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
Dexter:
What was I unclear about? A blastocyst has no brain; therefore it can’t possibly be equal to a 30 year old.
I don’t recall the details of the Terri Schiavo case, but IIRC she was completely brain dead, thus IMHO, she was once a living human but her “identity” and person had died.
Rags:
What condescension? I’m merely calling you on your BS.
Do you deny that ESCs are more plastic than ASCs? Do you believe that ASCR has every bit the potential that ESCR does?
1. Will do.
2. Yes, until you use those cells to make a cloned blastocyst, then presumably, you would say that is a new human. So, you are still faced with the ethical questions I am presenting.
3. I see you choose not to address my points WRT a highly plastic adult stem cell being inserted into a gutted blastocyst.
Ann Coulter? Are you seriously going to try and bring her ignorant musings about evolution into this? Her chapter in “Godless” on evolution was so incredibly scientifically ignorant, blatantly partisan, and factually wrong, it is hard to imagine something more pathetic.
I have said several times on this blog I am not going to try and explain evolution anymore. If you insist, I’ll be forced to invoke the aforementioned (in another thread) “atheist challenge.” In the interest of staying with one topic (even if it’s off topic) let’s not go there.
Anyhow, I wonder, do you consider culling during IVF and IUD’s to be “destroying a human life?” Is freezing a fertilized egg the same thing as freezing a 1 year old?
It appears to me that you are asserting that life does NOT begin at conception.
Here’s another question: What, to you, constitutes a brain? How many cells? What functionality? Where, exactly, is your line defining Human from ‘potential’ Human?
BTW, Z, despite what you may have heard Terri Schiavo was not on life support. She had a feeding tube. As long as she was fed she had many more years ahead of her. She was not “brain dead”. She responded to family members’ voices, her eyes followed movements. So, Human or not?
Dexter:
At least ONE neuron would be a start. At least there one could make some kind of argument about an “identity.”
I should think I don’t need to go over the analog vs. digital thing again, do I?
Dexter:
In that case, (putting aside the analog vs. digital thing, not to mention the quality of life issue) yes, human.
Now, we can get into a conversation about euthanasia if you want.
Sorry, work intrudes. See ya.
Dexter:
You sure? You brought it up. I don’t know about you but if I am trapped in a broken body with barely half of a mind I would hope my relatives pull the plug.
Why do you bring something up that is barely related if you don’t want to discuss it? Terry Schavio is a far cry from a mindless ball of cells.
Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Schiavo#Schiavo_III_.26_IV:_PVS_diagnosis_challenge
Referencing:
http://news.tbo.com/news/MGBQ67CTI6E.html
The far-right lies and distorts every bit as much as the far-left, they just do so on different issues.
Meanwhile, the independant and moderates of the country are left lamenting the extreme partisan nature of American politics.
It speaks to your definition of Human, and the value placed on Human life.
De-valuing Human life has led to a lot of nasty places (at the risk of skirting Godwin’s Law).
As for me, I intend to create a “Living Will” that specifies what days I want Tacos and Arby’s Roast Beefs shoved down my feeding tube, and what to play on the radio/TV at various times of the day during my coma. That I can ‘sense’ it or not makes no difference to me. I don’t want some court arbitrarily sentencing me to death by starvation just because I’m not responding to your blog posts anymore.
It could have been 6 seconds, or Zero, it doesn’t matter. She wasn’t “dying”, but they killed her anyway because of some person’s arbitrary conclusion that she didn’t have a life worth living. That should be scary to everyone.
There are other cases where the patient is lucid, speaking, and some ‘family’ member who has power of attorney seeks to have the feeding tube removed. This is the slope we’re slipping down.
BTW, Z, the Search function above isn’t working for me. I’ve never seen your “digital vs. analog” argument. Can you provide a link?
my meeting was delayed…
Sorry, Zero. I’ve clearly been flying over your head.
The Ann Coulter allusion had nothing to do with evolution, or anything literal. I was recasting the structure of your super-duper scenario.
