A friend found out about Mike the Headless Chicken. It's a chicken without a head being kept alive on injections. It still moves and does averything but It doesn't even know it's alive - how can it feel anything? I think it is unfair what is being done to it.

Also scientists reckon they can keep a human head alive away from the body. This I think is wrong as it would be able to feel things, able to think, hear and probably see but would be helpless and be experimented on. It would still be a person and would probably be in pain. It wouldn't even be able to speak.

Why do scientists try things like this and even want to? It isn't right, it's unfair on what is being experimented on. Chickens have heads for reasons and heads have bodies for reasons.

A person is defined on the emotions it has, without a head it is not a human, merely a bunch of chemicals, like a biochemical robot.. It can not have pain either, since all the nerves lead to the brains were it is processed, and is defined as pain, sound, vision, touch, etc. Without the brain it will not feel pain

Last I heard, they were trying to prove the non-exisctance of a soul, by sticking a tube up in a rats arse and fill it with liquid nitrogen (ouch). This was done so fast that the rat "died" in less than a half second. Later they warmed the rat up and it was alive again.
Still proves nothing IMO

This type of science still freaks me out though

[ December 20, 2002, 23:28: Message edited by: Morgoth ]

Why would scientists want to go about trying to prove the supposed non-existence of a soul? Science and faith are not two diametrically opposed issues, despite the fact that there are scientists out there who completely reject religion, and vice versa.

Science is nice. Religion is nice. Can't they just get along?

And as for preserving chicken heads and sodomizing rats with liquid nitrogen tubes - I fail to see how that benefits society in any way.

[ December 21, 2002, 05:27: Message edited by: C'Jakob ]

Sounds like a bunch of scientists trying to play God. I'd like to know at what point have they proved there is no soul. Outside of faith mixed with a little reason, you can't prove the existence of the soul, so how do they expect science to prove there is no soul?

Speaking about playing God, the first "cloned" human baby will be born in IIRC January, gosh, it will be freak and will probably not get older than 1 year

If scientists are proving that there is no soul they've probably lost theirs believing that. I am not against science or religion but I do think there is such thing as going to far in them. It always seems to be an argument between them though, even if they re in some ways simular, I think they can learn from each other.

If the baby is a freak then it should fit in, will it be a freak in body or mind? Both or neither?

Killing things just to revive them? It's pointless, why? Did a scientist get bored and say "Hey let's pump nitrogen up it's arse and see how quickly it dies - we'll just say we're seeing if it has a soul!" I mean, how pointless is it? If someone is trying to prove something that much with so little then I think something musn't be right, either they have a hate or fear of something, or there is another reason They can keep it to themselves!

I have to agree with you, some things are just going too far. The rats are also alive and have the same emotions we do, we have no right to do these things just to prove something that does not need to be proven. What difference does it make if we have souls or not. It's a pointless debate that exists only for the gratification of the debators and has long since stopped having any meaning. I believe the soul exists but only as an energy field generated by the brain's electrical activity but that's my belief and I don't care what anyone else thinks or believes. Generally what others believe is not important, when what others believe has no effect on you either way you have to question the motivation of the people trying to affect this. Overall I believe this is an interesting topic for debate and light experimentation but going any further appears to be truly pointless.

I don't wish to sound evil, but you have to remember that one day, one of you or a loved one will require a life saving treatment or such. The research which is needed to perform these operations and treatments also need fine tuning.

To fine tune, you need to experiment. Im afraid that SOME of these practices are falling into the term of "The end justifying the means."

I say SOME, because sometimes the experiments are just cruel, but others ,just might be necessary.

We have come a long way from testing stupid ethics on creatures, but life is just cruel in the way that sadism is allowed to be utilised in the experimentation of drugs on animals.

One point, however, is that all drugs need testing. Im sure people would agree there, whats the point of saying that "This injection can cure cancer" Yet it is a mere placebo. So what, exactly, DO we use for testing these drugs.

Rights protesters from all angles would say "No don't test drugs on....!! Its cruel" I say that it is also cruel to use unrefined drugs on a person which could be lethal to them, because they haven't had the proper test run on them.

Im not on anyone's side, im just stating what I believe as the facts. Its my belief that the human race is quite evil in its ethics, its selfishness and its greed. It just seems like a bleak future, when nuclear destruction is a button push away. And how did the nuclear weapons come to be? From the wrong kind of testing of science.

I don't wish to sound evil, but you have to remember that one day, one of you or a loved one will require a life saving treatment or such. Why, if I really loved her/him I´ll just let her/him die.
Not to sound cruel, but I just want someboy I love to live as he/she should.

i don't think that today science is good at all... we could have been better out without it... stick a tube in a rat ass... when they can at least try to stop HIV, AIDS and Cancer... and the making of the A-bomb... that is the dumbest thing ever made... :mad: that just pisses me off...

