Hawaii passes “Islam Day” law
Ok, where are the ACLU and Barry Lynn?
Hawaii’s state Senate overwhelmingly approved a bill Wednesday to celebrate “Islam Day” _ over the objections of a few lawmakers who said they didn’t want to honor a religion connected to Sept. 11, 2001.
…The resolution to proclaim Sept. 24, 2009, as Islam Day passed the Senate on a 22-3 vote. It had previously passed the House.
The bill seeks to recognize “the rich religious, scientific, cultural and artistic contributions” that Islam and the Islamic world have made.
There is, as far as I know, no “Christianity Day” designation in Hawaiian law, though the state did designate Good Friday a government holiday, which courts ruled was “primarily proposed to increase the frequency of legal holidays.”
No such rationale here.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Obama: All troops out of Iraq by end of year
October 21, 2011 01:00 PM by Michelle Malkin
191 Comments
Arab Fall, Arab Fail: Coptic Christians slaughtered in Egypt; Plus: Nadarkhani update
October 10, 2011 11:34 AM by Michelle Malkin
46 CommentsPastor Nadarkhani update: Bogus charges, renewed call for action
October 4, 2011 11:18 AM by Michelle Malkin
20 Comments
Second U.S. jihadi reportedly killed in drone attack; Plus: Refresher course on American bloggers vs. Samir Khan
September 30, 2011 11:24 AM by Michelle Malkin
92 Comments
Pastor Nadarkhani update: State Department, Boehner weigh in
September 30, 2011 10:46 AM by Michelle Malkin
36 Comments
Dead again? New reports of jihadi cleric Awlaki’s demise; God bless our military
September 30, 2011 10:06 AM by Michelle Malkin
75 Comments
Iranian Pastor Yousef Nadarkhani faces execution for refusing to renounce Christianity: Where are the Hollyweirdos and Euroweenies now?; Update: White House statement; Britain, EU stand up
September 29, 2011 09:30 AM by Michelle Malkin
153 Comments
A few more words about Koward Krugman Update: Take two!
September 12, 2011 12:53 AM by Michelle Malkin
74 Comments
Categories: Islam
Weekly Standard
» White House Economic Adviser: 'We Need a Global Minimum Tax'Pundit & Pundette
» Bishop Jenky, Nicki Minaj, and the "98%"JustOneMinute
» We Hear From The Department Of Good Ideas And False ChoicesWeekly Standard
» Obamacare Could Require Private Insurers to Fund Abortion on Demand
Rag:
That is incorrect. You MIGHT get a human being. You might get two humans, you might get a genetic malformation which will be naturally aborted. It has potential.
In any case, it still doesn’t have a mind, it doesn’t feel pain, it doesn’t think, it doesn’t have dreams. NOTHING.
On the other hand, amputees and people with cancer have all those things.
Zero – Food for thought……
What if one of those ‘clumps of cells’ holds THE one in a billion billion KEY to the next step on the evolutionary ladder? I would think as a staunch believer in evolution that you would be against abortion for that reason.
Just a thought…. I really don’t want this thread to go off on abortion again.
Joy:
What if you going out and sleeping with a stranger in a bar results in the “billion billion KEY to the next step on the evolutionary ladder?”
Just a thought… I really don’t want to go off on this topic again.
I found two very short articles that didn’t say who sponsored it.
Just realized I’ll be in Hawaii on that day.
Terrific – I’ll be able to wear my “I will not submit” shirt.
In the comments section. I am not going back there–my satellite ‘net is too slow and their comment section sucks.
zeroangel, your perspective on the unborn is disturbing.
Roger:
I am shocked! (actually I am not)
Honestly, I find the idea that anyone would be against something with such incredible potential as ESCR, disturbing.
ESCR hasn’t cured anything.
Adult stem cell research is saving lives everyday.
Dexter:
Maybe you weren’t here when I quoted the Mayo Clinic, but I can do so again. However, I would hope you take me at my word and I don’t have to.
ESCR has potential to cure things that adult stem cells cannot. Furthermore, a de-differentiated adult stem cell behaves similarly to the parts of a blastocyst that grow into a human being (the other parts growing into a placenta and umbilical cord).
Basically, the argument that adult stem cell research is hopeful and ESCR is a waste of time is akin to arguing that candles work just fine, why bother with electricity? In addition, a de-differentiated adult stem cell has as much claim to being “alive” as a blastocyst does.
Dexter:
Your sperm cells also have “incredible” potential. I’m sure you may have inadvertently killed millions of potential Mozart’s in your life.
I don’t have to tell you, Zero, that the above is only “half” the story. A sperm cell doesn’t have the potential itself to reach the same stage of human development that you have.
I really don’t want to jack this thread with another argument with you on this. But, the difference between ESCR and ASCR is that the former kills a human being (at its earliest stage of development), and the latter doesn’t.
