Mansheep!?!

[AerostarMonk]

This has got to be the weirdest things ever. I don't know whether to be fascinated or horrified.
http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=444436&in_page_id=1770&in_a_source=
What about you guys?

[Carlaz]

I find it completely freaky to be honest. :o

[emperor26]

That's the strangest thing I have ever read in my entire life. :wiltshock:

[CG]

I'm downright disgusted by it.

[fosters home fan]

yyyyyyyyeah I'm grossed out by it,too. I think I got better things to do,like watch Fosters.

[scary_dream]

This is novel, but I'm not too worried about it because I doubt that it will come anywhere near being a common practice. Society will have too hard of a time accepting it, not to mention I expect the animal rights activists will be all over this.

I personally think it's wrong to use sheep as our own expendable organ orchard, not to mention it irks me about the mentioned viruses this could introduce to the human race.

Bad idea, scientists. Bad idea.

[One Radical Dude]

Eh, I find it more creepy than fascinating.

[kaytea]

I'm downright disgusted by it.
I second that

[Imaginary Light]

That's kind of creepy. Is there a point to doing this?

[Cassini90125]

Saving lives, I think. I don't have a problem with this kind of research.

[Invader Bloo]

Ewww.... I want some fish cells in me so I can breave under water. :P

[Partymember]

there's a joke in here somewhere...

[Jabberwocky]

Wow, that's really cool.

[Partymember]

Yes, i'll bet we can play with fire and not get burned.




I'm sure all of these modern things like childhood vaccinations and organ farms isn't going to affect natural selection at all. I'm sure the human race will advance genetically just fine without all of that survival of the fittest crap, lets just ALL SURVIVE TOGETHER and sing kumbaya and smack the tambourine. Wouldn't want the weak stock to die off just because they're weak, now would we? I'll bet there's absolutely no genetic stagnation due to "miracles of modern medecine" at all.

[kageri]

That's incredibly disturbing.

[HappyFoppy]

I second that

I second seconding that. Creeps.

[Ditchy McAbandonpants]

Uh, Partymember - I think I can see where you're coming from there, but you might want to think about phrasing it a bit differently. The way it reads now seems to suggest that you're against the concept of medicine and the healing of the injured, sick and disabled altogether because you fear it dilutes the gene pool, and I know you can't possibly mean that...

As for this issue, I really don't know what to say. The idea is very unsettling on a conceptual level, yes, but I tend to avoid making judgement calls on divisive issues such as this, because they're such moral minefields. Do the ethical concerns outweigh the medical ones? Are the odds weighed in favour of its potential benefits, or its potential risks? I don't know about anybody else, but I don't feel qualified to answer that question, and quite frankly I often wonder if anybody truly is...

PS - To all of you non-UK residents, a word of warning; though this particular article is presented fairly innocuously, I would advise you to take anything you read in The Daily Mail/Mail on Sunday with a pinch of salt, being as it is a very partisan right-wing tabloid who tend to favour polemics and unabashed rabble-rousing over objective and even-handed journalism. They're just the sorts of people who will take a complex, shaded, multi-layered debate, make your judgement calls for you, and spin it into a black-and-white issue to further their own agendas. They demonstrate very little respect for the political and moral intelligence of their readers, and I have very little time for them. :(

[kageri]

PS - To all of you non-UK residents, a word of warning; though this particular article is presented fairly innocuously, I would advise you to take anything you read in The Daily Mail/Mail on Sunday with a pinch of salt, being as it is a very partisan right-wing tabloid who tend to favour polemics and unabashed rabble-rousing over objective and even-handed journalism. They're just the sorts of people who will take a complex, shaded, multi-layered debate, make your judgement calls for you, and spin it into a black-and-white issue to further their own agendas. They demonstrate very little respect for the political and moral intelligence of their readers, and I have very little time for them. :(

Ohh, thanks for the warning. So it's one of those tabloids. :0

The reason it freaks me out is not because it's mean to the sheep or I don't support medicine healing the sick. It's just... after seeing all the weird stuff I've seen on the Internet, the thought of a sheep that's part-human actually existing gives me the jibblies. What if furries become a reality?!

[Partymember]

Uh, Partymember - I think I can see where you're coming from there, but you might want to think about phrasing it a bit differently. The way it reads now seems to suggest that you're against the concept of medicine and the healing of the injured, sick and disabled altogether because you fear it dilutes the gene pool, and I know you can't possibly mean that...


trying to get my meaning across better...alright, in the Animal Kingdom, species evolve and grow due to natural selection, right? The frog born with two heads and no legs doesn't get to live very long. Now i'm not saying we should let disabled people die, etc. but i am saying that by trying our very best to save every single person and make sure they get their vaccinations at a young age, we are artificially "selecting" for nature. Not a good idea.

Not trying to hurt anyone's feelings, I would've died at childbirth had the doctors not intervened, i'm just making an observation.

[Nyo]

Creepy. Very.