I agree that drugs and such should be tested on animals before they are given to humans. At what point though do these tests cease to serve a purpose? Testing animals for a soul? My understanding is that animals don't even have souls. This sounds more like something a thirteen year old boy would do in the basement with his chem set than something that research scientists should be doing.

when they can at least try to stop HIV, AIDS and Cancer They are Ivanji, and they just found a "good" medication for HIV, but finding a cure for AIDS is almost impossible

Oh and to piss you more of, HIV was brought into the "human world" by science, they looked for a good blooddonor and they tried monkeys, these creatures carried HIV..
How ironic, you try to do something good for humanity and then you just bring a disease into the world

[ December 21, 2002, 16:38: Message edited by: Morgoth ]

Question - Why test things FOR humans on other animals?

I think that some science is causing more harm than good.

If drugs need to be tested then why can't they get volunteers? It seems a bit pointless giving a creature a human illness that it's body will treat differently thne testing something designed for humans on it. Mot problems are humanly made, I don't mean to sound stupid when I say this, but - Nature proveds.

People are thinking "What?" but if you look you will find something eg. Stinging nettles and Doc leaves. At one point Daffodils were thought to have a cure for cancer.

Also I recently heard that herbal stuff will be banned because medicine companies are losing money to them.

To make an omelet you have to crack a few eggs. If something can be done I think it should be done. All to the furthering of humanity. Without science, much of which was viewed as ethically and morally abhorrent when conducted we would still be living in caves trying to hunt down a moose for dinner. I am pro most things that man can do, sure sometimes things are done wrong and unnescessary suffering come to pass but when all things are considered all things developed are done so to stop somekind of suffering. Oh well I have rambled enough but none of the examples above strike me as very wicked, testing cosmetics on animals is a better example I think. As cosmetic has no real practical use.

Question - Why test things FOR humans on other animals? Because if you test it on humans, you get trouble with Amnesty, UN and the EU..

I´ve seen tests on rabbits were soap is sprayed into the rabbits eyes to see if it irritate.
One test, maybe two per rabbit, ok, if it has to be done..
But testing over and over till the rabbit goes permantly blind, because restrictions want clear results that it really irritates and not just gives red eyes, uhm nah :toofar: .

If things will really help in the evolution of mankind, then it should be done, moral should not interfere..

But things like shoving a liquid nitrogen tube up a rats arse will not help in evolution of mankind, and is therefore unnecesary animal abuse, or merely "divine" *ahum* actions to see if we can play god without screwing up

[ December 22, 2002, 11:54: Message edited by: Morgoth ]

In many peoples view we are the superior race on this planet. Did rabbits give us technology? Did beagles (how I envy them, as many smokes a day as they want all free ;) :p ) erradicate smallpox (and also give us all AIDS doing so) ? Have they built cities that are renowned places of education and commerce? No, it was humans. Have they developed an opposable thumb? No.
Well thats what those scientists are looking for in subjects they can't test on. Basically "they're only animals" and therefore it's ok for them to be tested on.

Has science went too far though? Well a microchip almost finished being tested that would restore sight to about 80 % of blind people doesn't sound too far to me. A gas that is leathal for about 14 hours, kills any animals it encounters by blistering their lungs and having them die in agony and drowning in their own blood does. Where do you actually say yes? If you had at the development of that gas the microchip to restore sight wouldn't have been invented. Don't you find it amazing how far things have advanced in a century? each time a leap being taken during and right after a war that engulfed the globe? :hmm: Science is here to stay, as are it's methods. And with each war it leaps forward IMO. Has it went too far? My answer to that would be no, because in human nature there is no too far, only the driving will to know, learn and understand more. And as for this soul thing, I'm actually amazed that the concept of a God has survived the twentieth century given it's events.

Guys I hate to burst your bubble here but Mike The Headless Chicken was an event that happened back in 1945. It was in Colorado, here's Mike's homepage: http://www.miketheheadlesschicken.org/

LOL now thats a good story :D .
It still doesn't actually change the debate about has science went too far though? It does put a cloud of doubt over whether scientists will be able to do that with humans soon though. But then people thought DNA would never be unravelled etc etc

I really don't think science itself has gone too far. It's made plenty of helpful contributions, and surely will continue to. The only fuss I have with it is when it does something that seems utterly pointless (such as with the rat and liquid nitrogen). Also, I don't need scientists (or skeptics, debunkers, etc.) telling me that they've "disproved" the existence of a soul, the existence of a God, etc. Science cannot prove or disprove those things. Science is only a convenience we have to make our lives better (or worse).

