Good afternoon, everyone. It is Saturday, March the 29th, 2025. It is currently 629 p.m. Central Time, and I'm coming to you live from the Theology Central studio located right here in Abilene, Texas. And I know what you're probably thinking, you just said good afternoon and then you told me it's 629 p.m. Central Time. And you're absolutely right. I called it good afternoon. You know why? Because it feels like it's four in the afternoon and I didn't realize the time until I said it. And then I'm like, I should have said good evening. So, Let me just do it again. Good evening, everyone. It is Saturday, March the 29th, 2025. It is currently 6.29 p.m. Central Time, and I'm still coming to you live and still coming to you from the Theology Central studio located right here in Abilene, Texas. Now, it was such a peaceful, calm moment in time. I was sitting here listening to the Angels play the White Sox, listening to baseball. Because if there's any sport that's made to listen to, I think baseball was made for radio, right? Now, I wasn't listening to it on radio. I was listening to it through the MLB app. And then I think, well, no, yeah, that game I was listening to through the MLB app. Sometimes I'll listen to baseball through the SiriusXM app. But I was listening to baseball. It's peaceful. There's just something calming about it. It's relaxing. Just sit back, listening to a baseball game. It's perfect, right? It just, I know it sounds very like antiquated, but maybe, maybe it feels nostalgic, but listening to baseball on radio or in our case, an app, it just, It feels right. Everything feels right in the world. The world may be on fire, but listening to baseball, everything feels right. So everything was calm, good, maybe kind of a little feeling of the past. But all of a sudden I was interrupted with the present because I received a news notification and I just sat there going, wait, what? What? What if I were to tell you that scientists are right now proposing the creation of lab-grown human bodies, bodies without brains, bodies without consciousness, bodies supposedly without a soul, and they're going to grow these bodies for the purpose of organ harvesting, medical research, and yes, even meat consumption. What if I was to tell you, would you be like, uh, I think maybe you were listening to the baseball game. You had a seizure and now you've woken up and you had, you had some kind of crazy dream after you had a seizure. It wasn't a dream. Now I was listening to the baseball game and then was interrupted with this news article that's telling me that scientists are now proposing the creation of lab, lab grown human bodies, bodies without brains, without consciousness, without a soul for the purpose of organ harvesting, medical research, and yes, even meat consumption. These entities are called bodyoids, bodyoids, B-O-D-Y-O-I-D-S, bodyoids, and while they may lack Maybe they're not sentient. Maybe they lack sentience. Maybe they bear an unsettling resemblance to human life. Maybe they lack sentience. Maybe they like that. but they bear an unsettling resemblance to human life. Maybe they lack, do we say consciousness? Do we, maybe they lack a soul? Maybe we, I mean, I'm trying to find the right words, right? I mean, is sentience the right word? I don't know. Is consciousness the right word? Is soul the right word? They obviously are supposedly lacking these things, but well, that looks like a human body. So what we're going to attempt to do today is we're going to kind of dive into this mind-bending development. I'm going to try to explore what bodyoids are. We're going to try to define them, how scientists believe they could change the future of medicine and even meat, and why this proposal is stirring up a storm of ethical and theological questions. Is this the new frontier in biotechnology or a dangerous step towards commodifying the human body? Just turning the human body into a commodity that you can sell. You just mass produce human bodies and then you sell them for things we need, meat, organs, for people to do medical research on. What does this mean for how we understand personhood? What does this mean in how we understand dignity? And what does this mean about understanding the image of God? You see, I don't believe this is a scientific conversation. There is a scientific aspect to it. So let me make this clear. There is a scientific aspect to this. There is a medical aspect to this. But obviously this podcast is called Theology Central. So I'm going to look at it more from maybe a moral aspect, maybe, I think most importantly, a theological aspect. And I think it's a conversation we need to have because typically Christians are way behind. Now, if I go way, way, way, way, way, way back into my archives, I've talked about the discussion of this happening, right? Now, a lot of people, when they first started talking about this, sometimes you would hear this more on the, like what would be kind of labeled the conspiracy programs, coast to coast AM, or maybe some Bible prophecy a program that kind of trafficked at least to some level in conspiracy theories. And they would talk about some of this and you would just kind of say, this is crazy. But even sometimes on those programs, they would stumble upon things that are accurate or true or be maybe ahead of everyone else. And that sometimes then gives it