Dexter:
Yes, you are correct. A sperm cell has less of the whole “potential” that a fertilized egg has.
However, it still has only “potential.” Having full potential as opposed to some fraction of potential still makes it potential and not a full human being.
It doesn’t have a brain. It’s not anymore human then a nucleus of my skin cell; which if placed inside a gutted egg cell, has full “potential” to become a human.
Amputees and people with cancer do however have brains and CAN suffer.
Do you hate amputees and people with cancer? Do you want them to die?
That is the same level of hyperbole you are leveling in my direction when you compare ESCR to “murder.”
Dexter et al.:
Can we just get to the bottom line and forgo this back and forth? Why are none of you are willing to admit that the idea of a “soul” is at the heart of this discussion?
Often times, I am asked, “What magic occurs at the 3rd trimester that makes it a life?” I have many times explained my analog vs. digital concept in answer to this.
I suppose I should turn the question on its head and ask, “What magic occurs that makes a sperm and egg suddenly go from being two basically worthless cells to being a complete human; despite lacking a brain?”
We all know the answer; it is at this point that you guys imagine a soul inhabits the cell. It is a religious argument. At least please have the courage to admit this.
I have never denied it.
Z, you and I are not going to agree on this issue. To me, a fertilized egg is a human being. To you, she’s a “potential” human. I’ve got a stark, clear, black and white line where a human begins. You don’t.
Got it.
It’s own unique DNA.
Its… dang it.. Its……………. I hate it when I do that.
spaceycakes:
Some often do. Thank you for your honesty.
Dexter:
Fair enough. Have a good evening!
Joy:
Identical twins are not unique people? What about a clone? Would it be “souless?”
I’m quite sure I said normal.
The potential it has…by overwhelming probability…it so develop into a human being even you would allow has all you mention.
Your choice to depict the exceptions to the rule to prove that your point has some validity seems to show the opposite.
Zero – The point is the DNA is not the same as the mother’s or father’s. And it’s not the same as even another combination of sperm and egg from the same parents unless the identical twin situation where both are still different from mother and father.
It is a unique human being at the point of conception with the ability, if not aborted, to grow through all stages of human development. Yes, a miscarriage can happen, but that is a lot different than another human deciding to deny the human embryo its right to life.
And, Zero, my observations are not rooted in religion.
I have those, too. But I don’t try to fence with someone who, like you, attempts to deprive a member of the human family their humanity on rational grounds.
is to develop into a human being…
Boy, long day writing an appeal…
What “incredible potential” are you alluding to that cannot be realized by one of the embryonic stem cell lines that are presently being created out of adult stem cells using recent breakthrough techniques?
Strange, then, isn’t it, that private sector money is overwhelmingly put into research OTHER than ESCR?
People with actual “skin in the game” put their money on other research. THAT line of development has reaped proven rewards.
Which is why THE ONE had to reward the ESCR lobby…and their abortion-loving wing men…with FEDERAL tax-payer money. It had to be taken, because it could not be attracted.
Rag:
You said a “normal environment.” Genetic malformations and natural abortions (miscarriages) occur often in a “normal envirorment.” It really is an unimportant aside though and I do not need to cite “exceptions” to make any point.
It doesn’t have a brain; it can’t think or feel anything at all. The most simple insect has more “feelings” than a blastocyst. It is not yet “human.”
Contra wise, amputees and cancer patients are very much alive.
Joy and Rag:
So what if it is unique? So what if it could become a human? It is not yet human. There is no mind that is being deprived of life because there isn’t even a single neuron!
Rag:
What other grounds would I use other than rational? Why would I try and argue something on irrational grounds? I am not denying anyone anything. There is no “one” in a blastocyst, where could this “identity” reside? There is no mind.
If objection to this potential medical breakthrough is not rooted in religion and the idea of a soul what is it rooted in?
Why should a collection of cells with no mind be considered more than just “potential?” What else is there?
Rag:
Assuming this is true, and I don’t doubt it, it bears mentioning that the free market often does not put money into long term scientific investments.
If we relied only on the free market, we would have never made it to the moon.
Sure. As does a pathogenic bacillus.
But neither of them will, given time, under normal conditions become a human being.
So, switching your argument from human life to life won’t really track, will it?
Rags – Embryos already are human beings, they are just in the early stages of development. But I know what you are saying. Just as a child isn’t an adult, but only has the potential to become one. But always human.
Zero – See 229. A blastocyst IS a human, just not fully developed.
Rag:
No, actually I was talking about human life.
It is unclear whether or not a de-differentiated adult stem cell could develop into a human being were it inserted into a gutted blastocyst.
The technology doesn’t currently exist, but as far as I know, it’s possible.
They are aberrations in a normal environment. Often, they are the product of disease or injury, and not even a developmental hiccup.
