Human/Pig Embryos (Chimeras)

[amariselle]

Scientists/Researchers have now produced human/pig embryos by injecting human stem cells into pig embryos. The purpose in this seems to be a desire to grow human organs inside of pigs, in order that organs will be available for transplant patients.

Thus far the embryos have only been allowed to grow for 28 days, before they are terminated and studied, but the hope is to one day successfully grow pigs with human organs that will then be transplanted into people who need them.

Sounds great in principle right? But as Christians, when do we believe that science has gone too far in playing with life? Where do we believe the line should be drawn?

This research and experimentation also leads to other questions. Questions such as, how much money is being spent on this? (Money that could be instead used to help the poor and destitute) Where are they getting the human stem cells? (Is it from aborted babies?) And where exactly is this going to lead if they are successful?

There are already concerns that the pigs might become "too human", that the human stem cells may effect the development of the pig's brain in some way. Do people really understand just what they are messing around with? And do the ends justify the means? Of course the potential pain and suffering of the animal also comes into play here.

And most importantly, as Christians we should ask, is this an abomination to the Lord? Is combining human cells and animal cells an affront to Him, who created mankind in His image?

Here are several links to the story from different sources.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...--scientists-grow-organ-transplants/85506798/

http://www.news.com.au/technology/s...s/news-story/30655b4706aa0d4986f1410071be0fc4

http://www.sciencealert.com/researchers-are-trying-to-grow-human-organs-inside-pigs

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ab-28-days-bid-solve-transplant-shortage.html

Please share your thoughts.

 

[amariselle]

Here is a link to a Christian Research Journal addressing the topic. (It's a few years old, but still relevant).

It brings up many things well worth reading, including the conflict inherent in the argument that these human-animal embryos are created to do research that might save life, (research on various diseases for examples, and in the case of the article in the OP, organ transplant), but creating these human-animal embryos requires human stem cells that are predominately obtained from aborted babies. (The ending of another human life).

So, the question there would be, is it okay to end a human life (or to rely on the ending of human life) in order to do research that might save another human life? Do the ends justify the means? I would say no.

Thoughts?

 

[brinny]

God have mercy!

Praying.

 

[amariselle]

God have mercy!

Praying.

Thank you so much Brinny. We definitely need to pray.

 

[brinny]

Thank you so much Brinny. We definitely need to pray.

Yes, sister! Amen!

 

[dgiharris]

....
Sounds great in principle right? But as Christians, when do we believe that science has gone too far in playing with life? Where do we believe the line should be drawn?

You can argue that the vast majority of modern medical procedures is akin to "playing god". Take organ transplants. You take an organ from one person and put it in another person. If you could go back in time to 1700s and ask a Christian if they felt that was playing God they would tell you yes would they not?

We already use animal parts and animal products in surgeries and life saving procedures and medicines

This research and experimentation also leads to other questions. Questions such as, how much money is being spent on this? (Money that could be instead used to help the poor and destitute)

Money used to essentially solve the organ donor crisis problem is money well spent. $50 million dollars can feed and shelter 1 million poor people for a few days. If that money is not made available to them, they will figure something out.

However, that same $50 million dollars could progress medical science leading to MILLIONS of lives saved worldwide on a annual basis. So basically, on a cost analysis and dollar for dollar basis, there is no comparison, spending the money on progressing medical science is infinitely better than spending money on the poor and destitute.

Where are they getting the human stem cells? (Is it from aborted babies?) And where exactly is this going to lead if they are successful?

As long as human beings are "purposefully" being manufactured to provide the stem cells, then I don't care where the stem cells come from.

Every year there are millions of abortions. These abortions happened long before cloning and other such concerns. SO there is plenty of stem cells available and there should be no moral qualms in using those cells... cells that would otherwise just go to waste. If an aborted fetus that would have been aborted anyways can save a life, then why not use it to save a life?

....There are already concerns that the pigs might become "too human", that the human stem cells may effect the development of the pig's brain in some way. .. .

This is utterly ridiculous. Implanting stem cells to grow a liver will not magically turn the pig's brain into a human brain. That is just grasping at straws

.......Do people really understand just what they are messing around with? And do the ends justify the means? Of course the potential pain and suffering of the animal also comes into play here.
.