a sense of, well, I got to believe everything. No, you always have to question everything. But sometimes you got to give them, you know, programs like that. credit for really being first on some ideas that people may think are bizarre or crazy, and then come to find out they're not so bizarre or crazy. And this is one that I think there was some warnings about, but I think for the most part, we kind of all just moved on with our life, looking at the next thing going on. But this now raises some questions. And for the church at large, what typically happens is we are reactive. We're not proactive. We react. We need to be proactive. We need to be proactive, but typically Christians wait until after the fact and then we have to then respond. We should be the first ones discussing this. So we're going to try to unpack at least to some level the science. I'm not going to say I'm going to get all of that right. I think I will do pretty good trying to analyze the implications. I'm going to try to analyze the theological consequences. I think I can do a pretty good job there of what I guess some may call the body-oid revolution. The Bodyoid Revolution. I mean, it's just a strange word. The Bodyoids. The Theology of Bodyoids. What does that even mean? So let's begin with the news notification that I received. This is what I saw in my notification feed. over my dead body. And I was like, whoa, what is going on over my dead body? So when I kind of expanded the notification, it said over my dead body, spare human bodies, grown and artificial wombs in lab, as scientists insist, body oids fill no pain and conserve as meat. And I just kind of sat there going, I'm trying to listen to a baseball game that's actually just, actually it was kind of not much, not very exciting in some ways. I guess if you, if, well, okay, we won't talk about the baseball game, but I'm like, what? So over my dead body, I mean, it's a mouthful here, spare human bodies grown in artificial wombs and lab as scientists insist, body oids fill no pain and conserve as meat. So then when I click on it, it takes me to a news article and then the kind of underneath that headline is, the researchers insisted on moving forward with this revolutionary plan. Then the first paragraph underneath that kind of headline and sub headline was, Cutting edge! Scientists have unveiled a disturbing plan to grow soulless, spare human bodies that can be used for medical experiments and even meat. The so-called bodyoids would be grown in artificial wombs and have the eerie ability to withstand endless pain. All sounds crazy. Now, again, I want to make it very clear. This is nothing new. This has been discussed numerous times. Even I've talked about it on this podcast a long, long, long, long time ago, and maybe even before this podcast and other broadcasts that I've done, because I've heard about it and heard about it and always saw it. And I think I always framed it, what if What if this was to occur? We need to start thinking about it now because the time is going to show up and we're going to have to figure out how do we understand it from a theological perspective. So I've been asking for people to think about it for a long time. I'm not saying that this one news article indicates that we're you know, almost out of there. But I do know this, if you'll go to Google and type in bodyoids, B-O-D-Y-O-I-D-S, bodyoids, well, you just look at all the articles. So there is a lot of discussion going on today about this. So let's kind of start with a definition, right? Let's start with defining bodyoids. Bodyoids is a proposed term for lab-grown, non-sentient human bodies that are cultivated from stem cells and artificial wombs. Now, I think I was trying to say sentient earlier, right? I was trying to come up with a word. Do they lack sentience? Are they not sentient? Do I go with that word? Do I go with consciousness? Do I go with soul? Like, I was trying to come up with a word. Here, in the actual definition for body oids, they use the word sentient, right? A proposed term for lab-grown, non-sentient human bodies that are cultivated from stem cells and artificial wombs. Now, if we look at, let's do something here, because this, I'm already going to jump to the theology here. I may be already jumping to the theology. I probably shouldn't already jump to the theology, but I'm going to do something here. If we look up the definition, right, if we look up the definition for Oh, sentient. I'm calling it sentient. Sentient. I'm saying it incorrectly anyway. Sentient. Sentient. I apologize there. OK. The ability to perceive or feel things. All right. I was doing sentient. Sentient. All right. Let's see. Here we go. Let me make sure here. Sentient. Sentient. Or sentient. All right. Hang on. Sentient, well, what's the correct way? Sentient, sentient, sentient, I don't know anymore, all right? Who knows? Okay, so it's capable of sensing or feeling, conscious of a responsive to the sensation of seeing, hearing, feeling, tasting, or smelling, right? So sentient, we'll go with sentient, or can we go with sentient? Can we go with sentient? That's the way I was saying it. All right, so am I right or am I wrong? I don't know. That's all, Merriam-Webster gives two different ways of saying it, all right? So sentient, I'm gonna go with sentient. Maybe that's my West Texas coming through. So, okay, I