That, BTW, was where your condescension was expressed. “Let me see if I can explain my superior position to you poor fools with this scenario”.
You can hypothetical this thing to death. Actually, that seems where you like going…to death…so long as those who die are in your approved categories.
I will leave you to your little hypothetical games. They are meaningless and vacant, as anyone who reads these posts will see. “Assume this fantasy, then assume this fantasy, what then…?”
My positions and yours are well laid out for readers. People can choose.
Dexter:
I have already spelled out my analog vs. digital position so many times. I guess you missed it. Simply it is this: the question of where “life” begins and what is a human “life” or “identity” is not a clear digital question.
I thought we were agreeing to disagree?
Yes, it DOES matter since it’s quite possible that involuntary reflex actions were percieved to be something they weren’t.
Obviously, I don’t agree with that. However, the “slippery slope” arguement doesn’t always wash. Afterall, if you raise the speed limit to 75mph it doesn’t mean that it will eventually be 25,070,065mph.
Rags:
Indeed. People can choose. Any fair minded reader who is possesed of the facts will see that you don’t understand my examples. I do honestly feel sorry for you and hope you seek to educate yourself WRT this topic.
Dexter:
WRT “Godwin’s Law:”
If you can’t recognize that comparing Nazis to ESCR is hyperbole in the extreme I dont know what to tell you. I thought I already pointed this out to you in this thread?
Dexter:
Since you are still reading, maybe you’d like to answer my question to Rags. From time to time I have heard of people that wish to “rescue” fertilized eggs from culling during IVF because they are “human beings.”
I have heard that these eggs are frozen in the hopes that they can be implanted into a willing and hopeful mother.
Presumably, people that support this have no moral issues with this.
1) They believe a fertilized egg is equal to a 1 year old.
2) They believe its OK to freeze a fertilized egg.
The question is, based on 1 and 2, is it then acceptable to freeze a 1 year old pending adoption (for example)?
Why or why not?
It only matters if you define human life down to exclude people who can’t perceive the way you do.
Your speed limit analogy doesn’t do you justice. You can come up with a better slippery slope rebuttal than that. We’re talking questions of ethics and morality here.
If you can’t recognize that it was the Nazis de-valuing of human life that led to their excesses, I don’t know what to tell you. They didn’t begin with gassing.
What I’m asking is if you begin with ESCR, what’s to stop you from experimenting with fetuses at 2-weeks gestation, or 2-months? How about cloning to harvest organs?
Point to that spot where you say “Stop! That’s a Human life!”
No, I’ve never read your digital vs. analog thing. But, since analog is exact, and digital is always an approximation, maybe that’s not the way you should be framing it.
That whole idea of freezing fertilized eggs is repugnant. No, I don’t think that should be done.
Dexter:
The speed limit analogy does fine. You are smart enough to see my point without me having to expand any more than the bare minimum number of neurons required for this conversation.
Well, for one, a 2 month old has a brain!
An arbitary point must be drawn for legal reasons. The beginning of the 3rd trimester works for me. I have said this before here, you must have missed that as well.
I mean it in the sense of it not being “black or white.” Digital being “black and white,” analog having “shades of grey.”
Look man, we disagree, I get it, but if you persist in this silly “Nazi” stuff I’m not sure there is a point in talking to you.
Dexter:
Excellent, I am glad you are consistent. Am I also to assume you think culling and IUD’s are repugnant?
Do you believe (as Joy has said she does) that abortion doctors deserve to die?
Dexter:
Addionally, what do you think should be done with an unwanted fertilized egg?
Which is more desireable? Freezing or destruction? Or are they equal?
An arbitary point must be drawn for legal reasons. The beginning of the 3rd trimester works for me.
…without me having to expand any more than the bare minimum number of neurons required for this conversation.
Correction, 6-months!
Dexter:
I realize that is your ideal scenario, however, that’s not an answer.
I’m sorry, I have been completely consistent. Again, it’s not a digital question.
I haven’t made having a brain the sole determining factor. I merely said NOT having a brain should be indicative of the obvious fact that there is no “person” there.