They occur in a relatively tiny percentage of pregnancies.
The root statement is true, despite your attempts to show an exception…
Given time…only that one element…in a normal environment, the fertilized human egg will be a human being that even you will accede is that. It is part of humanity.
Joy:
So, destroying a blastocyst is morally equivalent to putting a gun to a person’s head and blowing their brains out?
People at various stages of development die from natural causes. Surely no one would argue that because they do, that it would be okay to kill them purposely.
And here is the fallacy of your thinking.
The answer is “HUMANITY”. You will deny it humanity because it fails to meet your criteria that it have, at that moment, a formed brain.
A strange line to draw. According to you, it is human when it has a brain. Prior to that, what was it?
Rags:
You are not entirely correct. Genetic malformations (mutations) occur often and naturally. They are the vehicle by which new traits emerge.
Serious malformations that result in a miscarriage do not have to be the result of disease or injury. They can be the result of a variety of factors.
Define “HUMANITY”. Is it the state of having human DNA? Does my skin qualify?
Do I really have to go through the analog vs. digital thing again? Haven’t you read it by now in another thread?
Joy:
Yes. PEOPLE, with BRAINS.
Rag:
Same question as to Joy.
Does destroying a blastocyst equal murdering a 30 year-old?
But it does! Vast amounts. And it is interesting WHERE it has put money in stem cell research.
Your “candle” analogy shows the fallacy of discounting results. Adult stem cells have provided KNOWN results in application. It is easy for you to dismiss them as “old hat”, while looking starry-eyed toward some Xanadu of science that will be opened with the key of ESCR, which has IMMENSE barriers to any successful application, and which no longer, in any event, requires harvested reproductive cells. Adult cells can be manipulated to be analogs to ESC.
Rags:
So you honestly believe that were it left to the free market we would have walked on the moon and will soon make it to Mars?
Don’t be frivolous. The free market invests in short term scientific advancements that turn direct and immediate (immediate meaning within the foreseeable future) profits.
If you are going to deny that with a straight face then I can’t help but conclude you aren’t arguing in god faith.
Yes, refer to #231.
I don’t know. I do know that I would be VERY chary about destroying ANY human life, including that of a guilty murderer. That does not mean I would not, but that I would be very careful about the ethics of that act, and where they might lead me.
*good faith *smile* No, that wasn’t Freudian. LOL.
Rags:
You don’t know?
What? How can you expect me to try and discuss this issue with you in good faith when you can’t even answer a simple direct question?
Absolutely. There isn’t really anything that government can do with people’s money that they can’t do on their own volition.
So, it would be your assertion that no basic science is privately funded? That would be a very foolish position.
I think I did answer your question, which is hardly simple. It requires considerable thought, by my lights. My answer should reinforce my credibility as a forensic adversary, rather than seem to you like a gotcha.
Rags:
What? Obviously that is a non sequitur.
What are you talking about?
No private company interested in turning a profit would have gone to the moon in the 50’s. That is absolutely absurd.
Zero – I guess this is a good place to continue our last conversation that got put on the back-burner.
Continuing our conversation. Concerning the society that kills 3-year-olds. And how it pertains to whether or not killing an embryo is the same as a 30-year-old.
The example you brought up about killing the 3-year-olds. I will try to phrase my response in a different way. In real life people would not suddenly, out of the blue, start killing 3-year-olds. They might begin by making an argument that a certain 3-year-old has a disability which causes him/her to be unable to think. The make arguments that the child’s quality of life is such that he/she should be put out of his/her misery. Then they up the argument by degrees until parents pretty much have the right to kill their children up to 3 years old.
OR, your hypothetical society could have gotten there by arguing that the life of a three-year-old isn’t as valuable as a working 30-year-old and the parts of the three-year-olds could be grown quicker and easier than even using embryos or adult stem cells.Please don’t respond to this particular argument, but try to see the point I’m making that morals and a sense of what is right and wrong creep into a society, they don’t just pop up all of a sudden.
Once an action has been assimilated into a society and becomes generally acceptable, regardless of the true immorality or wrongness of it, people can no longer be held accountable in the same way as when people had a general knowledge of the wrongness of the action. At this point it takes a major ‘epiphany’ or grand realization in a segment of the society that what they are doing is very wrong. Then they have to change people’s minds, one at a time. Just as it was a process to get to the point where killing 3-year-olds was acceptable, it will be a process to get to the point where the vast majority see the wrongness of it and keep the others in check with laws.
This is what happened with slavery. People began to be enlightened, and slowly most societies put a stop to the practice, where the USA had to actually have a war to end it. But there are still people to this day that see nothing wrong with it. And indeed it is still practiced in various places around the world.
If we truly value life (and in this case we are talking about human life), we must value it in all stages or we risk going down that slippery slope that leads to one group determining another group isn’t as valuable.