gotta think this through though, all right? So if sentient, I'm gonna go with that. Capable of sensing or feeling, conscious of or responsive to the sensations. Now there's the consciousness there. Because just because something could sense or feel, or just because something would have the sensation of seeing, hearing, feeling, tasting, or smelling, if something just has those feelings, they can feel, they can hear, they can see, does that make it In other words, I guess, does that make it like, does it have a soul? Well, we don't think, we don't believe animals have a soul, right? But they can, they feel, they hear, they sense. So that's not quite getting us to, well, that's a person with a soul. But if they are sentient or sentient, however you would like to pronounce this word, is it alive? You can have life. But does that have a, so now, see, now I'm getting into a very philosophical, theological discussion. So let's go back to this definition of bodyoids, all right? Bodyoids is a proposed term for lab-grown, non-sentient or sentient human bodies. I'm going with sentient, ladies and gentlemen, non-sentient human bodies. So they're human bodies. They don't have any ability to feel. I'm assuming they can't hear, they can't see. They're cultivated from stem cells and artificial wombs. These entities are intentionally engineered to lack consciousness, no brain function, or the ability to feel pain and are developed for purposes such as medical research, organ harvesting, and potentially even ethical meat production. So what are the key characteristics of a bodyoid? Non-sentient or sentient. designed without brains or nervous systems to avoid consciousness or pain. Now, here's the question, right? So, I'm just a question. If something doesn't have a brain, doesn't have a nervous system, does that mean it has a soul? But if it's created in a lab, then does that remove then even the ability But then, oh, this gets into all kinds of reproductive things when people are seeking help for reproduction, right? This gets into a lot of ethical questions, right? How were they designed? Okay, well, they are cultivated from stem cells and artificial wombs. But, okay, but they're not sentient. They're designed without brain cells, brains, I'm sorry, without brains, or nervous systems to avoid consciousness or pain. They're grown artificially, created using stem cells, and developed in artificial wombs, that's been repeated now numerous times, a utilitarian purpose intended to serve as biological resources for organs or tissue, not as living persons. So they are viewed as a utility, a utilitarian purpose. They're just to serve as a biological resource. They're not to be seen as a living person. Now, if we break the words down, body refers to the physical form or structure. Oid, meaning resembling or like, often used for artificial or imitation versions of something. Android, humanoid. This is a bodyoid. It's not an android. It's not a humanoid. It's just a body. It's just a body developed for a utilitarian purpose. So, bodyoids means body-like entity, human in form, but not in mind or soul. That's what a bodyoid is. All right. Okay. That's Now, okay, I'm already wanting, I say, I want to just immediately jump to the philosophy and to the theology. That's why, but I got to try to, I got to pace myself and try to get through all of these other details. So let's go to the news article, right? And what I did, I kind of, I have a summary of the news article. I did use artificial intelligence to help me here. Artificial intelligence gave me the definition of bodyoid. It gave me the definition of bodyoid. And then I asked it to break down the article. Instead of reading through the article, I said, summarize it for me. The article from the US, the one I gave to artificial intelligence was from the US Sun because that's the one that showed up in my notification system. The article from the US Sun discusses a proposal by three scientists, to develop body-oids, lab-grown, non-sentient human bodies cultivated in artificial wombs. Please note, artificial wombs has been used over and over and over in everything that I keep reading to you. And non-sentient is used over and over and over and over and over and over again, all right? So those terms are used multiple times. So when I was stumbling around trying to, do I use the word or not use the word? Well, obviously everyone is using the term. Now, and I'm glad that I stumbled because then we looked at it, but the reason I looked it up is I was like, well, when I start thinking about, is this alive? Does it have a soul? Then the idea of, okay, all these things keep saying non-sentient or non-sentient, depending on how you want to say the word. And so when I looked it up, I'm like, okay, well, that talks about feeling, that talks about seeing. But animals feel and see. They don't have a soul. Because that's going to become a question if this is where we're going. But everything wants to overemphasize this idea of They're not sentient. So they're lab-grown, non-sentient human bodies cultivated in artificial wombs. These entities would be engineered to lack consciousness and the ability to feel pain, making them suitable for medical research, because you could do anything to them. You could do any kind of medical research. You could inject it with this, do this, do that, and it doesn't