There are varying degrees as to what is acceptable in my mind along the stages of development. I thought this should be obvious by now.
If claming that I am not being consistent by misunderstanding or misrepresenting what I am saying makes you feel as though your position is superior, well, I am glad to be of service. It’s too bad you don’t seem to understand me.
PS. My “minimum neurons” thing was a joke. I guess you didn’t take it as such.
Dexter:
A quick example:
While I think a blastocyst deserves basically no concern, I think (for example) a good reason should be required for an abortion at 20 weeks.
At 25 weeks, a better reason should be required.
At 30 weeks, the mother’s health must be at risk.
Is it really nessecery for me to spell out my opinion every step of the way here?
Dittos to you. I also hope you are not in any medical field.
Rags:
Here’s a good place as any to see what the “medical field” has to say:
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/stem-cells/CA00081
emphasis mine.
You are a fool. A source, talking about potential, is “the medical field” to you.
“Embryonic stem cells could also become tumor cells — something that’s happened in animal experiments — or travel to a part of the body where they’re not intended to go. They also might trigger an immune response in which the recipient’s body attacks the stem cells as foreign invaders, or simply fail to function normally, with unknown consequences. Researchers have found ways to avoid these complications and continue studying ways to control stem cells. They are also studying alternatives.”
What a stupid, stupid waste of time.
Rags:
LOL! I knew you couldn’t resist the urge for ad hominem!
“A source,” The Mayo Clinic, an
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayo_Clinic
“a source,” indeed. Of course, you probably place more stock in William’s Keith “embryology proves Allah” Moore.
The key word from your quote is “could” however, all of this nonsense about trying to place an objective measure on the “value” of ESCR is just a red herring to divert from your real issue with ESCR.
Actually, I don’t consider trying to educate you a “stupid, waste of time.” I sincerely hope you’ve learned something and I hope any silent readers did as well.
I wonder if you are still reading and “wasting your time?” I am breathlessly awaiting another feeble insult.
Observing what you have displayed is not an ad hominem attack. It is recognizing who and what you are.
The Mayo Clinic is not the universe of the medical community. Your cite is to a staff-written internet blurb, tailored to people, like your self, of very limited scientific understanding.
Thank you for aiding me in isolating your views, and their foundation.
You want to believe in something that necessarily requires that human life be created, then destroyed. That is not rational, since there is no indication that it will lead were you want it to go.
Should research on ESC continue? Of course, but that would not satisfy the drive you have to vindicate your irrational position.
ESC research does not your paradigm, and yet you insist on it anyway. That speaks to your character.
And you are, as presently manifested here, both a fool and a waste of time.
ESC research does not require your paradigm, and yet you insist on it anyway. That speaks to your character.
Correction.
ESC research does not require or justify your paradigm, and yet you insist on it anyway. That speaks to your character.
Enhancement.
Rags:
You are still reading? I thought this was a “waste of your time?”
Look, I understand that you don’t like ESCR because you believe a mindless clump of cells is equal to a one year old. I get that. I also understand that you feel the need to lie to yourself about the potential ESCR has to avoid facing these, very real, ethical questions.
None of this changes the fact that ESCs are more plastic than ASCs and they have potential in areas that ASCs do not have.
I am not the one that doesn’t understand the issues here. This is evidenced by your continued failure to address my points regarding a hypothetical experiment placing stem cells into a gutted blastocyst.
No, I do not believe that something without a brain constitutes a “human life.” I have no doubt you grasp this simple concept but just refuse to address it directly and prefer to engage in strawmen and red herrings.
There is everything indication that they are more plastic. This is a fact.
Anyhow, the rest of your post about trying to pretend to yourself that my position on stem cell research is borne out of ulterior motives has been addressed and my answer hasn’t changed.
Yes, yes, and you are painfully ignorant. Honestly, why are you still responding? Don’t you know by now that once you call a person a “waste of time” on an internet forum and you keep respnding to them that makes you look like an idiot?