You need to read what I write more carefully. I don’t need a lesson on genetic drift.
Sports, or lethals, are not unknown genetic expressions, though they occur rarely. And you are still trying your exceptions BS to get to a weak point.
You can stop now.
Joy:
Remind me, because I want to be absolutely clear on this point. Last time we had this conversation Eric Rudolph came up.
I remember saying something to the effect that a “pro-life” type might privately think something like, “those abortion doctors and nurses got what they deserved.” This is despite thinking that what Eric Rudolph did, “doesn’t help the cause.”
I just want to be crystal clear, because you said something like, “you don’t deny thinking this.”
Do you think anyone Eric Rudolph murdered, “got what they deserved?”
That, my friend, is not a non sequitur.
I called you on your BS generalization. Seems you are having trouble here.
Rags:
I already said it’s not central to my point.
BS is it?
Are we going to start trading insults now?
Rags:
How does saying the free market is concerned with profits mean they aren’t concerned with science?
They are concerned with science that will turn “immediate” profits.
For example, making new drugs or vaccines.
They wouldn’t (for example) be concerned with putting a man on the moon.
You are making a false dichotomy and you know it.
First response: Really? So no privately funded enterprise was instrumental in making that happen?
Second response: I didn’t know we reached in moon in the 50s. I don’t think that Kennedy even set that course until the 60s. Hmmm….
Third response: Were there a profit-making potential in space flight, it would have happened, regardless of govt.
Fourth response: While there has been substantial national prestige to the US by our exploration of space, I don’t know that there is a strong argument that the cost/benefit ratio serves your argument well.
I have not been anything other than respectful to you. I will call your BS just what it is, and that is not an insult to you. Just the poverty of your argument.
And this is a truly foolish set of nonsense.
Drug and biotech companies put IMMENSE money into basic research that may never pay off. R&D are always looking over the horizon, and NOTHING is an assured profit-maker. No business venture in its early days is about immediate profits. There is no endeavor where that is more true than in basic science, but private money still flows into it.
If putting a man on the moon were a market function…as in potential for mining…the market would fund it.
Rags:
1. So? I’m not saying that they weren’t and it’s not related to my point. They were involved in a program that was heavily government funded.
2. Ohh… I got my dates wrong. Yay.
3. Yes, but not as early as it did.
4. Absurd. NASA is constantly trying to prove that it isn’t just a money pit.
OK, in that case, your position is nonsense. You can’t even answer a direct question because you know it will unravel your stupid argument that a mindless collection of cells is equal to a 30 year old.
Furthermore, your non sequiturs and false dichotomies do nothing for your argument.
Are you going to define “humanity” now?
Rags:
Because they know that SOME of those programs WILL pay off and fund the others!
Didn’t I clearly spell out what I meant by “immediate?”
Your arguement seems to be that because the free market favors ASCR over ESCR then ESCR is worthless and deserves no government funding. This is absurd.
Are you against governemnt funding for anything or only those things which you deem are killing a “soul?”
In terms of its place in the human family, it is.
You question was, is destroying a blastocyst equal to blowing someone’s brains out.
That, my dear, is not a simple question, and you ought to have the integrity to know it isn’t.
If weighing whether to allow an infant to be aborted, or saving its mother’s life, in that extremity I hope you would have to ponder the moral calculus…that it would not be a given. It would not be for me.
So, in deciding to take an inchoate human life, or to end a human life in being, I would have to weigh that on a rather deep level.
It isn’t a throw-away question, and I can’t give you a throw-away answer.
Apparently, you cannot relate.
Yes, you just made my point.
Show me some. You seem troubled enough by my arguments that you just throw accusations at them. Show us false dichotomies and non sequiturs.
Zero – 248 is a MAJOR diversion to avoid dealing with 246… C’mon.
Rags:
It is a simple question, and I have the integrity to state it as such.
Furthermore, an unborn “infant” (I am assuming you mean late term) is also not equal to a mindless blastocyst. I also have the integrity to state that, as I have here, many times.
How does NASA make your point? I contend that space exploration (whether or not it causes profit EVER) is a worthy endeavor.
I’ve pointed out and explained both your previous non sequitur and false dichotomy. If you can’t admit them as such, then you aren’t arguing in good faith.
Joy:
I’ll read it again more closely, but I don’t really think I disagree with anything you said in #246. We just disagree on defining a human being. #246 doesn’t seem to addres that, it seems just to make a statement about how social norms and morality “evolve.” I don’t disagree, I just think it’s moving in my direction, not yours.
Your arguement seems to be that because the free market favors ASCR over ESCR then ESCR is worthless and deserves no government funding. This is absurd.
Wonderful. You have an opinion. You have the integrity to have an opinion. OK, we’ve proved that up.
Now…
Rags:
So? Did I mention I voted for Bush?
