Ethical Question: Cloning Neanderthal

Taft2016 said:
I'm not classifying them as anything really, other than a different species.

I'm arguing devil's advocate points to explore the ethics involved.

There is objective science to support that they were difference species, something the Nazis or slave owners did not have.
Click to expand...

And there are also studies that do not classify them as a different species, so it appears that the final decision is still out there.
 
Taft2016 said:
I'm not classifying them as anything really, other than a different species.

I'm arguing devil's advocate points to explore the ethics involved.

There is objective science to support that they were difference species, something the Nazis or slave owners did not have.
Click to expand...

Taft, your DNA is 1 to 4 percent Neanderthal , thus they are not another species, they are merely different than you. They were considered another species before DNA analysis could be done
 
Taft2016 said:
So you would bestow human rights upon another species?

How about American Constitutional rights?

Did the Founders mean "All men are created equal", or "all human species are created equal"?
Click to expand...


HUMAN rights apply to humans. Neanderthals were humans.

So say in the future humans become isolated on different planets and speciate. Are you suggesting that it would be okay to strip one of the populations of their rights or allow them to be enslaved?
 
Taft2016 said:
So you would bestow human rights upon another species?

How about American Constitutional rights?

Did the Founders mean "All men are created equal", or "all human species are created equal"?
Click to expand...

Do you sit up at night thinking of the stupidest fucking questions you can pose on this forum? Or are you merely naturally this stupid?
 
Micawber said:
Is there a tabloid subforum we can use for Republicans?
Click to expand...

Not really. It's a legitimate topic of discussion.

http://archive.archaeology.org/1003/etc/neanderthals.html

Bernard Rollin, a bioethicist and professor of philosophy at Colorado State University, doesn't believe that creating a Neanderthal clone would be an ethical problem in and of itself. The problem lies in how that individual would be treated by others. "I don't think it is fair to put people...into a circumstance where they are going to be mocked and possibly feared," he says, "and this is equally important, it's not going to have a peer group. Given that humans are at some level social beings, it would be grossly unfair." The sentiment was echoed by Stringer, "You would be bringing this Neanderthal back into a world it did not belong to....It doesn't have its home environment anymore."

"I think there would be no question that if you cloned a Neanderthal, that individual would be recognized as having human rights under the Constitution and international treaties," says Lori Andrews, a professor at Chicago-Kent College of Law. The law does not define what a human being is, but legal scholars are debating questions of human rights in cases involving genetic engineering. "This is a species-altering event," says Andrews, "it changes the way we are creating a new generation." How much does a human genome need to be changed before the individual created from it is no longer considered human?

Legal precedent in the United States seems to be on the side of Neanderthal human rights. In 1997, Stuart Newman, a biology professor at New York Medical School attempted to patent the genome of a chimpanzee-human hybrid as a means of preventing anyone from creating such a creature. The patent office, however, turned down his application on the basis that it would violate the Constitution's 13th amendment prohibition against slavery. Andrews believes the patent office's ruling shows the law recognizes that an individual with a half-chimpanzee and half-human genome would deserve human rights. A Neanderthal would have a genome that is even more recognizably human than Newman's hybrid. "If we are going to give the Neanderthals humans rights...what's going to happen to that individual?" Andrews says. "Obviously, it won't have traditional freedoms. It's going to be studied and it's going to be experimented on. And yet, if it is accorded legal protections, it will have the right to not be the subject of research, so the very reasons for which you would create it would be an abridgment of rights."

Human rights laws vary widely around the world. "There is not a universal ban on cloning," says Anderson. "Even in the United States there are some states that ban it, others that don't." On August 8, 2005, the United Nations voted to ban human cloning. It sent a clear message that most governments believe that human cloning is unethical. The ban, however, is non-binding.