Are you an idiot?
I almost forgot, more past evidence that you don’t know what you are talking about:
Hopefully you now understand why that statement was ignorant.
zeroangel,
The reason that Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research (HESCR) should not be engaged in is that it exploits living human beings.
Your claim that HESCR offers great promise is merely a Public Relations gimmick addressing something which has actually not produced anything of promise.
Suppose a basketball player averages 35 points per game, 10 rebounds per game, and 10 assists per game. Suppose also that he is actually playing against the 20 best teams in college.
If a basketball scout from an NBA team goes out and views that player, then contacts his management office and claims “This player offers great promise,” there is a good reason.
Now, suppose there is another player who never scores, never pulls down a rebound, never has an assist, and never blocks a shot.
Imagine that scout contacting the NBA team management office and claiming “This player has great promise.”
The player has never demonstrated anything of promise, yet he is touted as showing great promise. He has performed nothing.
Human Embryos are not stem cells. Human Embryos have never been used to heal or treat or cure a disease. To claim that they offer great promise is pure, unadulterated nonsense, based on pure conjecture.
It is misleading to misguide people, especially people with impairments or suffering horrible disease and pain, by offering them “great hope” from research that offers “great promise” as in HESCR, when there is no performance to support that fact.
Nevertheless, the fact that these human embryos are human beings who are exploited, and destroyed or damaged in HESCR, is reason enough to refrain from HESCR.
Commenting to “Dexter,” zeroangel said:
You don’t understand.
A sperm cell is a sex gamete, not a living human being like a human embryo is.
After undergoing gametogenesis, via meiosis, the sperm cell, once a germ line cell, has changed from a diploid cell, containing all 46 chromosomes, in which the DNA, the instructions for development that the new person needs to go through her developmental stages which will proceed throughout her life inside the womb, and developmental stages will continue into adulthood, to a haploid cell, which now has 1/2 of the number of chromosomes – 22 plus an X or Y from the father.
The oocyte is the female sex gamete which has also undergone gametogenesis, changing from a diploid cell to a haploid cell, 22 chromosomes plus the X chromosome from the mother. However the oocyte does not complete meiosis II and become haploid until contact with the sperm.
Upon the contact of the male and female sex gametes, the sperm and oocyte, upon the penetration of the zona pellucida of the oocyte by the sperm, the oocyte completes meiosis II, is now a haploid cell, and the blending of the genetic material of the father, including the 22 chromosomes plus the X for a girl, or Y for a boy, and the genetic material from the mother, including 22 chromosomes, plus the X chromosome, results in a genetically unique living human being in the very earliest stages of his or her life.
Human sperm is a part of a human being, part of the father. Human sperm is human, but sperm is not a human being. Human sperm is not a living human organism. Sperm will not grow into an adult human being.
Human oocytes are part of a human being, part of the mother. Human oocytes are human, and are part of the woman, but they are not a living organism, they are not a human being. A human oocyte will not grow to become an adult human being.
The human embryo is an actual human organism, a human being, the combination of the father and mother’s genetic material.
You can place a sperm inside a woman’s womb and nothing will happen. The sperm will disintegrate.
You can place an oocyte inside a woman’s womb and nothing will happen. The oocyte will disintegrate.
A human embryo will grow into an adult human being, something that the sperm itself will not do, and something the oocyte itself will not do.
The “potential” that a new living human being has during the embryonic stage – from first contact of sperm and oocyte till the end of the eighth week, Post Fertilization (PF), or even later during the fetal stage – from nine weeks PF till term, is not the “potential to become human” or even the “potential to become a living human being.” The new human embryo has already fulfilled those requirements.
The new human embryo is already
1) Alive, and
2) A human being, a living human organism (We are all living human organisms), a member of the human race.
If the human embryo can be said to have “potential” it is the potential to become an adult human being someday. That is one of many potentialities of a new human being.
A new human embryo also has the potential to become a physician, baseball player, research scientist, musician, a loving, caring parent, an astronaut, and more.