As for scientists "playing God" with animals, humans, diseases, etc., I don't think that they're playing God at all. If they can create life, destroy it, manipulate, etc., I have no problem with it so long as it's got a good end to it. If scientists give AIDS to a few rabbits (or even humans), and learn how to cure it by that research, shouldn't that be done for a greater benefit?

[ December 22, 2002, 23:43: Message edited by: C'Jakob ]

The problem I have is when science decides to give us all a big risk of AIDS through something that's supposed to help us. Not a lot of progress for stopping it has been done really, and it won't be the last blunder it makes. Giving it to rabbits? Hey they're not human (see above rant) so who cares?
Science won't stop as C'jakob pointed out, and I don;t think the smallpox virus will be the last blunder either :(

I don't know, some people who are just heads are very nice. Take Morte for instance.

But seriously, being a head would suck. Assuming they could

A) keep blood flowing throughout you
and
B) keep your blood oxygenated,

Life would be dull.
Float in a tank, get experimented on, have reporters gawk at you. Repeat. Repeat. Repeat. Day in day out, and when they have no further experiments you either die or get put in a warehouse somewhere.

One cannot prove or disprove something as intangible as a soul. After all, killing something and then reviving it is a dodgy experiment to begin with. How does one measure a soul in a lab? The results are not measurable, therefore the whole experiment is just silly.

As for scientists "playing God" with animals, humans, diseases, etc., I don't think that they're playing God at all. If they can create life, destroy it, manipulate, etc., I have no problem with it so long as it's got a good end to it. If scientists give AIDS to a few rabbits (or even humans), and learn how to cure it by that research, shouldn't that be done for a greater benefit? - Again, AIDS cannot be cured once it has taken over a body, stopped yes
- Cloning, etc.. is IMHO "playing God"

Science is nice. Religion is nice. Can't they just get along? Absolutely not, since Satan is the oldest friend of knowledge and is banished for that

Cloning, etc.. is IMHO "playing God"
Agreed!

As for scientists these days I only want to say this, if it leads to something good (curing diseases stuff like that) it should go on. Most inventions are made for a 'good' reason but become 'evil' along the way.

Gunpowder can be used as a good way too --> mining.

But it also has a 'evil' way --> canons.

I think it doesn't even matter, even if for example gunpowder wasn't discovered there would have been a substitute.

My point, there is (not always) a good in every invention, even if it's just the intention of the inventor.

What so wrong with playing god? Is it playing god to cure a disease that god perhaps had decided for a person to get? Where is the line, and even is there is one what is so wrong about crossing it? As I dont see god doing much buisness down here we migth as well do it for him. Perhaps we can one day overthrow the tyrann! ;) :evil:

Posted by: Morgoth

Why, if I really loved her/him I´ll just let her/him die.
Not to sound cruel, but I just want someboy I love to live as he/she should.

**

Oh and to piss you more of, HIV was brought into the "human world" by science, they looked for a good blooddonor and they tried monkeys, these creatures carried HIV..
How ironic, you try to do something good for humanity and then you just bring a disease into the world
For the first one. I believe this was a question of "will you be willing to sacrifice the life of a rat or two, should that sacrifice save the life of your beloved". And that doesn't mean that you loved one would still have to live her (his?) life as a crippled half-dead. The life of but a few rats and bunnies could eventually save the lives of thousands or even millions of loved ones of different people. It's easy to say that no you won't have it. It's a whole other thing when you're put to the situation.

I'm against the cruel experiments they do. But should the woman I love be infected with a terminal disease, then I would gladly snap the neck off a few vermins to make her heal. I would go much further than that even, were I given the choice. Only thing that would limit what I would do would be when she said "no, I don't want to anymore". And even then I would be hard-pressed to listen to her for my own fear of letting her go. There are too many "no don't step on the ant!" and "no you just breathed in a bacteria that will die in your stomach-acids!" type of people in this world for me to take on that attitude. I care for me and those close to me only. A rat's life means nothing if it has the possibility of increasing the chances of survival for anyone I care of even for a fraction.

Surely many of you don't agree. But ask yourself once still. Should you see your loved dying in front of you, and all that would be required would be to say "yes", and the life of a small vermin animal. Say a ray, from a trashpile, would be traded for hers? Would you look into her eyes and say "no"? If you would, then don't take it as a surprise when I call you a cold and cruel bastard whom I hope no-one will ever trust their lives upon.

...Oh yeah. About HIV. IIRC, it's still not proven how exactly it has come to pain the humans. Either through some african monkey-feasting, US (or other country) biological weapons experiment. Aliens. God. Or what you just said. So no point in jumping to conclusions based on vague rumours.

