Animal human embryos

[Krystal]

I haven't voted yet cos i'm unsure.

There are 2 seperate issues here isn't there (I think) 1: to create half human half animal embryo for tissues and other things to be grown from to help with illnesses (correct me if i'm wrong as not 100%) I agree with the sound of that. It's cells, not a baby. If it can help people seriously ill i'm all for it.

Number 2 i'm not so sure about, which is having a child in order to get cells from umbilical cord to help a living ill child get better. Whilst I understand parents in this situation are desperate to have their child recover and no doubt I would be the same there is actually going to be a living child involved in all this. How will they feel as the get older knowing the only reason they exist is cos their parents wanted to save their sibling? Something with it just doesn't sit right with me

Thats if I understood the proposal lol

 

[NickS]

I'm one of those very much For the advancement of science.
Mankinds greatest accheivements have come out from war and adversity, ad if people want to try to clamour the usual scare tactics of "Frankenstein Science" then fine, let them go live in the middle nowhere with Nothing at all modern, or even really for that anything at al other than ther wits and no fire or knives.

Everything we have has come from human ingenuity, and for each thing mankind has discovered and honed mankind is generally better for it.

Super glue. Invented as a battlefield wound sealant. Ok, so its toxic in the blood, but hey my specs are held together!
Ok, so superglue isnt ~Frankenstein Science!~, but then again, neither is Frankenstein Science.

It's not playing god (any one of them, take your pick), its just the human condition to improve its lot in live, its part of what seperates mankind and the animal kingdom, yes man is an animal, and many animals Do evolve tool use, but at quite a low level (Magpies, Simians & Octopi are the main brainiacs when it comes to tool use and remarkable thinking).


No doubt in time, such research Will find its way in to the theatre of war, but where better to understand something than in Breaking Conditions.

Ok, i'm rambling now.
This sort of thing is a pet subject of mine, biogenetics & cybernetics are really good things to think about, gets the brain working!

Yay go Team Human!

 

[Squiglet]

I'd have to say for... but thats because I have never seen it as creating a life...theres no guarantee that the "embryo" has any chance of surviving under natural circumstances... Pregnancy is a case of the body rejecting a foreign substance and I think an animal egg in a human, or a human dna in an animal wouldn't be a viable pregnancy.

Its advantages outweigh its disadvantages in terms of saving lives and for anyone who has lost a child or a loved one understands how they would cross oceans just to save their lives.

I don't believe in saviour siblings...but thats because I don't believe a child should be genetically engineered specifically to save another childs life... A child should be created either because the gods deem it so or because it is a wanted child in its own right, without conditions.

I understand peoples value for life... and that all life is precious, but by manipulating genetics we can continue to make life precious by saving other lives.

I agree with Midna... If animal human embryos were the only way to save lil miss or Tia I would gladly accept the morality behind it, but I wouldn't have another child to save one of them....unless the gods deem it so.

 

[zebrastripes]

I voted for, because if it came to the crunch that's what I'd be, as I don't believe that sort of scientific breakthrough should ever be repressed *but* you would have to be so strict on how it waqs used...all embryos destroyed after 14 days etc..and only used in cases where there was no other option. I mean, to me, an animal human embryo is just that...not a potential child..I mean how could it be? It's beneficial matter. It's not alive. To me, it's kind of like taking skin off your butt cheek and having it grafted on to your face if you got burnt.

As for the creating a child thing...I don't think I agree with that at all to be honest. I don't think it is fair on the child. Embryos are one thing, a sentient being is another. Just maybe, if the couple were planning another child anyway, then maybe it would be understandbale to try and gear that new childs' genetics...but even still..

 

[Suzie and Faith]

I voted yes because at the end of the day if it saved someone i loved then how could i not want it!

 

[ShineyHappyPeople]

I voted against and hopefully that will encourage some more from the wood work who dont want to say "against"

 

[beanie]

TBH I am not sure where I stand - the thought of messing with nature makes me very uneasy. I agree with squiglet int hat I don't view these as potential babies, but its just the "frankenstein" buit too it. I think man can be a bit too clever for their own good. Saying thast I am in the most fortunate position of having two healthy children and can see why some parents would want to see these diseases eradicated.

There is a lot of stuff going on the embryology bill which hasn't really been made public. There are some big decisions being made - so should be interersting.

Re saviour siblings - Jody Picoult's book "my sisters keeper" is very thought provoking

 

[Jade&Evie]

I voted against and hopefully that will encourage some more from the wood work who dont want to say "against"

Why are you against it?

I'm on the fence still so I want to know both arguments!

 

[Urchin]

I'm not keen, for a start it looks like they are always making a line and then crossing it, and I see this as being one step closer to something else. In a few years time they will want to take it further, then further again.
Also:

Conservative MP Ann Widdecombe today said that there was no proof to back claims that "admix" embryo research would save lives on a huge scale.

"There is no evidence at all that it will save millions of lives," she told GMTV.

"This is what we were told 18 years ago when embryology was first legalised in this country.

"Eighteen years later, 2.2 million embryos later, there haven't been any cures and yet there have been lots of cures and advances from adult stem cell research and recently a lot of advances from umbilical cord tissue.

"Why on earth aren't we going down the lines where there are advances instead of insisting on this?"