Of course the ends justify the means. If my daughter needs a liver or pancreas to live and those organs can be cloned and grown in a pig and given to her to save her life then 100% absolutely the ends justify the means. And truth be told, who cares about the animal. Seriously, we eat animals by the millions every single day and those animals already suffer pretty badly as they are raised for food production.

look at the disparity between those who need transplants and those who get them?

8,000 people die every year waiting for organ transplants.

Seriously, 8,000 people should not have to die needlessly every year simply because of delicate sensibilities and misplaced morality.

The math is super easy on this. There are about 800,000 reported abortions per year which is 100x to 100,000x more than what would be needed to harvest into a stem cell program. So there are plenty of stem cells available (and this argument is assuming you need fetal stem cells and not other stem cells). Basically, you don't have to envision some nightmare scenario where this becomes some sort of industry where people are purposefully having abortions for money.

....And most importantly, as Christians we should ask, is this an abomination to the Lord? Is combining human cells and animal cells an affront to Him, who created mankind in His image?.

This is the dangerous thinking in my mind, trying to interpret the bible in such a way that it guides are technological development.

I don't see much difference between this and organ transplants or even basic surgery. All of the above can be argued as "playing god".

Medical science is evolving and one day surgery will be viewed as barbaric. Genetic therapies will one day be the norm. Instead of heart surgery, one day they will simply inject you with some sort of genetic-virus-nanotech therapy that solves your problem. I bring this up because it all falls under the umbrella of "playing god".

 

[amariselle]

You can argue that the vast majority of modern medical procedures is akin to "playing god". Take organ transplants. You take an organ from one person and put it in another person. If you could go back in time to 1700s and ask a Christian if they felt that was playing God they would tell you yes would they not?

The way organ transplants work right now involves taking an organ from someone who has already died, due to an accident for instance. In this case the donor's death was unpreventable, and either the person (donor) themselves had signed up to be a donor beforehand and/or their family gives permission. But what we see happening with experimentation like that done with the human/pig embryo is a reliance on human stem cells from human beings who had NO choice in whether they lived or died, and their life was instead willfully taken by another. This is a completely different situation, in which the killing of one person is justified by the possibility that another person might be saved.

We already use animal parts and animal products in surgeries and life saving procedures and medicines

That still does not justify the killing of unborn babies and the use of their stem cells for experimentation.

Money used to essentially solve the organ donor crisis problem is money well spent. $50 million dollars can feed and shelter 1 million poor people for a few days. If that money is not made available to them, they will figure something out.

"They will figure something else out?" Tell that to the thousands upon thousands of people that have died from starvation and/or diseases that could have been easily treated and cured. Tell that to the hundreds living on the streets all around the world, the little children who live on garbage heaps in the slums. All the while money is being poured into science experiments which depend in part on murdered children, while the poor of today eat garbage or nothing at all, and parents watch their children starve. Obviously they weren't able to "figure something out."

However, that same $50 million dollars could progress medical science leading to MILLIONS of lives saved worldwide on a annual basis. So basically, on a cost analysis and dollar for dollar basis, there is no comparison, spending the money on progressing medical science is infinitely better than spending money on the poor and destitute.

I disagree. I do believe there is a place for medical research, but it should NEVER come as a result of taking human life. The Nazi's could have argued the same points regarding all the experiments they were doing on people, a lot of our medical knowledge now comes from them, but what they did was inexcusable. Even though more lives may be saved now because of their "research", that will never make what they did okay. The ends DO NOT always justify the means. Medical experimentation and research should absolutely NEVER involve or be reliant on the murder of human beings.

And as for the immediate needs of the poor and destitute? We absolutely need to help in any way we can. Why do they matter less than someone waiting for an organ transplant?

As long as human beings are "purposefully" being manufactured to provide the stem cells, then I don't care where the stem cells come from.

I hope you re-read what you wrote above very carefully. You are quite clearly advocating for the "purposeful manufacture" of human beings just so that they can be killed and their stem cells used for medical experimentation and research. Each and every one of those "purposefully manufactured" human beings is an individual person, created in God's image, a precious life. You even admit they are human beings, and yet this doesn't seem to bother you one single bit. Why are those human beings any less important than those waiting for organ transplants? How can you truly value human life if you say otherwise?

Human beings are not a product that can be created, killed and bought and sold at will. This is what you seem to be supporting, and you say that you don't care, as long as the stem cells necessary for medical science and research are made available. This view is reprehensible and disgusting.