The legal issues surrounding a cloned Neanderthal would not stop with its rights. Under current laws, genomes can be patented, meaning that someone or some company could potentially own the genetic code of a long-dead person. Svante Pääbo, who heads the Neanderthal genome sequencing project at Max Planck, refused to comment for this article, citing concerns about violating an embargo agreement with the journal that is going to publish the genome sequence. But he did send ARCHAEOLOGY this statement: "We have no plans to patent any of the genes in the Neanderthal."
Click to expand...

I think the topic makes for very interesting discussion...
 
domer76 said:
Do you sit up at night thinking of the stupidest fucking questions you can pose on this forum? Or are you merely naturally this stupid?
Click to expand...

See the above post for input from minds considerably greater than yours.

Yes, I know that is no great accomplishment, but there it is...

I read this article recently and thought it would be an interesting topic for the more sophisticated readers here. I obviously didn't have you in mind, so you're free to leave whenever you please.
 
Taft2016 said:
See the above post for input from minds considerably greater than yours.

Yes, I know that is no great accomplishment, but there it is...

I read this article recently and thought it would be an interesting topic for the more sophisticated readers here. I obviously didn't have you in mind, so you're free to leave whenever you please.
Click to expand...

It's far more dam interesting than all the fake news stories concocted by the State Media that currently dominate the board.

:clink:
 
Do references to neanderthals appear in any ancient mythology or religious texts, given that their extinction was relatively recent?
 
In 1997, Stuart Newman, a biology professor at New York Medical School attempted to patent the genome of a chimpanzee-human hybrid as a means of preventing anyone from creating such a creature. The patent office, however, turned down his application on the basis that it would violate the Constitution's 13th amendment prohibition against slavery.
Click to expand...

Now take this little bit out of that long article I linked to...

I understand that Constitutional rulings by the US Patent Office don't carry much weight but, it seems that our Constitution provides more protections to a theoretical half man-half chimp hybrid on a sheet of paper than an actual 100% human fetus in the womb.

And how does the Constitutional ban on slavery even enter the equation? Owning the genome isn't the same as owning the actual being once born, is it?

Or is it?

If a neanderthal is born, is the property of the cloner? The child of the cloner? Does it get a birth certificate?

What is a human?
 
I've read some of Jane M. Auel's books like Clan of the Cave Bear. While they are fictional, I do believe she used achaelogical and anthropological data to invent a fairly realistic cave man society.
 
Bigdog said:
Do references to neanderthals appear in any ancient mythology or religious texts, given that their extinction was relatively recent?
Click to expand...

Good question.

Wish I could answer it. :awesome:

I assume virtually no history was passed down among those early humans.
 
Taft2016 said:
Now take this little bit out of that long article I linked to...

I understand that Constitutional rulings by the US Patent Office don't carry much weight but, it seems that our Constitution provides more protections to a theoretical half man-half chimp hybrid on a sheet of paper than an actual 100% human fetus in the womb.

And how does the Constitutional ban on slavery even enter the equation? Owning the genome isn't the same as owning the actual being once born, is it?

Or is it?

If a neanderthal is born, is the property of the cloner? The child of the cloner? Does it get a birth certificate?

What is a human?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be surprised to learn that human cloning is already being done in secret in some country.
 
Taft2016 said:
See the above post for input from minds considerably greater than yours.

Yes, I know that is no great accomplishment, but there it is...

I read this article recently and thought it would be an interesting topic for the more sophisticated readers here. I obviously didn't have you in mind, so you're free to leave whenever you please.
Click to expand...

I watched you make a fool of yourself, ad nauseum, on the other thread. You're merely continuing the same moronic flow.

Sophisticated minds don't sit up at night wondering whether we should give Constitutional rights to a species that went extinct 40,000 years ago. The mind of a child does.

Fucking cretin.
 
Taft2016 said:
Does that include a homo sapien in the womb?

Because according to the federal government it includes a theoretical hyrid man/chimp on a piece of paper.
Click to expand...

I don't want to talk about abortion.

Why don't you answer the question I posed? Suppose in the future humans become isolated on different planets and speciate. Are you suggesting that it would be okay to strip one of the populations of their rights or allow them to be enslaved?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top