matter. It doesn't feel any pain. making them suitable for medical research, organ transplantation, and even as a source of meat. The scientists argued that this approach could address ethical concerns associated with animal testing, because in many cases, animals are used to test things, which is kind of horrible, but that's what happens. This would be, well, you're using a bodyoid. You can do whatever. It doesn't feel anything. It's not conscious. It's not sentient. And it could even offer meat for consumption by providing alternatives that do not involve sentient beings. Animals feel, animals see, animals hear, animals sense. Well, we kill them for food. Well, how about if we can just create a body or a bodyoid and then consume it for meat because it doesn't feel anything. Now, the only problem is it's human bodies. Like, are they talking about growing like an animal bodyoid? I don't know. Like, where does this stop? I don't know. Now, the outline of the proposal. Here's kind of the outline of the proposal. Number one, creation of bodyoids, right? Stem cell utilization. employing pluripotent stem cells to grow human-like bodies. Pluripotent stem cells, I think that's the way to state that, to grow human-like bodies. Artificial wombs developing these entities entirely outside a human body using artificial uteruses. Genetic modification, ensuring the absence of brain development to prevent consciousness and pain perception. So that's kind of the outline for the creation. You're going to use stem cell utilization using pluripotent stem cells to grow human-like bodies. You're going to use artificial wombs and then you're going to do genetic modification to ensure that there's no brain development and you're going to prevent the consciousness and pain perception. Alrighty, this is, man, just a lot to try to process. So then what are the potential applications? Medical research, providing models for testing new drugs, potentially reducing reliance on animal testing. I guess if it's a human-like body, would you even need to do any human testing after that? If the bodyoid can do it and it's, I mean, I don't know, but you could definitely reduce animal testing. Organ transplants, serving as a source for human organ harvesting, potentially alleviating donor shortages. So you could have like a warehouse, just in theory, I'm just speculating. You could have a warehouse of all these bodyoids We need this. Go grab the bodyoid and say, okay, we're going to take this organ. We're going to take this organ. We're going to take this organ. We're going to take this organ. And then you save a life. Now, that sounds good. Meat production, offering an ethical alternative to traditional meat by producing human-derived meat without causing suffering. Now, no animals would suffer, but if it's human-derived meat, now have we entered into some level of cannibalism? And where does that play out philologically? So now let's try to explain this and analyze this. Let's try to dig into this a little deeper here. The concept of creating what's being known as called bodyoids, it does intersect with advancements in biotechnology, particularly in the realms of stem cell research and artificial organ development. By cultivating human-like bodies without consciousness, scientists aims to mitigate ethical dilemmas inherent in current practices, such as animal experimentation and organ donation shortages. The proposal suggests that bodyoids could provide a renewable and ethically sourced supply of human tissues and organs, potentially revolutionizing medical treatment and research methodologies. So let's forget the meat part. Let's just forget the meat part. Let me just ask you, okay, so scientists can create a human body, It's non-sentient. It doesn't have consciousness. It cannot feel any pain. It does not have a nervous system. It does not have a brain. All right? We can then take that body and then take all the organs we want from these bodyoids, all the organs we want for transplants. and possibly saving, I don't know. I can't say how many transplants occur each year and how long the wait list is for specific organs. I know there's typically a long wait list. I don't have the exact statistics in front of me, but let's say this could save a innumerable number of lives, prolong people's lives, save lives, help eliminate some suffering from some diseases. What if it could revolutionize medical testing so that animals don't suffer and maybe be able to speed up medical research? Now just think of all the things that that could possibly revolutionize medicine, move it forward. So you would have a never-ending supply of organs and a never-ending supply of bodies to use in testing, possibly making medical advancement move quicker. All of those possible life-saving things, benefits, does that kind of eliminate in your mind the ethical concerns, the theological concerns? Do you just see it as a utility, a utilitarian purpose? Hey, it's just a body. It doesn't have a soul, doesn't have a mind. Create all the bodies you want. Do you have kind of a more pragmatic perspective? Look at the lives it can save. Now, the meat part may raise some issues, but the other part, it's just a utility. It's just, yeah, make it and use it. Save lives. Is it crossing some line? So I asked AI, OK, well, what are maybe the implications? AI says, this proposition raises profound