Every year there are millions of abortions. These abortions happened long before cloning and other such concerns. SO there is plenty of stem cells available and there should be no moral qualms in using those cells... cells that would otherwise just go to waste. If an aborted fetus that would have been aborted anyways can save a life, then why not use it to save a life?

I absolutely disagree. Just because babies are aborted and stem cells are therefore available, does not make any of it right. Abortion is murder, and depending on the murder of one (or more) human beings to argue that you may possibly save another life, is madness. Killing one person or relying on their murder to save another person, makes absolutely NO sense.
And don't think for one moment that the abortion industry doesn't make a huge profit off of such things. They do.

This is utterly ridiculous. Implanting stem cells to grow a liver will not magically turn the pig's brain into a human brain. That is just grasping at straws

Call it whatever you like, it is the scientists themselves who have expressed such concerns. They have made it clear that they are very worried, because they have no idea what they are playing around with. (And they truly don't)

Of course the ends justify the means. If my daughter needs a liver or pancreas to live and those organs can be cloned and grown in a pig and given to her to save her life then 100% absolutely the ends justify the means.

Even if another child (or multiple children) are murdered to grow the organ needed to save your daughter?

And truth be told, who cares about the animal. Seriously, we eat animals by the millions every single day and those animals already suffer pretty badly as they are raised for food production.

Sure, and I never said otherwise. Actually, I am far more concerned about the lives of the unborn babies that are being ended and the reliance this experimentation has on these murdered babies.

look at the disparity between those who need transplants and those who get them?

8,000 people die every year waiting for organ transplants.

Seriously, 8,000 people should not have to die needlessly every year simply because of delicate sensibilities and misplaced morality.

"Delicate sensibilities and misplaced morality"? Is that what you honestly think those who say unborn babies shouldn't be murdered and used as science experiments are expressing? I sure hope not, because that would be ridiculous. (Although it's an argument I might expect from an Atheist, and I have heard it from them.)

Thousands of unborn babies shouldn't have to be murdered to save those waiting for organ transplants. Again, the ends do not justify the means.

The math is super easy on this. There are about 800,000 reported abortions per year which is 100x to 100,000x more than what would be needed to harvest into a stem cell program. So there are plenty of stem cells available (and this argument is assuming you need fetal stem cells and not other stem cells).

So, it's all about the math and availability to you? What about all of those precious children whose lives were willfully ended?

Basically, you don't have to envision some nightmare scenario where this becomes some sort of industry where people are purposefully having abortions for money.

I think your arguments and justifications in this post make it quite clear that I do indeed have to "envision some nightmare scenario." Although, in some ways, you're right, I don't need to "envision" it, because it is already a reality. The abortion industry is just that, an industry. They make millions off of the murder of other human beings, it doesn't get much more nightmarish than that.

This is the dangerous thinking in my mind, trying to interpret the bible in such a way that it guides are technological development.

What is "dangerous" is the thinking that it is okay to murder one or more human beings and use them in experiments just so that we can have a possibility of saving another human being sometime in the future. Is "technological advancement" something that should come at the price of human life?

I don't see much difference between this and organ transplants or even basic surgery. All of the above can be argued as "playing god".

When you do everything possible to save a life without killing someone else, that's one thing. As soon as you start to pick and choose who lives and who dies and why, THAT is playing God.

Medical science is evolving and one day surgery will be viewed as barbaric. Genetic therapies will one day be the norm. Instead of heart surgery, one day they will simply inject you with some sort of genetic-virus-nanotech therapy that solves your problem. I bring this up because it all falls under the umbrella of "playing god".

Again, if such things can be done in a way that doesn't depend on the death of other human beings, so be it. Such progress at the willful expense of human life however, is completely unacceptable.

 

[MotherFirefly]

"Human kind can not gain anything without first giving something in return. To obtain something of equal value must be lost. That is Alchemy's first law of equivalent exchange. In those days we really believed that to be the world's one and only truth. But the world isn't perfect and the law is incomplete. Equivalent exchange doesn't encompass everything that goes on here, but I still choose to believe in its principle. That all things do come at a price. That there's an ebb and a flow, a cycle that the pain we went through did have a reward and that anyone who's determined and perseveres will get something of value in return, even if it's not what they expected. I don't think of equivalent exchange as a law of the world anymore. I think of it as a promise."

