Really?
Printable View
lol, thats amazing.
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.
If anything what I find more interesting is that it looks to amend Title 18 instead of Title 42, where the other laws regarding fetal tissue use are currently in place (though I guess the reason for this is their inclusion of the civil penalties within the statute).
Our tax dollars hard at work. Troubling thing is, a bunch of people got together and voted for these legislators.
The bill is more legit than the story say. That said I'm absolutely against it. I think eventually our next evolutionary leap will be artificial, and there's no fighting that.
I think I'd vote for the bill as it stands because the next artificial evolutionary leap will probably come with the integration of computers into humanity rather than hybridization with other lower species of organisms.
Also, I don't think it would be a good thing for there to be new races of cat-people, dog-people, &c., who are created, become self-cognizant, start demanding equal treatment of rights under laws offered to actual humans, and so on.
At very least, in that scenario, it would give furries justification to exist, and we just can't have that.
I will vote for anyone that runs on an anti-furry platform.
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.
Someone is not happy about this bill:
I want to photosynthesize.
"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!
http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/5...7dd0c04yl9.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Josh
Just remember folks: 99% of us are stupid.
IAWTPQuote:
Originally Posted by dog$
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 YellerDog
Strange because animal rights is a decidedly liberal issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
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.
No, not really. At least not thus far.Quote:
Originally Posted by dog$
Just one important field of it.Quote:
If this law were to pass I wouldn't consider it a total defeat for the progression of science.
It's not the right law. The concept isn't wrong-headed, but it's the wrong way to go about it.
And here I was, just thinking it would be cool to have a hard red shell with black spots.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogacuda
P'shaw. There's no pain in animal experimentation! Also: no crying in baseball.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Who was it that said "I'd strangle every single seal pup in the world to death with my bare hands if it would cure one sick hobo who was dying of AIDS"? Penn?
Yes. William Penn, not Penn Jillette, interestingly enough.
Distant relative, apparently! The things you find out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Penn Jillette
14:53
That is not an incorrect sentiment, IMO.
I would personally kill every street junkie with AIDS in the world, with my bare hands, if it would save me from being asked for change on my way to the laundromat.
Hobos or PETA, hobos or PETA...
That is fucking awful. Did someone seriously make that as some sort of Gay Furry Rights thing?:\Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Holliday
that picture upsets me :(