clinics consider a child's need for a father before treating patients. MPs will also consider amendments tonight that would cut the legal limit for abortion from 24 weeks to 22 or 20 weeks.

A second amendment, which would have banned the creation of "true hybrids" made by fertilizing an animal egg with human sperm, or vice-versa, was also defeated yesterday by a majority of 63. Another free vote last night was expected to approve the use of embryo-screening to create "savior siblings" suitable to donate umbilical cord blood to sick children.

Edward Leigh, Conservative MP for Gainsborough, moving the amendment to ban all admixed embryos, said that mingling animal and human DNA crossed an "ultimate boundary". He said that exaggerated claims were giving patients false hope and that the dangers of the research were unknown. "In many ways we are like children playing with landmines without any concept of the dangers of the technology we are handling," he said.

Mark Simmonds, a Shadow Health Minister, who moved the amendment to ban "true hybrids", said that there was no compelling evidence of their research usefulness.

Evan Harris, the Liberal Democrat MP for Oxford West, challenged those who accepted admixed embryos in principle but rejected "true hybrids" to explain the ethical difference between an embryo that was 99 per cent human and one that was 50 per cent human.

Dawn Primarolo, the Health Minister, agreed: "Once we go down that road it seems illogical to oppose a particular mix." Ms Primarolo said that the shortage of human eggs was the biggest barrier to embryonic stem cell research. The Minister admitted that the Bill was not a promise that cures for diseases could be found. "It is an aspiration that it may," she said.

The amendment to ban all admixed embryos was defeated by 336 votes to 176. The prohibition on true hybrids was defeated by 286 votes to 223.

The main kinds of admixed embryo permitted by the Bill are "cytoplasmic hybrids" or "cybrids", which are made by moving a human nucleus into an empty animal egg. These are genetically 99.9 per cent human. As well as true hybrids, it also allows chimeras that combine human and animal cells, and transgenic human embryos that include a little animal DNA.

The most immediate implication of the Commons vote will be to allow teams at the University of Newcastle upon Tyne and King's College London, which already hold licenses to create cybrids, to continue their research. Though they were cleared to start these experiments by the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority in January, their licenses would have been rescinded had MPs voted for a ban.

Cybrids could carry the DNA of patients with genetic conditions to create stem-cell models of these diseases for studying their progress and testing new treatments. Human eggs could be used but are in short supply because of risk to donor women.

It is legal to culture admixed embryos up to 14 days and illegal to transfer them to a human or animal womb.

The decision will also encourage a third team, which plans to use admixed embryos to study motor neuron disease, to apply for a license. The group, led by Professor Chris Shaw, of the Institute of Psychiatry in London, had been waiting for the vote.

Professor Shaw said: "It will allow us to forge ahead on all fronts in our attempts to understand and develop therapies for a huge range of currently incurable diseases. Cures may be some years off, but this vote does mean we can use hybrid embryos, in addition to adult stem cells, in our search to understand what causes Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and motor neuron disease."

Professor Robin Lovell-Badge, of the National Institute for Medical Research in London, said the vote would aid understanding of normal embryonic development and of genetic disease: "This understanding will ultimately give us the best chance of developing therapies for these diseases, for infertility and for a range of other medical conditions".

Simon Denegri, chief executive of the Association for Medical Research Charities, said: "MPs have clearly listened to the strong arguments put forward by medical research charities, patient groups and scientists of the importance of this research to advancing our understanding of diseases and conditions that affect hundreds of thousands of people in the UK."

A majority of women say they should have the right to an abortion at between 20 and 24 weeks of their pregnancy and want the law to stay as it is. A poll of women of childbearing age, conducted by Ipsos MORI on behalf of Marie Stopes International found that 61 per cent say that there should be access to late abortion services for a wide range of circumstances.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What do you think?
Do you think God will judge this now, or later? What will be coming OUT of the labs?
Will Britain be a real time Island of Dr. Moreau?


2 Peter 3:5

"For this they willingly are ignorant..."
Translation: Dumb On Purpose

 

[John]

I am speechless :o

 

[Snidey]

Utilizing embryos to prevent enormous amounts of actual human suffering is not sick by any stretch of the imagination. If you deem the weighing of a few hundred cells against a sick human being to be a coin flip, your ability to reason enough to reduce actual suffering is seriously damaged.

 

[John]

Utilizing embryos to prevent enormous amounts of actual human suffering is not sick by any stretch of the imagination. If you deem the weighing of a few hundred cells against a sick human being to be a coin flip, your ability to reason enough to reduce actual suffering is seriously damaged.

Not surprised an evolutionist would find this good and moral. :

 

[BobRyan]

Read Lev 18 -- God has a "limit" even for godless nations that have no Bible at all.

Read Gen 6-8 -- God had a limit for all of mankind -- at the flood.

Read Rev 20 and 2Peter 3 -- God has a limit for this planet.

A good way to "shorten the time" is to blindly go along the path the UK is legislating.

May God have mercy on mankind.

Bob

 

[John]

Read Lev 18 -- God has a "limit" even for godless nations that have no Bible at all.

Read Gen 6-8 -- God had a limit for all of mankind -- at the flood.

Read Rev 20 and 2Peter 3 -- God has a limit for this planet.

A good way to "shorten the time" is to blindly go along the path the UK is legislating.

May God have mercy on mankind.

Bob

And the people said AMEN.

 

[John]

Dawkins (The guy who backed a proposal for the United Nations to confer human rights on apes.) is not in on this is he?

 

[Snidey]

Utilizing embryos to prevent enormous amounts of actual human suffering is not sick by any stretch of the imagination. If you deem the weighing of a few hundred cells against a sick human being to be a coin flip, your ability to reason enough to reduce actual suffering is seriously damaged.

