No Hot Mermaids for USA

"Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) -- an ardent anti-abortion activist -- is worried that the Obama administration's loosening of restrictions on stem cell research will result in the creation of a new race of bio-engineered "human-animal" hybrid freaks."

Sounds awesome to me.

This guy says Dr. Caligari when THAT IS JUST NOT THE CORRECT EVIL DOCTOR!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Josh

I will vote for anyone that runs on an anti-furry platform.

---

http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/5...7dd0c04yl9.jpg

Just remember folks: 99% of us are stupid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dog$

The article is a lot of fuss over nothing really spectacular, and has a lot of sensationalistic phrases which seem to be only there to generate page hits.

At present there's nothing in the US Code which prohibits making human hybrids, so if anything I'm surprised that this law isn't already in the books.

Here's the actual bill text. It's pretty straightforward and short.

---

IAWTP

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YellerDog

Well, on a literal basis this is some kind of right-to-lifer business about messing with human cells (not even fetuses, mind you). Something about rats growing human ears on the sides of 'em just scares the shit out of these dudes.

---

Or, to remove the knee jerk liberal interpretation, it protects the failed experiments that this kind of activity surely would produce and saves those creatures the pain of being deformed and experimented upon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yoshi

Or, to remove the knee jerk liberal interpretation, it protects the failed experiments that this kind of activity surely would produce and saves those creatures the pain of being deformed and experimented upon.

---

Strange because animal rights is a decidedly liberal issue.

Yes, but it's doesn't contain knee jerk shit like "right-to-lifer" and being "scared".

But look dude, if we find a way to splice a gene from a ladybug into a person to create an enzyme that prevents cancer, or something like that, shouldn't we do it?

I don't know why anyone thinks this is going to be some kind of mad science shit where we're creating monkeymen or something. The fact is there's very legitimate science that can help humans and that ought to be explored. It's just the next logical step in preventative medicine. Yes, it requires responsibility, and indeed regulation, but prohibiting it outright is a mistake.

Without knowing the science behind it all I can't really say for sure, but I imagine there could be ways to do things like that once a human fetus is beyond the embryonic stage, which is beyond the scope of this proposal.

If this law were to pass I wouldn't consider it a total defeat for the progression of science. With having this on the books as a precedent there could be legislation introduced afterward (speciifcally after a few incidences where the penalty is applied, so that there is a clear example of where the law can and cannot be imposed) to give proper regulation to scientific application of these techniques.

With the law being so short and specific in scope I imagine there would be many lawyers who could prevent the penalty from applying in many cases, such as gene splicing.