This is amazing. Still to early to tell how successful this was. It bring up a lot of interesting impacts for people in need of organs. The donor pig underwent gene editing to make it a more suitable donor. Interesting implications of editing the genes of an animal to make it a suitable donor.

I remember reading that as self-driving cars take over they expect less auto fatalities, and therefore less donated organs. I'm sure COVID has had a large impact on the availability of organs, from infected donors to less donors being out and dying.

I'd be interested in this board's thoughts on what this means to this person's soul or eternal body or whatever you believe. Also in the morality of editing a animal's genes to make it a suitable donor.

Pretty crazy the procedure only takes 7 hours, I would have expected a lot more.

I didn't know this had a word: xenotransplantation

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/david-bennett-pig-heart-transplant_n_61dca634e4b0d637aea5a105

Quote:

---

The patient, David Bennett, 57, knew there was no guarantee the experiment would work but he was dying, ineligible for a human heart transplant and had no other option, his son told The Associated Press.
"It was either die or do this transplant. I want to live. I know it's a shot in the dark, but it's my last choice," Bennett said a day before the surgery, according to a statement provided by the University of Maryland School of Medicine.

There's a huge shortage of human organs donated for transplant, driving scientists to try to figure out how to use animal organs instead. Last year, there were just over 3,800 heart transplants in the U.S., a record number, according to the United Network for Organ Sharing, which oversees the nation's transplant system.
"If this works, there will be an endless supply of these organs for patients who are suffering," said Dr. Muhammad Mohiuddin, scientific director of the university's animal-to-human transplant program.

The difference this time: The Maryland surgeons used a heart from a pig that had undergone gene-editing to remove a sugar in its cells that's responsible for that hyper-fast organ rejection.

---

Quote:

---

I'd be interested in this board's thoughts on what this means to this person's soul or eternal body or whatever you believe. Also in the morality of editing a animal's genes to make it a suitable donor.

---

I'm not against it per se. Can't say I wouldn't do it if it saved my life. But it does further the false understanding that our bodies are nothing more than machines that you can swap out parts for from other bodies. "Who I am" has little to do with my body which I think is false.

What's further amazing is that people reference F15 as the "Science Forum".

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Quote:

---

I'd be interested in this board's thoughts on what this means to this person's soul or eternal body or whatever you believe. Also in the morality of editing a animal's genes to make it a suitable donor.

---

I'm not against it per se. Can't say I wouldn't do it if it saved my life. But it does further the false understanding that our bodies are nothing more than machines that you can swap out parts for from other bodies. "Who I am" has little to do with my body which I think is false.

---

I'm against it but that's nothing new or shocking based on recent discussions.

Doesn't seem like we're far from The Island at this point or anything else like it. Why stop at pigs with a country like China around? Thinking about what they permit and what lengths they'd go to for a dynasty, given their cultural time orientation.

It's cool that we can do it. Humanizing animals through gene editing is promising and not morally wrong.

Not sure why this is any different than any number of the other medical procedures that have used body parts from animals in the past. Heck, I think in my spinal fusion, they used cow bone if I recall correctly.

At some point we should reach a technology level of being able to print things like kidneys/livers using 3d printing technology. That is great, and not just for adults but kids with congenital defects as well, using adult stem cells. It's one of the wonderful things we can hopefully get from the commercialization/decrease in cost of space access.

I do sort of chuckle that some…religious folks with objections to swine of various sorts might object to the OP not on a moral ground, but something of an Old Testament prohibition/teachings on pigs. Kind of humorous; maybe it's too dirty to eat but it's ok now to take an organ from?

Rocag said:

---

Quote:

---

But it does further the false understanding that our bodies are nothing more than machines that you can swap out parts for from other bodies.

---

What does this mean? Is it implying that a person whose heart has been replaced by a pig heart is somehow less human than one with all of their original parts? How about people who have had body parts replaced with prosthetics? I don't think I agree with that.

But yes, I support technological advancements that provide hope and a better quality of life for those who are sick or injured. Even if that means becoming a part pig cyborg.

---

If you want to go with the ship of Theseus interpretation, there's only a handful of cells that we maintain our entire lives. We're always swapping out cells and changing our bodies.

So given the choice between pig heart and death you think death is preferable because the pork pumper will damage your soul?

Aggrad08 said:

---

So given the choice between pig heart and death you think death is preferable because the pork pumper will damage your soul?

---

A gross misrepresentation of my comment.

AGC said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

So given the choice between pig heart and death you think death is preferable because the pork pumper will damage your soul?

---

A gross misrepresentation of my comment.

---

What is your argument, then? Because there are Christian sects that do refuse a huge range of medical treatments because of how they understand certain biblical prohibitions.

AGC said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

So given the choice between pig heart and death you think death is preferable because the pork pumper will damage your soul?

---

A gross misrepresentation of my comment.

---

You seemed to indicate there was something sacred or holy about a human body that was violated in this process and I inferred you thought it inappropriate. What exactly are you claiming?