I agree they should look at the adult stem cell research and other methods instead.

 

[GBLiz]

im for it because i know if i or my loved ones had a disease that research like this could cure, id want it done

fertilized cells dont have a nervous system, a consciousness, and like squig said it wouldnt be viable anyway

 

[abcd1234]

I'm against it, its mainly for religious reasons i guess, it's playing god to me, and i saw Tally as a life when she was only a few cells, what they are creating is unnatural (no-one can argue that) and woudlnt survive if left to develop, i just think it's wrong. If i could find something which properly explained HOW they think these animal genes will help cure diseases i may rethink my position but i've not seen anything that explains exaclty how animal genes are going to cure it and my limited (a level biology) knowledge of DNA and things like that doesnt allow me to understand it.

And before someone twigs yes my argument against these embryo's does also mean i'm not exaclty strongly in favour of IVF either, but they are human embryo's and allow those who have genetic reasons for not concieving to discover these. However if it was me who couldnt concieve naturally i wouldnt use IVF, they create lots of embryo's yet only implant 1 or 2 killing the other ones, i also beleive that if i wasnt able to make babies naturally that there may be a reason for this. I know its a senstive subject and i'm sure many disagree and will shoot me down in flames for it but i'm not saying that i dont think any one shouldnt be having it, just that i dont really agree with it, im trying to explain so i dont have to later if i offend anyone, sorry.

I tend to look at things from their potential and dispite not being a great one i am technically catholic (so obviously the pre-marital sex bit got lost on me) and those are my reasons.

They arnt hugely scientific ones which is why its not something i feel very strongly about, i just intinctually dont agree, im not about to start protesting and signing petitions however

 

[abcd1234]

fertilized cells dont have a nervous system, a consciousness, and like squig said it wouldnt be viable anyway

There are many people on here who have miscarried non-viable pregnancies, somehow i dont think any of them would tell you their fertilized egg's life was nothing, yet its technically the same thing

 

[ShineyHappyPeople]

I voted against and hopefully that will encourage some more from the wood work who dont want to say "against"

Why are you against it?

I'm on the fence still so I want to know both arguments!

Same as what Urchin has said above. Its just one step further and once we accept this, a few years later, what will the next step be? I can't accept the fact that its "just cells" because to me, thats a potential life (along the lines of abortion) so mixing it with animals cells is repulsive to me if I'm honest. I know people say "if someone you knew was ill you might think twice" but I have known people to die of cancer and I still feel the same.

These "debates" on forums usually end up a bit nasty so this is the only post I'm going to make because I don't want to have to justify my opinions a few times to different people and I know that sounds horrible but Im usually in the minority and there isn't much I have left to say other than what I have said above

 

[Suzie and Faith]

TBH I am not sure where I stand - the thought of messing with nature makes me very uneasy. I agree with squiglet int hat I don't view these as potential babies, but its just the "frankenstein" buit too it. I think man can be a bit too clever for their own good. Saying thast I am in the most fortunate position of having two healthy children and can see why some parents would want to see these diseases eradicated.

There is a lot of stuff going on the embryology bill which hasn't really been made public. There are some big decisions being made - so should be interersting.

Re saviour siblings - Jody Picoult's book "my sisters keeper" is very thought provoking

Yeh this book really made me think too! Was the first one of hers i ever read.

The concept of it scares me! BUT i'd want a loved one of mine to be saved if the treatments there.

 

[abcd1234]

Jody Picoults book, although very well written and thought provoking is an extreme case, the fact the mother only see's that child as a way to save the other is the issue, not necesarily the fact she was created to help. I cant help wonder if a person like that character would have rejected the child had she not have had the "right genes" and carried on making babies until she got one that would help her.

The whole point of the story was to highlight that her life was basically only their to save her sisters. I dont disagree with having used the cord to save her sibling, but they then used her again even though they had agreed not to and this is something i have issues with, i also, as said in my other post i'm not total for human embryo's being used in this way so even if they family were going to love that child as an individual i'm not sure i'd agree.

Great book to read (i know this isnt a book club lol) but i do think it looks poorly on savious siblings, and uses an extreme case. I mother character is an absolute witch all the way through so we cant use it to generalize.

Picoults books generally are their to show their are two sides to every story, this book doesnt do it for me however, its seemed very negative

 

[beanie]

I have not really read many saviour sibling stories where the child was wannted for the fact they wanted anothjer child - most I have read have been because the parents wanted to save their child through a sibling (some did want other children but their decision was hastened so they could have a saviour sibling) so I guess thats why I enjoyed this book. I did think there were two sides, the father seemd to love his daughter for the fact she was who she was whereas the mother didn't, but it would be boring if we all agreed

 

[abcd1234]

I have not really read many saviour sibling stories where the child was wannted for the fact they wanted anothjer child - most I have read have been because the parents wanted to save their child through a sibling (some did want other children but their decision was hastened so they could have a saviour sibling) so I guess thats why I enjoyed this book. I did think there were two sides, the father seemd to love his daughter for the fact she was who she was whereas the mother didn't, but it would be boring if we all agreed

Oh i agree the book was great, i loved it, but for me personally it didnt show enough of another side, maybe thats cos i'm quite against it anyway and wanted a strong arguement for to make me think again lol