What does any of this have to do with my point that ESCR is an important area of research, just like (for example) space exploration?
You might be a pure Objectivist that thinks the free market should rule the day, but it’s not central to my point!
Obviously, you don’t like ESCR because you think it is “murder.”
This is gross hyperbole and you seem to want to change the topic to avoid addresing that.
And that is a bankrupt tactic. You cannot debate me by putting words…especially highly charged words…in my mouth.
Rags:
So it’s not murder?
No, you think that ESCR is the wonder thing.
You have actually had the temerity to ask people here if they care at all about suffering people, on the sole predicate that they don’t agree with your opinion…which is really all you have…regarding ESCR.
I have pointed out that the most rational and reliable means we have to weigh the value of the ACTUAL SCIENCE…as opposed to your dreams…has given us a verdict.
ESCR has to obtain funding from people who spend other people’s money. Politicians are, I hope we can agree, a fairly nonscientific group of thinkers.
Private funding for biotech has some of the very best minds on the planet who evaluate potential investments for pay-offs. Not according to your dreams, but according to hard science. They have DESELECTED ESCR as having the best potential. Not just “immediate”, but at all, and on the grounds of good science.
Sorry.
Murder is a term of art in the legal profession. Depending on the jurisdiction, its definition varies.
Rationally, destroying a human blasocyst is taking a human life. That is why it presents a moral dilemma, which you seem willing to skip lightly over.
Well said.
I’m pretty sure that those Hawaii legislators would’ve thought different had a 747 brought down a couple of those swanky Diamond Head hotels…
James Greenidge
Queens, NY
Rags:
What? Do you mean this:
You didn’t see that I was using that comment to demonstrate how I consider it hyperbole?
So, I am to conclude that you are OK with ESCR or do you wish it were outlawed?
Zero – I don’t doubt for a moment that societal norms are moving in your direction. What I argue is that direction is a dangerous one. And #246 includes why I believe it to be so.
However, I will say that your #248 is partially correct. Let me clarify…
I’ll admit to thinking it. BUT only the people who were directly involved in the abortion provider end of things!! Not the innocent bystanders!!!!!!!!! Which is another reason why I believe what he did was SO wrong. And even if there hadn’t been innocent bystanders I wouldn’t advocate or agree with what he did. We live in a nation of laws and must work through them. But I cannot pretend to be upset when an abortion provider dies.
I believe the killing of pre-born humans in any stage of development is a grave evil. But I also remember that when I was younger I didn’t understand that. So I will continue to pray for a peaceful end to abortion, and work for an end to abortion, both to save babies and to save the mothers from the horrors they have to deal with when they ‘choose’ that path.
I’m one of those people who even in war do not ‘delight’ in the death of my enemies, but do see the necessity of it. I always wish it could be otherwise and always wish and pray for peaceful solutions to things. So do I think Eric Rudolph did the right thing? No, no, absolutely not.
I don’t think that we will change each other’s minds, and it really does hurt my hands/wrists/neck to type so much, so I’ll call it a day and agree to disagree. It’s nice to know that some people can do that civilly. Unlike some others….
.
If we qualify your question, I can answer it.
Should humans be produced for the purpose of research?
NO
Is is morally and ethical to continue research on ESC that have been created from lines now in existence.
NOT IF OTHER FORMS OF ESC are available, and they certainly appear to be.
Is ESC research moral and ethical if the cells are derived by one of the new methods for converting adult cells or other cells?
I certainly see no problem with that.
Now, I am going to watch mindless TV and eat dinner.
Perhaps they should celebrate by beheading the 22 morons that voted for this garbage.
Joy:
Well, there’s really nothing for us to discuss.
If you think that abortion doctors deserve to die, then your position is consistent. I disagree, but you are still consistent.
Have a good evening.
PS – I just don’t want there to be any confusion….
Eric Rudolph was a sick, twisted, psycho person. Period.
Rags:
It should be pointed out at this point that it was William that compared ESCR to Nazis and it was mainly that I objected to.
It is true that we have enough material for now. This only delays the ethical concerns however. If a breakthrough comes through, these questions must be addressed.
Rags:
Sorry I missed this:
That is where you try to deflect the issue. Profit potential does not necessarily equal research “value.” However, it’s really not at all central to the point because none of that has any bearing at all on the ethics of the issue, which is the point. Let me restate that, a philosophical discussion about economic strategies has no bearing on the ethics of ESCR.
In any case, be honest, we both know that any “de-selection” of funding for ESCR is not completely based on any potential or lack of potential for future value or “hard science”. It is intimately intertwined with the ethics of the issue.
You can deny this, but again, you aren’t arguing in good faith.
Rags:
Darn one more:
I suppose one could say that taking a completely brain dead patient off life support is also “destroying a human life.”
Of course, I would disagree and point out that any “person” or brain/mind has long since gone.