 

[amariselle]

"Human kind can not gain anything without first giving something in return. To obtain something of equal value must be lost. That is Alchemy's first law of equivalent exchange. In those days we really believed that to be the world's one and only truth. But the world isn't perfect and the law is incomplete. Equivalent exchange doesn't encompass everything that goes on here, but I still choose to believe in its principle. That all things do come at a price. That there's an ebb and a flow, a cycle that the pain we went through did have a reward and that anyone who's determined and perseveres will get something of value in return, even if it's not what they expected. I don't think of equivalent exchange as a law of the world anymore. I think of it as a promise."

Do you think an unborn baby's life should be taken and exchanged for the life of someone waiting for an organ transplant? (I am asking an honest question here)

 

[MotherFirefly]

Do you think an unborn baby's life should be taken and exchanged for the life of someone waiting for an organ transplant? (I am asking an honest question here)

My biased answer would be absolutely not.
There are so many variables and circumstances, though... the question feels loaded.

But I could never see a good argument being made, that I would agree with, to take the life of a new being, to -potentially- save an older one. We lose human life in that exchange.

Putting aside the fact we are taking advantage of a being who has no say in the matter...

 

[amariselle]

My biased answer would be absolutely not.
There are so many variables and circumstances, though... the question feels loaded.

But I could never see a good argument being made, that I would agree with, to take the life of a new being, to -potentially- save an older one. We lose human life in that exchange.

Putting aside the fact we are taking advantage of a being who has no say in the matter...

I do not think such an exchange is right in any way, and I hope that this remains my "bias". It is not for us to say that one human life is worth more than another. If we start saying that, then where do we draw the line? What criteria do we use in deciding whose life is worth more and why?

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

I do not think such an exchange is right in any way, and I hope that this remains my "bias". It is not for us to say that one human life is worth more than another. If we start saying that, then where do we draw the line? What criteria do we use in deciding whose life is worth more and why?

Since you do seem to want these questions answered, I would refer you to my thread http://www.christianforums.com/thre...finger-at-a-time.7950579/page-2#post-69738595, especially post #21. I don't think it makes sense to refer to what is in the womb as "a human life" in the sense of being a human being. In other words, I think "the line" you are inquiring about is at birth.

Although the fetus has life, and that life is human life (since it is human cells having human DNA), it is not a human life, not a person so there is no one there having "a life" to be compared with the life of an actual (born) human being.

 

[amariselle]

Since you do seem to want these questions answered, I would refer you to my thread http://www.christianforums.com/thre...finger-at-a-time.7950579/page-2#post-69738595, especially post #21. I don't think it makes sense to refer to what is in the womb as "a human life" in the sense of being a human being. In other words, I think "the line" you are inquiring about is at birth.

Although the fetus has life, and that life is human life (since it is human cells having human DNA), it is not a human life, not a person so there is no one there having "a life" to be compared with the life of an actual (born) human being.

All of that is simply your opinion. The Bible makes it quite clear that God has "knit us together in our mother's womb." A developing baby is a developing human being, and as such is a very real human life. Human life does not begin at birth, it begins at conception.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

All of that is simply your opinion. The Bible makes it quite clear that God has "knit us together in our mother's womb." A developing baby is a developing human being, and as such is a very real human life. Human life does not begin at birth, it begins at conception.

No it is NOT simply my opinion. You are the one simply expressing an opinion - I argue for my view as per the points of the post #21 referred to above.
That we are knit together in our mother's womb, that it is a process of God, invented by God, for creating a new human being, does not mean that such a human being exists before it is "built." How could it?

Please note and learn for once: "human life" (as in your claim "human life begins at conception") is NOT a human being, does NOT mean the same thing, and even includes the cancer tumor. All you accomplish by that (true!) claim is to equate the fetus with cancer.
I.e, "human life" is indeed present at all stages of gestation in the womb. "Human life" means it has what the tumor has!

 

[amariselle]

No it is NOT simply my opinion. You are the one simply expressing an opinion - I argue for my view as per the points of the post #21 referred to above.
That we are knit together in our mother's womb, that it is a process of God, invented by God, for creating a new human being, does not mean that such a human being exists before it is "built." How could it?

Please note and learn for once: "human life" (as in your claim "human life begins at conception") is NOT a human being, does NOT mean the same thing, and even includes the cancer tumor. All you accomplish by that (true!) claim is to equate the fetus with cancer.
I.e, "human life" is indeed present at all stages of gestation in the womb. "Human life" means it has what the tumor has!