ethical and philosophical questions. The creation of human-like entities, even without consciousness, challenges our understanding of human dignity, identity, and the moral status of artificially created life forms. The potential use of bodyoids as a meat source further complicates the discourse, invoking deep-seated taboos and ethical considerations surrounding cannibalism and the commodification of human biology." You turn the body into a commodity. But it's a factory-grown body. So are you commodifying—this is commodifying human biology, but you're commodifying lab-grown human body. But it's not a— I mean, we don't see it as having a soul. It's not even sentient, okay? Using that term that was used multiple times. I'm glad we got into that discussion because when you understand sentient, well, animals are, so, okay. So that would immediately prove that even with that, you would not be talking about a soul, but you would be talking about then something that feels that. That's where the ethical concern is. So if this thing cannot feel, cannot sense, cannot even hear or see, then, okay, then we are commodifying human biology, but is it ethically—does it cross an ethical boundary at that point? So, if we look at it from a theological, particularly within, say, a Christian ethic worldview, maybe the proposal to create and utilize bodyoids, maybe it necessitates at least some possible careful examination. I think the first thing most Christians would go to—and I asked AI kind of how Christians would view this—AI said the issue of sanctity of human life would probably become one of the first things discussed. Because AI says, Christian doctrine emphasizes the inherent dignity and sanctity of human life, rooted in the belief that humans are created in the image of God. Yes, humans are created in the image of God. Humans are. Humans are. But what makes us in the image of God? It's not physically, right? What puts us in the image of God? Consciousness? Right? Spirit, we have a spirit, we have a soul, right? We have a sense of morality, right? We're creating the image of God and it's not the physical form, right? It's not the physical form that makes us in the image of God. It's our, we have a soul that lives forever. We have a sense of morality. We have consciousness. We think. There are certain things that create us in the image of God. It's not just the physical form. So if you create a physical body, it doesn't have those things that really put something in the image of God, right? It doesn't have consciousness, it doesn't have an eternal soul, it doesn't have a sense of right and wrong. Like, if it's missing some of those elements, then can you say, well, a bodyoid is not created in the image of God? It's just created in the form of a human body. But the human body is not what puts us in the image of God, right? So, Does a bodyoid then become an issue? The deliberate creation of human-like entities, even without consciousness, may be viewed as undermining the sacredness. I don't know. Does it undermine the sacredness? I don't think it does. Because it's not the body that makes us sacred, right? It's just not the physical form. Theologians might argue that life, even in a non-sentient form, even AI goes back to that sentient. See, I knew that that word, I was struggling to find the word, right? Then I was afraid I was saying it incorrectly. But I'm not going to go sentient. I'm going sentient. I'm going to go that way. When we look that up, I'm like, but, you know, Again, an animal, I think by all definitions, is a sentient being, right? It feels, it senses, right? It hears, it sees, all right? It doesn't have a soul. And our basic understanding from a Christian, it's humans that are giving a soul, right? So even if it's in a non-sentient form, If it's not even that, well then, would theologians possibly argue that it should not be manufactured or turned into kind of an instrument for utilitarian purposes? So do we turn human bodies into instruments as a utility, as a utilitarian purpose? I'm just trying to find, a lot of this I'm struggling to find the words. So if it's non-sentient, has no consciousness, has no brain, therefore it would have no soul, It doesn't even truly possess life. It's just the body, but yet it could be utilized. I mean, it would be a commodity. It would be utilized to save life, preserve life. Oh, that raises… See, I struggle with this here, right? Because when you start trying to draw the lines, this is where it always gets confusing, right? Well, can you do this? Can you do this? Well, if you can do this, what about this? So, some theologians might argue that life, even in non-sentient form, should not be manufactured or basically turned into an instrument for utilitarian purpose. Now, AI raised moral implications of cannibalism. Now, this one I think it gets becomes maybe a little bit more complex, right? The consumption of human-derived meat, regardless of its origin, confronts long-standing moral prohibitions against cannibalism. Even if the meat is produced without harm to sentient beings, the act of consuming human flesh could be seen as violating natural law and moral order, potentially desensitizing individuals to the value of human life. Discussions within Christian ethics often emphasize the importance of maintaining respect for the human body both in life and after death. Now, the