William:
No, you don’t understand. My comparison of a sperm cell with a fertilized egg was to illustrate the notion of “potential.” I used a similar example in sleeping with a stranger.
I am well aware of all the relevant science.
These are the facts:
1. ESCs strains are derived from a blastocyst.
2. ESCs are more highly plastic than ASCs and therefore have more potential (see my quotes from the Mayo Clinic).
3. If a breakthrough occurs with ESCs, in order to produce more ESCs (certainly for specific patients), blastocysts must be destroyed.
4. A blastocyst has no brain.
Number 4 is my MAIN point. I insist you address it.
It is also my conjecture that the idea of a “soul” is at the heart of this matter. Likely you (and others) believe that a “soul” inhabits the egg upon fertilization.
Why not after the first complete neuron has formed?
William:
Are you also against culling during IVF? IUDs? Freezing fertilized eggs? Do you think funeral services should be held for any of these “lives?”
William:
You could have saved yourself that rather long reply had you read all my comments:
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/05/06/hawaii-passes-islam-day-law/comment-page-3/#comment-696828
William:
One final point that occurred to me this morning after cleaning the house:
Just because the phrase, “A blastocyst is the early developmental stage of a human being” is linguistically correct, it doesn’t mean that a blastocyst is equal to a 30 year old.
Consider the following scenario (albeit I am probably straining reality to make a point, but I’m sure a more realistic scenario could be made):
A woman becomes gravely ill. It is ascertained that she is in the very early stages of a pregnancy (we are dealing with a blastocyst) and this is complicating her illness to the point where she might die.
The decision comes down to this: either end the pregnancy or the woman will die.
The woman agrees to end the pregnancy. Apparently, this must constitute a serious moral dilemma for you. I think that is a bit absurd.
William:
Really, save yourself from quoting textbooks and/or making trite sports analogies and address my point.
Merely making a very long winded reply about the science of this only proves you aren’t reading my posts.
I am reading yours, please return the favor.
Who said that a new human embryo at the blastocyst stage is equal to a 30 year old?
You make that statement. Not me.
What do you mean, “equal to?”
The 30 year old adult and the new human embryo at the blastocyst stage are in different developmental stages of their lives.
The 30 year old is an adult. The human embryo at the blastocyst stage is around 4 to 7 days of age.
The 30 year old adult might be a male, while the new human embryo at the blastocyst stage might be a girl.
The 30 year old adult might be suffering from a terminal disease, or be seriously injured and impaired in some form of an accident, while the new human embryo during the blastocyst stage might be perfectly normal and healthy.
Since when are any two people, at any age or stage of development, equal to one another? By what criteria are they equal or unequal?
Black slaves were once considered not equal to whites.
Jews, the handicapped, gypsies, and others were considered sub human, not worthy of life, and sub human in 1930s Germany.
Aborigine people in Australia and dark skinned Indian and African people were considered not equal to “Evolved” while human beings because they were considered more like apes and monkeys than their “evolved” white superiors. A clear example of those who make up their own, flawed rationalization making their own rules.
How about athletic ability?
Two athletes can be unequal. One person might excel in baseball, while athlete # 2 does not. Athlete # 2 might excel in basketball, while athlete # 1, who excelled in baseball, might not excel in basketball.
One scholar might be brain dead when it comes to mathematics, but might be a genius in writing, and the classics. His or her acquaintance might be a genius at mathematics but be a dolt in writing and the classics.
One person might have the most amazing singing voice as well as the most perfect ear for pitch in history, but might be the words public speaker, while their sister or brother might sound tone deaf when it comes to singing and music, but might be the most influential public speaker ever.
When you want to try and bring in something that I never said, but you did say, it would help if you define what you mean by “equal to.”
The adult could probably beat up on the tiny human embryo, and probably beat the human embryo is a battle of wits, in a talent competition, and in speech writing. The adult might even beat the human embryo in a race. When the new person achieves childhood or teen years, they might beat the pants of the 30 year old adult in all these things, for the adult might be just a few points short of a rock in the intelligence department.
