Help Wanted: Fecund Female To Bear Neanderthal

[crossfire]

Another thing for the female surrogate mother to consider: you do absorb some cells from your offspring during gestation. From what I've read, these cells typically travel to your brain....

 

[Skwim]

To bring a child into the world knowing far in advance that you are creating a life possessing qualitatively unknown vulnerabilities, differences, and challenges is an act of extreme and loveless hubris.

And yet this is done all the time with fetuses with known abnormalities, and sometimes where abortion is banned it's the law.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

And yet this is done all the time with fetuses with known abnormalities, and sometimes where abortion is banned it's the law.

I've addressed this in posts 9 and 23.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Why? The public need never know their true identity, they need not be hounded. They can deal through one a few prominent scientists, with their anonymity mostly protected aside, living privately with their family preferably in a rural setting where inbreeding has its own neanderthals.

How do you actually expect such a thing to remain hidden? I'm sure many tabloid journalist would work tirelessly to uncover the identity of the mother and child. And even in rural areas, people still know each other and the faces that are familiar to the area. And in school, the other kids would very likely notice that one kid looks kinda weird.
If I did give birth to such a child I think the only way I could ever even begin to alleviate my own suffering from doing that would be to take the child's life when the suffering became too much and death would be a release from being a test subject.

I know the examples too, but in the modern US (& even Canuckistan), I've confidence that the Neanderthal would have full rights.

You have more confidence than I do, because I have no doubt there are already groups preparing to lobby that the specimen not be given any rights because it is only science experiment and not even homo sapien. And of course giving rights to a non-human test subject is going become a boogey-man of a slippery slope, because if you give rights to that then next to come is everyone who sets foot in the United States will become an automatic citizen and where does it stop? Giving rights to animals?
As exciting as it would be, I just do not foresee the child to live anything better than a hell because of the overbearing researchers who would no doubt want the child to live under very strict guidelines because they wouldn't want to risk the child becoming damaged goods. I could see them going as far to strongly recommend that the child not be allowed to even climb trees because the risk is too great.

 

[Revoltingest]

You have more confidence than I do, because I have no doubt there are already groups preparing to lobby that the specimen not be given any rights because it is only science experiment and not even homo sapien. And of course giving rights to a non-human test subject is going become a boogey-man of a slippery slope, because if you give rights to that then next to come is everyone who sets foot in the United States will become an automatic citizen and where does it stop? Giving rights to animals?

A Neanderthal would be unique in the animal world:
- Looks like us.
- Bigger brain than ours.
- Walking, talking, reasoning, making sophisticated tools....all the same things we do.
Other than looking more like Richard Nixon & being stronger than most people, a Neanderthal would be largely indistinguishable
from a modern human. So nah...he/she would certainly enjoy full civil rights.....unless the draft is reactivated or he/she tries
to avoid a groping by the TSA.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

- Walking, talking, reasoning, making sophisticated tools....all the same things we do.

Only intense naiveté or careless arrogance could lead one to believe that they had a reasonable grasp of how Neandertal might perceive or reason, and there is clearly no basis for presuming that we would not be introducing something into a life of intense - and perhaps maddening - disorientation and loneliness.

 

[Revoltingest]

Only intense naiveté or careless arrogance could lead one to believe that they had a reasonable grasp of how Neandertal might perceive or reason, and there is clearly no basis for presuming that we would not be introducing something into a life of intense - and perhaps maddening - disorientation and loneliness.

Given a choice, I'll pick naivete.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Given a choice, I'll pick naivete.

And given a choice, I'd prefer that the topic be given the seriousness it deserves.

 

[Shuddhasattva]

Is that why your commentary prefers moral pieties to serious analysis?

 

[Willamena]

Is that why your commentary prefers moral pieties to serious analysis?

Is what why?

We all have our opinions.

 

[Pegg]

this says alot about the sort of 'scientists' Harvard are spewing out.