Not surprised an evolutionist would find this good and moral. :

I don't see why a lack of ability to grasp the realities of science should make one more moral.

Regardless, anyone who applies any practical standard of morality to stem cell research would favor it. If you use ridiculous measures, like equating clusters of cells with human beings, your opinions are on the topic are without merit.

 

[BobRyan]

If you fail to appreciate the Genesis 1 fact that God created mankind "in his own image" then you will naturally turn from Bible values and embrace atheist darwinist dogma -- eventually to the point of hittng the new low of sick ideas being promoted in the U.K.

Without an anchor - adrift at sea --- eventually the Lev 18 boundary get's crossed and as the text shows -- the wipeout follows.

The empty point that this crime is committed with "just science" is like saying "nuclear weapons -- hey that's just science why not use them all the time?". That "it's just science" argument never worked to start with.

ahhh "the bible" -- what a concept!

Bob

 

[John]

If its immoral and wrong i don't care if it cured cancer forever..its wrong.

 

[Skavau]

If you fail to appreciate the Genesis 1 fact that God created mankind "in his own image" then you will naturally turn from Bible values and embrace atheist darwinist dogma -- eventually to the point of hittng the new low of sick ideas being promoted in the U.K.

There is no such thing as "atheist darwinism". There are Atheist Evolutionists - not "Darwinists". Just like how there are no Newtonianists or no Einsteinists, there are equally no Darwinists.

The empty point that this crime is committed with "just science" is like saying "nuclear weapons -- hey that's just science why not use them all the time?". That "it's just science" argument never worked to start with.

Not at all.

Saying it is 'just science' was never the defense. Arbitrarily setting off nuclear bombs is also not 'just science' and therefore your own strawman analogy does not stand up to rational scrutiny.

The reason this was advocated was because of the potential for discovery and the potential for good. It harms no-one.

Thanks, Skavau.

 

[John]

there are equally no Darwinists.

Not officially..you won't find it in the dictionary. Its a describing term for people who devote themselves to Darwin, its actually very accurate.

EDIT: YAY post number 1000 :

 

[Snidey]

If its immoral and wrong i don't care if it cured cancer forever..its wrong.

Right. Basically, you can't describe why it's wrong, you just read it in a book you deem infallible (despite it almost clearly not being so). This kind of mentality has held back and will continue to hold back science as long as it persists. There is no better measure of ethics than the amount of suffering something inflicts or prevents, none.

 

[John]

If its immoral and wrong i don't care if it cured cancer forever..its wrong.

Right. Basically, you can't describe why it's wrong, you just read it in a book you deem infallible (despite it almost clearly not being so). This kind of mentality has held back and will continue to hold back science as long as it persists. There is no better measure of ethics than the amount of suffering something inflicts or prevents, none.

Everything and everyone working within the scope of god always prevails.

Plus when you work in the scope of evolution..nothing is wrong.

 

[Snidey]

If its immoral and wrong i don't care if it cured cancer forever..its wrong.

Right. Basically, you can't describe why it's wrong, you just read it in a book you deem infallible (despite it almost clearly not being so). This kind of mentality has held back and will continue to hold back science as long as it persists. There is no better measure of ethics than the amount of suffering something inflicts or prevents, none.

Everything and everyone working within the scope of god always prevails.

Plus when you work in the scope of evolution..nothing is wrong.

Pain/suffering can be deemed wrong because it is unenjoyable. You are primarily dodging the point that if there IS ultimate morality, God would certainly be using some sort of measure to do so. I would rather lack ultimate judgment of morality and rely on pragmatic evaluation of harm and well-being than rely on the work of first century scholars whose views are so outdated that all but the most religious qualify them when they are mentioned.

 

[Skavau]

Everything and everyone working within the scope of god always prevails.

Plus when you work in the scope of evolution..nothing is wrong.

What do you mean 'nothing is wrong' in the scope of Evolution?

 

[Patashu]

Evolution is not a philosophy nor a moral guideline nor a way of life nor an ethical code, just like every other theory and tenet of science.
Science explains 'is'es, what IS, what is real and true and correct.
Ethics and morality explain 'oughts', what we SHOULD do.

What science does is explain what and why we see, not say what things should be like. The law of universal gravitation states that bodies of mass attract each other; it is not saying we should force everyone we see as close to the earth as possible.

 

[John]

Everything and everyone working within the scope of god always prevails.

Plus when you work in the scope of evolution..nothing is wrong.

What do you mean 'nothing is wrong' in the scope of Evolution?

If evolution is true, there is no such thing as "right" or "wrong"

 

[jmm9683]

Everything and everyone working within the scope of god always prevails.

Plus when you work in the scope of evolution..nothing is wrong.

What do you mean 'nothing is wrong' in the scope of Evolution?

If evolution is true, there is no such thing as "right" or "wrong"

Actually most biologists believe that humans evolved morality and it is through us having a highly enough developed brain to experience empathy that our sense of right and wrong developed.

 

[Snidey]

Everything and everyone working within the scope of god always prevails.

Plus when you work in the scope of evolution..nothing is wrong.

What do you mean 'nothing is wrong' in the scope of Evolution?

If evolution is true, there is no such thing as "right" or "wrong"

This is correct more or less (replace evolution with atheism, but I suppose you align them directly), and I'm tired of atheists dodging it. There is no such thing as absolute right or wrong without some kind of perfect judge. However, practical measures of harm are rather effective in determining such things, and are generally applied even by religious folk in lieu of their favorite texts. After all, I don't see anyone stoning disobedient children to death these days.

As has been said, our sense of ethics is derived from evolution, which is why we can see very similar patterns in ethical positions across all demographics.