Again, we come back to this troubling notion of a “soul.”
Unfortunately for your argument, there are documented cases of people, written off as “brain-dead” who have come back.
You would have killed them, just as with any human life you devalue.
I err on the side of life. There is value in the old Jewish toast: TO LIFE!
No? How would you value it, then? On the strength of your pipe-dreams? In the face of good science? That is just witchcraft or your religion speaking, in that case.
Happily, there is no stand-off here. Science has eclipsed your drive to destroy the unborn of our race. There’s just no need anymore, break-through or no.
Rags:
Yes, there is no good comparison. I think it should be enough to say a blastocyst does not have a brain. A fruit fly is capable of suffering more than a blastocyst.
As I said indicated early on, do I really have to bother quoting the host of scientists and experts that would say ESCR has value?
What is my religion?
Your last paragraph is just strawman, as such, I don’t even need to address it.
I think you can’t. That science has produced ESC analogs seems to be something you have difficulty with. Why?
You could quote a “host” of “experts”, many of whom are as interested as they could be in the money, or as invested as you in this notion. I could cite you to a gaggle of Nobel Laureates who swore, in their most solemn terms, that wholesale death would result from residential electrification.
I have never said there is no value…can be no value…to ESCR. Only that there is demonstrable science that shows why it has been fruitless to date.
And I have told you…repeatedly…that science has eclipsed your sacred cow here.
Your religion? It would appear to have as a basic tenet the destruction of those humans you devalue. Since it is not a rationally based system of belief, I conclude it is religious.
Rags:
Let’s entertain a scenario that might perhaps help you understand what I am talking about.
Let’s assume that some scientist toiling away discovers the cure for cancer (or something equally remarkable) using ESCR. Also assume that the cure requires the highly plastic ESCs and as such, necessitates creating and destroying a cloned blastocyst using cells of the patient.
If that occurs, these ethical issues can no longer be hand-waved by your economics argument.
Furthermore, if you contend that the same highly plastic cells can or will be obtained with ASCR you run into the problem of the very real possibility that inserting those cells into a gutted blastocyst will form into a human being. Hence, those highly plastic ASCs should also be considered a human life. In short, the simple notion that procuring ASCs doesn’t destroy a “life” is a gross simplification of the ethics involved.
Do you understand what I am saying?
LOL! Seriously, though, I’m sorry, but I really don’t think the idea that a prerequisite to being a “person” is having a mind is an irrational idea at all. In any case, if you seriously think my support of ESCR is borne out of some commitment to having abortions on demand for 12 year olds, (for example) what can I say? You are wrong. You don’t have to believe me, but again, you aren’t arguing in good faith and strawman seems to be a favorite of yours.
Wow, I just noticed the big-time threadjack. I didn’t have time to go through the entire thread but how did “Islam Day” devolve into a discusion about ESCR? I guess my warning to ZA that heads would explode over such topics was not properly headed.
It’s easy to indulge in trendy norms or compromise one’s principles these days so that we never have to think about the “complicated” or deeper implications of such practices of ESCR. That would just hurt our little heads. Or the fact that science always has room for other developments that don’t test the ethical or moral perils of taking embryos and doing whatever we want to them because hey, they’re just a clump of cells, seems to have been lost in the process. Such is what happens when life is sold so short or has no integral value on any level.
Okay, now back to regular programming:
Having been to Hawaii myself a couple of years ago, I find that this state has been taken over by liberals and RINO’s to such an extent that there is no common sense person who has any influence in that state anymore. Its only real industry is tourism and while it’s an exotic locale to visit, it’s very overpriced (see gas prices there) and you can get more bang for your buck in Florida or even the Bahamas.
It was nice for a vacation, but seeing how the whole state revolves around tourism and selling some fantasy that one has to pay an arm and a leg for, I’ll pass and go to the Virgin Islands instead.
emjem24:
William was the one to hijack it. In any case, please don’t devalue my position by claiming I don’t value life. It’s patently false, thank you.
“zeroangel”,
You have referred to the human embryo, even at the blastocyst stage, as only a potential human being.
That is incorrect and scientifically erroneous.
Let us look at basic Human Embryology, the actual science which studies this issue, and Human Embryologists, the scientists who study and research Human Embryonic Development.
