[fjcp]

When I heard Alex Jones on Joe Rogan saying that there was human-animal experiments being made I thought he was exaggerating.

In my opinion this kind of research crosses some ethical lines that shouldn't be crossed. If one considers an embryo as an independent life, what species the embryo belongs to? Wouldn't be the ones in this experiment half humans with human rights? After all, the scientist doesn't know all, and the cells he put in could evolve to a chain reaction of the hybrid developing human conscious.

Just my opinion tho, as I know nothing about genetics and biology.

[Communitivity]

I saw you had been downvoted and I upvoted you, despite disagreeing very strongly with your opinion, because you stated your opinion without vitriol and while I might disagree I'll still fight for your right to say it as long you do so in a way that isn't hurtful.

I think the line of inquiry into replacement organs can be researched ethically but the how of the research may cross ethical lines if not done carefully. Given diseases we have, I think we need to do the research and find an ethical way to make this kind of organ production happen, if we want to extend human lifespan.

[fjcp]

I knew I would be, but its fine. Thank you for your words! I share the same belief regarding freedom of speech.

About the research, I hope I am wrong and the advances that came out of it help save lives and extend the human life. I just wish they take those ethical questions in consideration too.

[Bayart]

Well, if you're allowing abortion on the basis that an embryo isn't human life, you're by extension allowing this.

[fjcp]

Right, that's what I am saying. If even that discussion isn't settled yet, we should be more careful and wait before mixing humans and animals.

[oneshot908]

That discussion was reasonably settled a very long time ago and court cases established reasonable laws around it. Then one side demanded a do-over, in much the same way they are seeking do-overs for a lot of previously seemingly settled issues.

[orblivion]

A court decision may settle a working compromise given evidence available at the time and the preferences of the people in the area. I'd say that's a far cry from settling an ethical issue.

[Smithalicious]

Court cases don't settle moral disagreements and moral disagreements are never "settled" in a way that you can accuse some party of "demanding a do-over".

[svieira]

There is a lot of settled law in the history of the USA that shouldn't stand (segregation, suffrage, slavery, extreme methods of execution) no matter how reasonable the various settlements seemed to some at the time of their "settlement".

When an issue will not be settled no matter how reasonable the first party is the second party is either motivated by tyranny or just principles. The former requires force to suppress. The latter cannot be suppressed forever without destroying the goods the first party wishes to preserve.

[Bayart]

The discussion is very settled in a number of countries. I assume Japan is one of them.

[yread]

Human-animal experiments are done for quite some time. Cloned mice receive tumor grown on human derived tissue so-called xenografts. And it's immensely helpful in checking whether certain drugs work.

[pwinnski]

> Just my opinion tho, as I know nothing about genetics and biology.

Arguments from ignorance are rarely helpful.

[fjcp]

I agree. But even the ignorant on the matter can raise relevant questions, more so when the subject cross boundaries on other less "restrict to the experts" topics, like ethics.