consuming of these bodies as meat, that is a little, I'm a little disturbed by that. I'm like, I'm not, so my question would be, okay, if you can create a human body, a bodyoid, that's in a, let's just say bodyoid, it's just a lab grown body. Well, if you can do that for humans, why can you not do that for a cow? A chicken? Why can't you do it for that? But it wouldn't be sentient. It would have no feelings. It would not feel any pain. It would not be aware. And then you just harvest it for meat. To me, that would make more sense than doing it with human bodies, right? That part is weird to me, like where did that come from? I don't think I've ever, maybe in the past this was discussed, but I always heard this discussed about organ transplant, organs and medical research and not the meat. The meat part threw me off this time because I tried to keep up with this to some level. So this development caught me off guard a little bit. AI said, what about playing God? The endeavor to create bodyoids may be interpreted as humans attempting to assume a divine role in creation. This playing God concern reflects apprehension about overstepping boundaries set for humanity. But see, I struggle with this. Hey, don't play God. You can't create this. But again, you get into some really touchy subjects, right? Again, about people who maybe are infertile and then you use certain techniques to hopefully help them produce a baby. Well, how far do you go before you're kind of human beings are involved in this process? You're controlling it, you're guiding it, you're directing it. So when do we cross the line and we've already started playing God? And once you cross the line in one area, where do we just draw an arbitrary line and go, no, okay, we're not playing God here, we're only helping people, but here now we're playing God. Well, wait a minute, aren't you still helping people? So I don't know. Philological perspectives often caution against hubris and scientific advancement, advocating for humility and reverence for the natural order established by God. Well, if we go by the natural order, again, how far do you take this, right? I mean, something happens to you medically and they hook you up, put you in a medical-induced coma and keep you alive through the use of different medical devices until they can repair this or fix this. Is that playing God? Is that going too far? You get a disease and you're dying, but medicine can intervene and remove the disease, fix it. Is that playing God? I mean, because the natural process would be, you've got the disease, now you're going to die of the disease, unless we, as humans, intervene and play God. We stop it, we remove it, we fix this, we fix that, we fix that, we try to stop this, we try to stop that. I mean, all the different things we do, I mean, are we not already playing God? So where do we stop it? You say, well, it's okay to play God in these 37 ways, but whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, this is a step too far. But who makes that determination that it's a step too far? Is it arbitrary? How about ethical alternatives? While the intention to reduce animal suffering and address medical needs is commendable, theological ethics may encourage exploring alternatives that do not involve the creation of human-like entities. For instance, advancements in plant-based research models, synthetic organs, and non-animal-based meat substitutes could align more closely with ethical principles that honor the sanctity of life without introducing morally ambiguous practices. But again, when you say this would be more in line with the sanctity of human life, you're not creating life, right? You're creating a non-sentient, non-conscious, no brain, no nervous system, no anything, it's just the body. You're not creating life, are you? Or is it considered a life? I get what, now how do we define what life is, right? If it's a body though, does the... But if it doesn't have a brain, But if it has a heart, does it have a heart? But the heart's controlled by the brain. So then was it like, I don't know. I would have to get into some very specifics here. Some of you are more medical experts than me, so I may need your expertise here. So I asked AI, I said, can you conclude this? AI says, well, the proposal to develop bodyoids aims to address significant ethical issues in medicine and food production, and introduces complex theological and moral challenges. Engaging with these questions requires a multidisciplinary dialogue. Please note, if we're gonna deal with these questions, we need a multidisciplinary dialogue, meaning, like for me, I can handle the theological, I may not be able to handle all of the scientific and medical. I can deal with philological issues. I can even deal with philological terms. I may get the word sentient wrong when I was trying to find that word. So it's going to need multidisciplinary dialogue. We're going to have to consider scientific innovation alongside ethical, philosophical, and theological reflection to navigate the moral landscape responsibly, I should say. We have a responsibility to try to navigate this. Now, here's one of these things. I talk about this, people are like, this is just crazy, this is insane, whatever happened to the good old days, right? I mean, there'll be a lot of people who don't really care, but again, I've said this