Aggrad08 said:

---

AGC said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

So given the choice between pig heart and death you think death is preferable because the pork pumper will damage your soul?

---

A gross misrepresentation of my comment.

---

You seemed to indicate there was something sacred or holy about a human body that was violated in this process and I inferred you thought it inappropriate. What exactly are you claiming?

---

No. I indicated that I believe the spiritual and physical are connected and the connection is meaningful and purposeful rather than incidental; it is a whole, not a unit with pre-engineered modules that one inserts or assembles.

For that reason the idea of introducing animal organs is not appealing. The body impacts the mind and vice versa. A pig heart doesn't have a spiritual aspect to you. I think all things do, they incline us towards God or away from Him. Does it literally damage my soul? No, but I think it disorders it and inclines it away from God. Think of it like accounting fraud in Office Space. It starts with a small move but it becomes larger and larger.

It is not a preference of death but a preference of wholeness and holiness.

Sapper Redux said:

---

AGC said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

AGC said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

So given the choice between pig heart and death you think death is preferable because the pork pumper will damage your soul?

---

A gross misrepresentation of my comment.

---

You seemed to indicate there was something sacred or holy about a human body that was violated in this process and I inferred you thought it inappropriate. What exactly are you claiming?

---

No. I indicated that I believe the spiritual and physical are connected and the connection is meaningful and purposeful rather than incidental; it is a whole, not a unit with pre-engineered modules that one inserts or assembles.

For that reason the idea of introducing animal organs is not appealing. The body impacts the mind and vice versa. A pig heart doesn't have a spiritual aspect to you. I think all things do, they incline us towards God or away from Him. Does it literally damage my soul? No, but I think it disorders it and inclines it away from God. Think of it like accounting fraud in Office Space. It starts with a small move but it becomes larger and larger.

It is not a preference of death but a preference of wholeness and holiness.

---

How exactly does this work? Does a person with cancer wind up inclining away from God since their body is literally killing itself? Is an autoimmune disorder a sign of a disordered spirit? I mean, this is literally a medieval position you're taking. I don't mean that as a pejorative, you're literally taking the position of the High Middle Ages.

Incidentally, this led them to believe torture was effective since the mind and body were so closely joined. A guilty soul would be unable to endure physical torment and thus tell the truth.

---

Oh the belief goes back much farther I'm sure.

I'm not equating everything the body 'does' as 'good' and perfect. I'm equating body and soul as a whole, a unit. It's not a scientific proposition that I'm seeking to study and breakdown the most basic unit to analyze, to discover how many cells make up a soul.

I also have a different view of death. I don't wish it, I don't prefer it, but it's not something to be avoided at all costs and there's dignity that comes with it.

There is a Christian that shares your beliefs about the body in this forum and many of their professed views are wildly different than the majority of us. I think it's quite evident how pursuit of a 'suitable' or 'good' body changes theology.

Ironically enough, the Middle Ages and Early Modern Europeans had a much more understanding view of transgender people. Not that they accepted them, but if the body and soul were linked and expressive of one another, then the expression of a feminine mind in a man or masculine mind in a woman would naturally result in physical changes and behavioral changes. The soul could literally change the body in their understanding. The soul was not enslaved to the body.

I'm curious which Christian shares your beliefs, as I believe he's talking about me, but that would be "gross misrepresentation" of my beliefs about body and spirit. Then again, trolls gonna troll and liars gonna lie.

I'm still curious as to how this is any different than using cow bone for bone grafts in a spinal fusion surgery. Or if someone undergoes a heart valve transplant that uses pig, cow, or horse tissue.

Sapper Redux said:

---

Ironically enough, the Middle Ages and Early Modern Europeans had a much more understanding view of transgender people. Not that they accepted them, but if the body and soul were linked and expressive of one another, then the expression of a feminine mind in a man or masculine mind in a woman would naturally result in physical changes and behavioral changes. The soul could literally change the body in their understanding. The soul was not enslaved to the body.

---

LOL.

Clearly would have been treated better and with more dignity/understanding during the inquisition.

Mental health crisis pic.twitter.com/NjZMnBIFwa

— Libs of Tik Tok (@libsoftiktok) January 12, 2022

So you’re teaching high school kids false information that isn’t based in reality pic.twitter.com/xivCxa4T73

— Libs of Tik Tok (@libsoftiktok) January 11, 2022

The middle ages were not ever a period known as a model for how to handle mental illnesses in modernity.

This thread has nothing to do with transgender people. Can y'all let go of your obsession for just one thread at least, and not derail this as you put your ignorance on full display?

Back to the subject of the OP.

AGC said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

AGC said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

So given the choice between pig heart and death you think death is preferable because the pork pumper will damage your soul?

---

A gross misrepresentation of my comment.

---

You seemed to indicate there was something sacred or holy about a human body that was violated in this process and I inferred you thought it inappropriate. What exactly are you claiming?