A developing baby is NOT the same as a cancer, he or she is a human being. Each and every baby developing in their mother's womb is being "knit together" by God. This process is sacred and throughout the entirety of it, that baby which is being formed is a real person, an intrinsically valuable human life.

I have heard quite enough about developing babies being the same as a cancerous tumor.

I also do not appreciate your lectures, and your command that I "learn for once." If you want to continue believing that a precious unborn baby is the same thing as a cancerous tumor, you are free to do so. I have had this discussion with you numerous times, you will not convince me to believe likewise.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

A developing baby is NOT the same as a cancer, he or she is a human being. Each and every baby developing in their mother's womb is being "knit together" by God. This process is sacred and throughout the entirety of it, that baby which is being formed is a real person, an intrinsically valuable human life.

I have heard quite enough about developing babies being the same as a cancerous tumor.

I also do not appreciate your lectures, and your command that I "learn for once." If you want to continue believing that a precious unborn baby is the same thing as a cancerous tumor, you are free to do so. I have had this discussion with you numerous times, you will not convince me to believe likewise.

I don't know if it is worth talking with you - I certainly do NOT say a fetus is the same as a cancer; it is is only "the same" in the sense it is human life. But that shows your claim about "human life" is trivial, does NOTHING to help prove your point, that it is a human being.

 

[parousia70]

All of that is simply your opinion. The Bible makes it quite clear that God has "knit us together in our mother's womb." A developing baby is a developing human being, and as such is a very real human life. Human life does not begin at birth, it begins at conception.

And since roughly only 1/3 of Fertilized human embryos, when left alone, result in a live birth, Is God to blame for such an abysmal (33%) successful "knitting together" rate?

Say there's a fire in a fertility clinic, you rush in and find a cryo tank with 1000 frozen embryos right next to a already born baby, coughing from the smoke, crying in a crib... only time to grab one or the other, and though you try, it is impossible to carry both.

Which do you choose to rescue from the flames?

Me?
The Already Born Baby. No question.

 

[amariselle]

And since roughly only 1/3 of Fertilized human embryos, when left alone, result in a live birth, Is God to blame for such an abysmal (33%) successful "knitting together" rate?

Say there's a fire in a fertility clinic, you rush in and find a cryo tank with 1000 frozen embryos right next to a already born baby, coughing from the smoke, crying in a crib... only time to grab one or the other, and though you try, it is impossible to carry both.

Which do you choose to rescue from the flames?

Me?
The Already Born Baby. No question.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. The fact that you can only save one child does not make the other babies less human. What if there had been two or more crying babies in the fire and you only had time to save one of them? Does that make the ones you couldn't save less human? Or what if there was a pregnant mother in the fire along with several crying babies and you were unable to save all of them? If the mother and her unborn child die, does that mean her unborn child was not a real baby?

We do not define what is a human life and what isn't simply by our decision to terminate a pregnancy or by our inability to prevent the death of a child, born or unborn. Human life is created and defined by God, and it is laid out in the Bible.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. The fact that you can only save one child does not make the other babies less human. What if there had been two or more crying babies in the fire and you only had time to save one of them? Does that make the ones you couldn't save less human? Or what if there was a pregnant mother in the fire along with several crying babies and you were unable to save all of them? If the mother and her unborn child die, does that mean her unborn child was not a real baby?

We do not define what is a human life and what isn't simply by our decision to terminate a pregnancy or by our inability to prevent the death of a child, born or unborn. Human life is created and defined by God, and it is laid out in the Bible.

Do you try to be obtuse? When (s)he says "one or the other" (s)he obviously means one or the other of the things already pointed to, namely 1000 frozen embryos on the one hand, or one crying real baby on the other.

Surely on your view the 1000 would be taken, and the one real baby left behind? Right?

A Hobson's choice perhaps, yet still a possible real choice.

 

[amariselle]

Do you try to be obtuse?

No....what an odd question.

When (s)he says "one or the other" (s)he obviously means one or the other of the things already pointed to, namely 1000 frozen embryos on the one hand, or one crying real baby on the other.

Surely on your view the 1000 would be taken, and the one real baby left behind? Right?

That is not at all what I said. In fact, I am not the one that suggested such a scenario in the first place.

A Hobson's choice perhaps, yet still a possible real choice.

The REAL choice being made every single day is to kill unborn babies. I am far more concerned with that, and with how the subject of this thread depends on such killing, than I am with hypothetical situations.