Scientists create animals that are part-human

reply to post by crezo


I used to be, but finances forced me to reconsider.

Now, although a meat eater, I tend to source the little meat I do consume, from local farms that have a policy of free range and the welfare of the animal as a primary concern.
The fact is that we as human animals, are meat eaters and there should be no apology for that - it's natural, unlike the crux of this thread.
being a meat eater does not mean I am willing to accept the abuse of any lifeform.

Farming animals for food does not equate to genetic manipulation of a species to further our longevity - that is simply an abuse of our power, In my humble opinion.

Originally posted by OptimisticPessimist
reply to post by crezo

 

I used to be, but finances forced me to reconsider.

Now, although a meat eater, I tend to source the little meat I do consume, from local farms that have a policy of free range and the welfare of the animal as a primary concern.
The fact is that we as human animals, are meat eaters and there should be no apology for that - it's natural, unlike the crux of this thread.
being a meat eater does not mean I am willing to accept the abuse of any lifeform.

Farming animals for food does not equate to genetic manipulation of a species to further our longevity - that is simply an abuse of our power, In my humble opinion.

But in today's day and age, there is no longer a need to eat meat. There are enough protein substitutes so that if one truly had the best interests of animals at heart we would simply not eat them.

I will not accept this kind of preaching from a meateatter. I would almost accept the "it's natural" argument if the animal had a chance in the wild, but alas, they have no chance at survival from birth, bred for the slaughter.

reply to post by nightbringr

I will not accept this kind of preaching from a meateatter.

Good, good - off you trot then; thankfully, taking with you your bigotted judgments of others based solely upon assumption.

reply to post by OptimisticPessimist


I absolutely agree with you. I guess they don't understand that the fall of man was a result of inbreeding similar to this.

.

So far the animals parts or organs had been used before like the ureters for bladder disease.these are taken ftom sheeps.

Originally posted by OptimisticPessimist
reply to post by nightbringr

 

I would assume then if one of your children needed a life saving procedure that was gleaned through this type of R and D, you would refuse it due to your ethical concerns?

I wouldn't refuse it based on my ethical concerns, rather I would because it would mean abusing one creature, so another (of equal value) would live a while longer.
I cannot condone suffering and abuse, simply to prolong a life that will ultimately die anyway. We all die, so why be so afraid of it, other than due to social/religious conditioning?

Human or not - we are all animals and, having lived in the wilderness where I genuinely bonded with wild creatures, my answer can only be "Absolutely".
All life is sacred, not just the ones directly involved in our own lives.
Only human ego (or family bonding, for your example) makes us mistake our lives as more important that any other and the simple fact of the matter is we are not. Just look at how well the world did before humans appeared - it has all gone downhill from there, so how can we be more important than those lives that helped keep this planet pure and ecologically sound for millennia?

Thank You. That was a valid question and the point you were making is not lost on me.

Of equal value from whose point of view? If you see the lives of other animals as having equal value to humans as humans, then are you to be trusted when humans are in need? Would you run into my burning house and save my cat and leave my kid?
I know that is rather provocative, but it is intended to clarify your personal stance.
Your point of view is as valid as anybody else's. However, let’s get this clear. Do you believe the extinction of the human species is acceptable as long as the natural world can live on?