---

No. I indicated that I believe the spiritual and physical are connected and the connection is meaningful and purposeful rather than incidental; it is a whole, not a unit with pre-engineered modules that one inserts or assembles.

For that reason the idea of introducing animal organs is not appealing. The body impacts the mind and vice versa. A pig heart doesn't have a spiritual aspect to you. I think all things do, they incline us towards God or away from Him. Does it literally damage my soul? No, but I think it disorders it and inclines it away from God. Think of it like accounting fraud in Office Space. It starts with a small move but it becomes larger and larger.

It is not a preference of death but a preference of wholeness and holiness.

---

Wait that's your gross misrepresentation? All you did is chang damage to disordered? And whether your prefer a "wholeness of soul" (the opposite sure sounds like damage to me) more than life or prefer death over a souls that's less than whole mean the same thing.

It still sounds like given the choice a pig pumper is worse than letting your own heart kill you.

This idea seems particularly silly. There are an absurd number of bacteria in and on you required for healthy functions, do they disorder you as a soul? Does cancer? Do bone graphs? What about liver transplant from another person? What if the other person is a different sex?

Sapper Redux said:

---

Were you just waiting for an opportunity to show how you find transgender people icky?

And yes, different societies handle different issues differently. The modern philosophical body-mind split is a result of the Enlightenment. History is not an unbroken line of increasing progress in all things.

That doesn't mean transgender people were treated well in most Medieval societies, but it does mean their condition was not treated as some gross disorder like you treat it.

---

You posted something so inane I had to respond.



No, I don't 'treat' mental health issues as gross disorders. Next I expect you to opine that muslims treat transgender persons better than we do in the US.

Please stop derailing this thread with ahistorical thoughts with no substance, and vitriol toward my mockery of them.

PacifistAg said:

---

This thread has nothing to do with transgender people. Can y'all let go of your obsession for just one thread at least, and not derail this as you put your ignorance on full display?

Back to the subject of the OP.

---

That was my fault. Sorry.

Where's your PhD in early modern history from?

Aggrad08 said:

---

AGC said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

AGC said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

So given the choice between pig heart and death you think death is preferable because the pork pumper will damage your soul?

---

A gross misrepresentation of my comment.

---

You seemed to indicate there was something sacred or holy about a human body that was violated in this process and I inferred you thought it inappropriate. What exactly are you claiming?

---

No. I indicated that I believe the spiritual and physical are connected and the connection is meaningful and purposeful rather than incidental; it is a whole, not a unit with pre-engineered modules that one inserts or assembles.

For that reason the idea of introducing animal organs is not appealing. The body impacts the mind and vice versa. A pig heart doesn't have a spiritual aspect to you. I think all things do, they incline us towards God or away from Him. Does it literally damage my soul? No, but I think it disorders it and inclines it away from God. Think of it like accounting fraud in Office Space. It starts with a small move but it becomes larger and larger.

It is not a preference of death but a preference of wholeness and holiness.

---

Wait that's your gross misrepresentation? All you did is chang damage to disordered? And whether your prefer a "wholeness of soul" (the opposite sure sounds like damage to me) more than life or prefer death over a souls that's less than whole mean the same thing.

It still sounds like given the choice a pig pumper is worse than letting your own heart kill you.

This idea seems particularly silly. There are an absurd number of bacteria in and on you required for healthy functions, do they disorder you as a soul? Does cancer? Do bone graphs? What about liver transplant from another person? What if the other person is a different sex?

---

I don't break everything down to the smallest possible unit to analyze; I don't think it's an appropriate spiritual view of humanity. That's why I don't struggle with whether abortion is a moral evil or not. There is no requisite number of cells or appropriate bodily function necessary to be human.

Your inquiry is a methodical one based on the purpose of continuing to live. I view how you live and how the process changes you as equally important. Is my purpose on earth to use everything at my disposal to live or to image it, to order it for God? Is there good in gene editing animals simply to extend my life with no regard for theirs?

Sapper Redux said:

---

PacifistAg said:

---

This thread has nothing to do with transgender people. Can y'all let go of your obsession for just one thread at least, and not derail this as you put your ignorance on full display?

Back to the subject of the OP.

---

That was my fault. Sorry.

---

Nah, another poster, in trying to make a point, took a passive aggressive swipe at me. You responded to what they said. No issue with you. Thanks though.

Sapper Redux said:

---

PacifistAg said:

---

This thread has nothing to do with transgender people. Can y'all let go of your obsession for just one thread at least, and not derail this as you put your ignorance on full display?

Back to the subject of the OP.

---

That was my fault. Sorry.

---

Not entirely. Theology of the body matters and is relevant. I would disagree that changing the body to match the brain equates to viewing it as a whole, rather than viewing desires of the mind or soul as being what the body and reality / morality must be conformed to (and this swapped out or altered to bring conformity). Remember this belief has theological implications if we view it in relation to marriage. Pablo is sympathetic to this view and we see how his views conflict with the general Catholic sentiment.