for years, we're gonna wake up one day and we're gonna be like, what do we do? What do we do? What do we do? Now, the discussions before was even – some of the discussions before takes it a step further. You don't create a bodyoid that's non-sentient, no consciousness, none of that. Now, I wanted to call it a clone, maybe a humanoid. You create something that seems to be alive, seems to be alive, right? And you use that for, to do this or to do that or to help serve or to, or what if you do this? What if you do, because we talked about a lot of these concepts. Some of these are still theoretical. What if, and there's been a lot of discussion about this, scientists, basically can create designer babies. This has been talked about a lot. Can go in and genetically modify, can do everything there for this newborn baby and you can determine size, hair color, gender. You can decide all of these things and you can create it so it is most likely protected from this disease or this disease it's not going to get this disease it's not going to get so in other words you basically create almost like the perfect person they're not going to lose their hair they're not going to they're not going to do this they're they're going to they're not going to have a a natural inclination to for addiction they're not going you can just i mean i don't know how far you can go but basically they're going to be They're gonna look wonderful. They're gonna be designer. In fact, there's new articles out there about designer babies. You can create babies that can at least genetically avoid all of the difficulties and the negativities that people can be born with. Is that a step too far? I mean, because you're like, well, they were created by God. Were they created by God or they created by us? What if we create some kind of living entity? It's actually, it is sentient. It feels, it hears, it's conscious, but we created it. Does that have a soul? I mean, those are questions that go way beyond what this article is talking about. This article is talking about, so let me go back through this. So what if I was to tell you that scientists are now proposing the creation of lab-grown human bodies? Bodies without brains, without consciousness, without a soul, and they're going to create them for the purpose of organ harvesting, medical research, and even meat consumption. These entities are called bodyoids. And while they may lack, remember, this is where I was trying to figure out a word, sentience. Do we use that there? They lack consciousness. They lack a soul. They do bear a resemblance to human life. And remember, Bodyoids is defined as a proposed term for lab-grown, non-sentient or sentient human bodies. that are cultivated from stem cells and artificial wombs, these entities are intentionally engineered to lack consciousness, brain function, or the ability to feel pain, and are developed for purposes such as medical research, organ harvesting, and potentially even ethical meat production. Remember the key characteristics? Non-sentient, designed without brains or nervous systems to avoid consciousness or pain. They're grown artificially, created using stem cells and developed in artificial wombs, and they have a utilitarian purpose intended to serve as biological resource for organ or tissue. They are not to be viewed as a living person. They are not a living person. Again, it may sound like science fiction, may sound crazy, How far away are we from it? Do you support it? Are you against it? Now, the minute you say you're against it, all I ask is then you've got to think carefully about how you're framing, why you're against it so that you are logically consistent. Because when we get into these issues, consistency becomes very difficult to maintain. All right, I'll stop there. I do apologize for the whole sentient, sentient discussion. But I think it was important because it got me to look up. That hesitation for me trying to find the word got me to look it up. And once I saw, once I remind myself of the definition of sentient, then I was like, well, okay. with that or without that. I mean, an animal is sentient, but we wouldn't say it has a soul. So, that, okay, all right, that is irrelevant to the discussion, right? So, but if it's not even that, but it doesn't even have a brain, okay, all right. So, if you remove all of that, then is it even alive? And if it's not even alive, then, okay, You say, well, where do you fall on this? You can hear me struggling to figure it out. I'm trying to figure this out in real time with you. I don't have the definitive answer. Look, I was simply listening to a baseball game and the next thing you know, my peace and tranquility of listening to baseball, something that feels nostalgic and antiquated, was interrupted by, hey, we're going to create bodies that you can eat. What's going on? I'm trying to listen to baseball. So yeah, I mean, I, I went from listening to baseball to going live, trying to figure all of this out in real time. So that's, yeah, that's where I, that's why I was stumbling and struggling, struggling through some of this stress, trying to process it. Right. I was trying to process it in real time with you. All right, I'll stop there. You can, well, as I've, I've laid it down, I've kind of placed it before you now gather the family around and discuss. Bodyoids, pro or negative? God bless.