[ December 23, 2002, 15:10: Message edited by: Forashi ]

With letting her die, I meant not to life with a terminal disease.. I dont want my beloved to become like a plant.

Normally its not my choice to make, but if I have to make these kind of choices, she/he will most likely end up as a plant and I don´t her/him to life like that.. thats why I rather let her slip away than abusing her just for my feelings

[ December 23, 2002, 18:42: Message edited by: Morgoth ]

One thing on the whole cloning issue.

It seems wrong, very wrong, but if you think about it, clone's could be used to create organ transplants which are safer than using pig doners.

Im not positive on this, but if this would be the case, then it would bring more issues, such as sacrificing non-natural beings to extend the life of another.
***************
Another reason I think the human race can be extremly selfish is when deciding whether to let a person who cannot actively communicate with the outside world live or die.

On one hand, the person in question might be a family member. Some refuse to let them die, out of their own selfishness and greed. THEY want what they want, not what others want, or what the rather vulgerly named 'cripple' wants.

Alternatively, they can be given a peaceful release. Yet if they cannot communicate, how do we know if they want to live or die?

One issue which often decides is religion. I wil be complained to about what im about to say, but it is in my honest opinion that those with a firm belief in god would be more swayed into putting a loved one out of their misery, as they will go to the after-life.

Believers in science would rather let them live, as a new cure or method of revitalisation may be created. Perhaps more of a gamblers choice, no doubt.

You might consider it odd, but Metallica made a song called 'One' which describes someone who is not allowed to die, yet they barely exist. The music video of the song shows the person is a medical experiment, for immortality, who is only able to communicate through morse code.

He keeps asking to be allowed to die, but the researchist refuse. or so my understanding tells me. It is a sick cruel world that would allow this to ever happen, and for all we know, it could be taking place.

[ December 23, 2002, 18:47: Message edited by: Enthasius ]

Im not positive on this, but if this would be the case, then it would bring more issues, such as sacrificing non-natural beings to extend the life of another. Define non-natural

[ December 23, 2002, 18:45: Message edited by: Morgoth ]

I think he means created through cloning or other such methods which aren't the natural way to reproduce beings. As for the whole growing body parts thing, if it helps save lives then I'd be for it, but if it meant killing another to live then thats another story.

As for letting people decide when to die, I say it's their choice, no matter what others think and I've made my wishes clear to people if I am ever in a state where I can no longer communicate my wishes. No one, and nothing else should have a say, it's your life, not theirs after all.

Enthasius, I think I remember an interview with Metallica in which they said the video you're talking about shows clips from a film about a Vietnam war veteran. It's not a medical experiment as I recall, he's a soldier being kept alive by doctors despite horrific battle-wounds and against his wishes. Which is another valid bioethics complaint worth raising - aside from experimentation, how far should we go to keep the sick and injured alive? On the one hand, most people (some religious sects and Lisa-Marie Presley aside) think antibiotics and minor surgery are fine, on the other hand, most people would think keeping a disembodied brain alive in a jar (assuming the rest of the tissue had been destroyed) is not fine. So where do we draw the line? When has it stopped being medicine and started becoming the creation of a monster?

The film is called "Johny got his gun" and if I remember right, he is a WWI veteran.

Last I heard, they were trying to prove the non-exisctance of a soul, by sticking a tube up in a rats arse and fill it with liquid nitrogen (ouch). This was done so fast that the rat "died" in less than a half second. Later they warmed the rat up and it was alive again.
Still proves nothing IMOI'd like to see that verified. I, for one, think you're full of crap. Sounds to me like thier doing cryogenic stasis experiments.

A careful review of the existing scientific community would reveal almost no work in trying to prove/disprove the existence of a deity/soul or whatnot. The definition of such makes it unprovable either way.

As for cloning: Some day its opponents will realize that the end goal is to be able to grow individual organs, not headless bodies for harvesting. This has already been done for some simple organs. Doing it on a large scale for any organ needed with ease is the next task. As for cloning full humans I see no purpose as their is already way to many of them as it is. Some may argue eugenics, however large scale planned breeding programs (a la Gattaca) would be far more effective, not to mention a lot more interesting than living in a world of a few thousand or so highly cloned super humans. (Super only would imply an incredibly powerful metabolism, slow aging, high immunity and above average intelligence; which is probably about as good as you can safely and consistently get our existing genetic code.)

@Alex

See the "Last I HEARD" part?? Maybe it already happened, maybe not..

[ December 25, 2002, 12:57: Message edited by: Morgoth ]