There is the authentic, accurate, scientific explanation of a Human Embryo, as known by professional Human Embryologists:
Embryo (Gr. embryon). This term refers to the developing human during its early stages of development. The embryonic period extends to the end of the eighth week, by which time the beginnings of all major structures are present. … – Keith L. Moore, PhD, T.V.N. Persaud, MD, PhD – “The Developing Human – Clinically Oriented Embryology – pg 3 “Introduction to the Developing Human” (1998)
“… the procession of events that begins when a spermatozoon makes contact with a secondary oocyte or its investments, and ends with the intermingling of maternal and paternal chromosomes at metaphase of the first mitotic division of the zygote. The zygote is characteristic of the last phase of fertilization and is identified by the first cleavage spindle. It is a unicellular embryo – Ronan O’Rahilly and Fabiola Müller, Human Embryology &Teratology (New York: Wiley-Liss, 1994). p. 19
” … (I)t is now accepted that the word embryo, as currently used in human embryology, means ‘an unborn human in the first 8 weeks’ from fertilization’. Embryonic life begins with the formation of a new embryonic genome (slightly prior to its activation).” (p. 87) [O'Rahilly and Muller, 2001]
“Zygote: This cell results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo). The expression fertilized ovum refers to a secondary oocyte that is impregnated by a sperm; when fertilization is complete, the oocyte becomes a zygote.” Keith L. Moore and T.V.N. Persaud, The Developing Human (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998). p. 2
“zeroangel”,
Make no mistake, a new human embryo IS a new living human being, not a potential human being.
You also seem to want to equate the sperm and the oocyte to the human embryo, a false comparison.
The sperm is part of a human being Sperm is not human being, a human organism as the human embryo is. If placed inside a mother’s womb, sperm will do nothing but disintegrate.
The oocyte, part of the woman’s body, is not a living human being, but a sex gamete. If placed inside the mother’s womb the oocyte will do nothing but disintegrate.
Neither the sperm or oocyte will grow to be an adult human being. They must unite in order for a new human being to begin his or her life. Before they can do that they must be prepared by undergoing the process of gametogenesis before they can ever meet and actually result in a new human being, the new human embryo.
A human embryo DOES grow to become an adult human being, but only because the human embryo IS already a human being, at one of the earliest stages of human development.
It would be accurate to say that a new human embryo is a human being in his or her earliest stage of development, and that he or she is a potential neonate (new born infant), or toddler, or child, or teenager, or adult human being. You could also say that the new human being, still in the embryonic stage, has the potential to become a doctor, a baseball player, a physicist, or parent himself or herself someday, but to say that the human embryo is only “potential” life or a “potential” human being is downright scientifically false.
Also, you brought up the idea that we don’t know how many people the new human embryo will become, therefore, your logic goes, the human embryo is not alive yet. That is nonsense, and scientifically false.
The new human embryo produced by the contact of the father’s sperm and the mother’s oocyte, in normal sexual reproduction, in vivo, IS a genetically unique human being. It is during cell division, when a cell, or a cells from the embryo separates from the rest of the embryo, that, if they still have the potential – are totipotent, meaning they have the ability to become any kind of cell, for any kind of tissue, for any type of organ, for any system in the human body, they can also have the ability to become another, new human embryo. This merely means that the first embryo acts, in a sense, as the “parent” of the second or third identical twin, triplet, etc.
This is referred to as asexual reproduction, in vivo (inside the mother’s body) and occurs naturally in human beings. Asexual reproduction also occurs ex vivo, as in Assisted Reproductive Technologies and Artificial Reproductive Technologies, such as blastomere separation, blastocyst splitting, and other techniques, and even in cloning, such as in Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT), and Germ Line Cell Nuclear Transfer (GLCNT) and other technologies.
So, the human embryo is a living human being even before twinning or triplets occurs in vivo or ex vivo. The new human embryos resulting from twinning, etc., are also, now, new human beings.
“zeroangel”,
Later I intend to answer your previous comment to me from before in which you falsely claimed that the human embryo, including at the blastocyst stage, is not a living human being, no more than a piece of skin tissue. That statement of yours is scientifically inaccurate and false as well. The skin tissue is a “part” of a human being, whereas the human embryo IS a human being.
“zeroangel” it is important that when discussing such important issues that the facts are properly represented and that false and scientifically inaccurate claims, statements, and information be corrected. Otherwise people will and do take action based on bad information and consequently arrive at undesirable and damaging results, including undesirable and damaging research, undesirable and damaging politics, undesirable and damaging passage of laws, etc.
I hope this helps clear up some of your concerns and misunderstandings.
Best to you.
William
These single issue hang-ups is what’s happily helping liberals and Demo ultimate goal of wiping out the power and posture of Conservatives in this county — and they’re well on their way doing it! Screw our pragmatic political priorities on straight and keep your eye on the big picture or you’ll lose it ALL!!!!!!
James Greenidge
Queens, NY
I enjoy Hawaii.
My wife and I married in Maui. We visited Maui with our four children, who also enjoyed Maui, Hawaii. They saw the outdoor location where my wife and I married at Sunset. They swam in several beautiful beaches, and we lodged in different properties on different parts of the island, including the beautiful, quiet Hana, Maui, Hawaii.
We also like Kauai.
It seems so strange that the State of Hawaii would endorse an Islam Day.