 

[McBell]

this says alot about the sort of 'scientists' Harvard are spewing out.

Yes it does.
Though I am willing to bet money that what you hear is different from what others hear...

 

[Revoltingest]

And given a choice, I'd prefer that the topic be given the seriousness it deserves.

I'd prefer that you be less testy, but we are who we are, & discussion has been proceeding despite different personalities.
We've seen interesting posts, & I don't begrudge anyone their civil expression of derision for the proposal.
My thanx to all for participating more than I expected.

 

[beenie]

I can't think of a single reason for this. Not one.

 

[Falvlun]

If the child could be guaranteed the rights given to all humans-- such as, the right to deny any and all testing-- then that would alleviate some of the ethical concerns. My geeky side says that this would be so interesting. Aren't you guys curious, at least a little bit?

But my practical side says a) it's unlikely that the kid would survive (whole new suite of nasty viruses and plagues that its genome never encountered), plus no-one knows how to medically treat Neandertals, and b) it's unlikely that scientists wouldn't be able to keep their hands off of them.

 

[Revoltingest]

If the child could be guaranteed the rights given to all humans-- such as, the right to deny any and all testing-- then that would alleviate some of the ethical concerns. My geeky side says that this would be so interesting. Aren't you guys curious, at least a little bit?

You're not alone.
Very impractical, but way cool.

But my practical side says a) it's unlikely that the kid would survive (whole new suite of nasty viruses and plagues that its genome never encountered), plus no-one knows how to medically treat Neandertals, and b) it's unlikely that scientists wouldn't be able to keep their hands off of them.

Disease resistance could come from the mother. Genetic resistance is a crap shoot for us anyway, since genetic variation spares some & condemns others for a given disease.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

If the child could be guaranteed the rights given to all humans-- such as, the right to deny any and all testing-- then that would alleviate some of the ethical concerns.

At what point does this child of unknown physician, emotional, and intellectual capacity have the right or even the capacity to accept or deny? Upon what do you base your answer.

My geeky side says that this would be so interesting. Aren't you guys curious, at least a little bit?

So the question becomes on of whether curiosity is sufficient warrant to justify creating a unique creature solely because someone's geeky side deems it interesting.

But my practical side says a) it's unlikely that the kid would survive (whole new suite of nasty viruses and plagues that its genome never encountered), plus no-one knows how to medically treat Neandertals, and b) it's unlikely that scientists wouldn't be able to keep their hands off of them.

Yes, playing with life may well prove as impractical as it is unethical.

 

[Falvlun]

At what point does this child of unknown physician, emotional, and intellectual capacity have the right or even the capacity to accept or deny? Upon what do you base your answer.

Basically, how we treat human children. Parents are allowed to consent to all sorts of medical procedures on behalf of their spawn. When the kids turn 18, then it's up to them.

I would say the same for the Neanderthal, though it would be worthwhile to set up ground rules before the kid is even conceived. Such as, no medically unnecessary procedures that could cause harm (like marrow biopsies and such).

So the question becomes on of whether curiosity is sufficient warrant to justify creating a unique creature solely because someone's geeky side deems it interesting.

I think that's how a lot of science tends to proceed. Is it interesting? Okay let's do it! I mean, is curiosity reason enough to to go and bust in on the giant squid's secret super-under-water domain?

Yes, playing with life may well prove as impractical as it is unethical.

We play with life all the time. That's what medicine and biology is.

Do you think that it would be similarily unethical to create a non-sentient creature? Like, say we create a rataroo-- part rat part kangaroo! Your post implies that it is messing with life that is unethical, but I am wondering if you're really saying that it is messing with sapient life that is unethical. (Because I agree... that adds a whole nother dimension that we need to be cognizant about.)

If so, would making sapient AI be similarly unethical?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I'd prefer that you be less testy, ...

While I get testy when people make a joke of bioethical issues, I am really doing my best to contain my anger and contempt.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

We play with life all the time. That's what medicine and biology is.

Primum non nocere.