Arizona Senate votes to ban human-animal hybrids
Politico notes the Arizona state legislature's attempt to ban human-animal hybrids. [Bos'n]
Senate bill 1307, which passed 16-12, prohibits (among other things):
- creating or attempting to create an in vitro human embryo by any means other than fertilization of a human egg by a human sperm.
- creating or attempting to create a human-animal hybrid
- transferring or attempting to transfer a human embryo into a nonhuman womb
- transferring or attempting to transfer a nonhuman embryo into a human womb, and
- transporting or receiving for any purpose a human-animal hybrid
The same bill was passed 5-2 by the House Committee on Health and Human Services last month, sponsored by Chairman Barto, and supported by the Bioethics Defense Fund (whose president argued on its behalf), the Arizona Catholic Conference, members of the 40 Days for Life Campaign and other individuals. It was opposed by Seth Apfel, a prior Democratic candidate for the Arizona Senate.
The bill faces a full vote in the state House and governor approval before becoming law.
About the author
GreenReaper (Laurence Parry) — read stories — contact (login required)a developer, editor and Kai Norn from London, United Kingdom, interested in wikis and computers
Small fuzzy creature who likes cheese & carrots. Founder of WikiFur, lead admin of Inkbunny, and Editor-in-Chief of Flayrah.
Comments
It'd be interesting to learn what kind of potential advancements in medicine or any other potential advantages (if any) might be blocked by this kind of ban, and why it was banned to begin with (is it just "unethical" research?). The original article isn't very clear on that IMO.
Well, the bill factsheet notes the following restrictions that might still permit work in the area:
In the House committee vote, Chairman Barto said "there have been exciting advances in biotechnology in the past few years, but Americans believe that retrieving and using human tissue and genetic material must be coupled with the necessary safeguards to protect the dignity of the human person," while BDF President Nikolas Nikas said "this bill is aimed at preventing asexual reproduction of human beings and creation of animal human hybrids."
As always, I suggest reading the source documents linked above (which Politico strangely didn't provide).
Basically what the law is actually designed to block is that for years scientists have been injecting human genes into mice for the tests to show better results of what would happen if you tested the drugs or whatever on humans. The law is a bad idea because it is really slowing down science and medical advancements,
Except the law doesn't outlaw that, and in fact explicitly allows it.
It only blocks mixing on the level of haploids, complete half-sets of chromosomes, or more. Creating a cell with mixed sets of chromosomes will most of the time do absolutely nothing as the cell won't function due to how different chromosomes structures are with many animals (e.g. different numbers). And if the result was viable, there is a good chance it would have severe genetic disorders as we see in people with wrong sets of chromosomes, so would be pretty unethical with current state of genetics.
This law won't impede science in the near future. The most pessimistic but accurate view I think one can have of the law is that it was a waste of legislative time. But state legislators pass all kinds of pointless resolutions for fun or to send messages, as long as it didn't take too much time.
Humans are technically animals. So this would outlaw every man, woman, and child in the state of Arizona. GG, guys.
Actually, no. The devil's in the details, as always—or rather, in this case, the definitions:
Note that every single subsection of the definition is defined in terms of "human" and "nonhuman", and that "human" is (indirectly) defined as H. sapiens.
And so crazy bible people stamp away a chance of real furries in the future.
You know what? F- them and F- their ruling.
... In Arizona, lol... which if there was a place that would first succeed at this, Arizona wouldn't be it.
Nothing of value was lost.
Note that you can't transport a human-animal hybrid within the state; could be an issue if you had/were one.
They'd probably ask you for papers as well.
I gladly support this. Humans are th mos evolutionized species there is.
If you wish to become an animal,simply kill yourself ( =
Furries are just a mere FETISH,not a ucking LIFESTYLE.
Ever wonderd why noone liked you in school,or people made fun of you due to how ridiculous you look in cat ears, and a cat tail or some shit? Yeah....
Nope, cause I never did that in highschool, or college, or adulthood.
And we are the most evolutionized in relation to our particular environment. We wouldn't last two minutes living in the ocean without tools we devised, for we were not evolved to deal with that environment. A shark would own ya.
But I will give someone that, it would be hell to live as a human-animal hybrid in this world. For example, if someone murdered you, would it be considered a murder by the legal definition or animal cruelty?
That's something I wouldn't want to be on the experiment side of.
Are you stupid, or just an inbred retard? (@ Raz)
No need to feed the trolls. :-)
Troll's gotta eat from time to time too. It's cruel to starve them completely. That one seemed quite scrawny and weak.
1915: 1.8 Billion people,
2010: 6.8 Billion people,
95 years: 5 Billion people,
2310: 22 Billion people,
Solution to problem: Stop Creating Babies
The Patterson-Gimlin film of Bigfoot that was made in 1967 is real. The NASI said that the creature had both human and gorilla features. Bigfoot is a human-primate hybrid. Half man and half gorilla. A man made creature that was created by men who were slaves that took off and ended up in Africa. They used ropes to catch female gorillas and had sex with them. For all the skeptics out there, they were real men that had real sex with real female gorillas. And nobody was wearing a costume at the time.
Post new comment