They might have a law making Good Friday a state holiday, but that does not name “Good Friday” as “Christian Day.”
If there are enough Christians who observe Good Friday as a special day, and would take off from work to engage in religious practices, then it makes sense to just make it a state holiday, but it is not necessary.
How about the historical, traditional religion of the Hawaiians?
What about Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, Zoroastrians, Sikhs, Ba’hais, Shintos, Jews, Catholics (would that fall under “Christian Day” or would it be considered covered under “Good Friday?”)?
Are there many Muslims on the Island of Hawaii? How many? What percentage of the population?
Hawaii is a melting pot of many different ethnic groups and countries, including immigrants from New Zealand, Australia, Samoa, Tonga, Tahiti, Korea, Japan, the Philipines, China, Puerto Rico, Britain, the USA, and so forth.
I hope that this “law” does not accelerate the push for more Islamic influence in the Hawaiian Islands, including a sub culture which would include Sharia Law, forced acceptance of Muslim demands, and fear of offending Muslims in those who just want to live their lives and enjoy life in the Hawaiian Islands.
We shall see.
Aloha oi.
Maui no ka oi!
William
William:
I read through your laborious reply. Merely making a claim to where human life begins and then asserting outright that it is “science” doesn’t make it so.
A blastocyst doesn’t have a brain. It doesn’t think, feel, have dreams, have concerns, have aspirations any more than my liver does. Nothing you said changes this.
Furthermore, a quick yahoo search for “Keith L. Moore” will find you letters from plenty of scientists that take issue with his “definition.” No doubt the same is true of your other quotes. Either that, or they are quote mining.
Anyhow, you then go on to try and explain to me things like SCNT and GLCNT as if I didn’t know what they are. I don’t need to address that.
That said, I must ask, given your stance, do you consider things like culling during IVF and IUD’s to be muder?
Do not misrepresent my claim. I do realize there is a difference between skin tissue and a blastocyst. My comparison involves the idea that neither has a brain or any kind of “identity.” You guys are rather predisposed to strawman, aren’t you?
…and yet you knowingly and purposely quote Keith L. Moore whom you must know to be a little bit less than “unbiased” on this issue. Please take your own advice.
Thank you.
jamesgreenidge:
Actaully, I agree with you. If the strict and unwavering “pro-lifers” would give it a rest already maybe we can get the Republican party back on track.
William:
You don’t need to use my handle in quotes at the begining of every paragraph. Once at the top is fine.
Besides, it makes you look kind of silly.
http://www.islampedia.com/ijaz/Html/Scientist_All/Keith%20L.htm
This Keith Moore fellow sounds a bit silly.
I should be more accurate in what I say above.
A yahoo search in reference to Moore will find you plenty of his lunacy concerning Islam.
You may find a letter or two addressing concerns about his definitions, but it takes a bit more research.
In any case, again, Moore asserting that “life begins” at conception is no more valid them him asserting that the Koran is the word of God.
This is a sad day for Hawai’i.
Our legislators are Useful Idiots.
I really want to know. Why would a religion, a people, that rejects just about every American value in this country want to live here in our Pork Loving, Bikini wearing, Transgendered accepting, Gay Living, Alcohol Loving, Pot Smoking Hawai’i?
See what The Muslim Association of Hawai’i is saying. Of course it’s hate.
Once more into the breech!
Good grief, Z.
You’ve now decended from “It’s life but not human because it doesn’t have a brain” to “It’s not life”?!
Your definition of life appears to be just as fuzzy as your definition of Human.
Was Terri Schiavo human, in your opinion?
In a marxist or communist new world order, there is no room for Christainity. Just ask Obama’s buds Castro, Chavez, the Iranian Pres, and Bill Ayers. Can’t have the people worship something else besides our imperious dictator. We can’t give the people any hope in a dictatorship.
Well… way to go Hawaiians, there went your income from tourism!
First, watch that condescension.
Second, I found the structure of this “powerful” scenario a laugher. Here it is:
Let’s assume something completely fantastic, and can’t be done by any means we know for any number of sound scientific reasons, happens. Whatareyagonnasaythen, smarty?!?!?!
My first response–lemme know when that fantastic event occurs. Until then, ya got nothing.
Second response–if your miracle cure requires that the patient contribute the cells (it’s your scenario),…groovy. Those are his cells. HIM.
IF that happened, absolutely NONE of the arguments I have been making would be invalid. A new paradigm would have arrived, and those sort of change things on the economic level. Which, for the foreseeable future, will deal with reality.
I can’t help this; Ann Coulter’s cosmic raccoon fart is found to have created the universe. How is that going to change your outlook, and will it invalidate your observations of economics?
Something reeks. If Islam was such a religion that made such technological and artistic contributions, then why are these people still living in the middle ages, cutting off heads, abusing their women, riding camels, have ridiculous laws and are still peeing in the streets?