Nevertheless, it is a scientific fact that the human embryo and the 30 year old adult are both 100% members of the human race, living human organisms, living human beings. In that they are the same.
William:
I see no answer to any of my questions. Just a weak semantics arguement. I’ll define equal for you. By equal I mean that thier “lives” should be given equal weight from an ethical standpoint.
Let’s try again:
A blastocyst has no brain. See, the major difference between a blastocyst and everyone of your examples is that all the people in your examples have brains.
Are you also against culling during IVF? IUDs? Freezing fertilized eggs? Do you think funeral services should be held for any of these “lives?”
How about my moral dilemma: if you had to choose between saving a blastocyst or a 30 yr old, which would it be? Would it be a hard choice at all?
Stop tap-dancing and address my questions.
zeroangel,
I’ve read throughout this thread your repeated scientifically inaccurate, false statement in which you, essentially, claim that the new human embryo – you use the term “blastocyst”, which, zeroangel, is the new human embryo at the 4 to 7 day state – the free blastocyst, at day 4-5, stage 3 of Carnegie Stages of Human Embryonic Development, before implantation, followed by the stage at which the blastocyst attaches to the uterine wall around 5-6 days, and implants – around day 7, is not alive, not human, only potential life because, you said, “it” has no brain.
That is scientifically erroneous, zeroangel.
Cows have brains. So do dogs, horses, whales, fish, spiders, chimpanzees, cats, and so many other creatures, yet they are not members of the human race, not human organisms, not human beings. None of them began with a brain, they developed that brain, yet they were living organisms before their brain developed, and they were not human beings before or after their brain developed. The brain is, eventually, a part of a human being once it has developed, but the absence of a brain because the brain has not yet developed does not make the human being not human, or not alive.
Plants – flowers, shrubbery, trees, etc., are living organisms, but they do not have brains.
Dead creatures have brains, but these dead creatures, be they a dead squirrel, horse, gorilla, deer, bird, etc., are not living organisms. They might have been at one time, but they are no longer living organisms because the processes which were active from the time their lives first began have ceased. These processes are present in human beings at the beginning of their lives as human embryos.
Computers have what are referred to as electronic brains, but they are not human beings, nor are they living organisms. They have a memory, an “identity,” such as their node on a network, or “Mike’s computer,” as well as a manufacturer’s name, and so forth, but they are not alive, not a living human organism, and not a living organism.
In the USA and other nations Ships and Corporations are considered entities and “Persons” by law although they are not 1) Alive, and 2) A living organism, and 3) A human being.
The terms in which the living human being from the time they are a human embryo onward is “not alive” because “it has no brain” or “Not a person,” etc., are arbitrary terms having no real tangible basis in real scientific evidence. They are the realm of legal mumbo jumbo, conjecture, politics, theological inventiveness.
A living organism is a living thing which 1) Is the offspring of its own kind – oranges from organ trees, apples from apple trees, roses from roses, horses from horses, cats from cats, dogs from dogs, and human beings from human beings.
2) Grows and develops – the human embryo grows and develops, and the entire human organism, the human being, grows and develops from the beginning of her life till her death, from the beginning stage as a living human embryo, through all developmental stages through adulthood, till death.
3) Reacts and responds to stimuli
4) Reproduces after its own kind at reproductive age
5) Grows old.
6) Dies.
The human organisms, beginning with the Human Embryo, fulfills all these criteria, and is clearly a living organism.
The human embryo is the first stage of development in a human being’s life, and is required by the human organism in order to continue through his or her life in order to achieve all other subsequent stages of development into adulthood. Every stage of development is required in order to achieve the next stage of development. Without first beginning life, the new person is not alive, and without that person first being alive, they cannot develop the initial structures required for a heart, lungs, brain, nerves, arms, legs, etc. Without the Embryonic Stage during which virtually all the major organs and structures of the body are formed, there cannot be a fetal stage of development during which these structures and organs mature further before birth.
Without the fetal stage there can be no neonatal stage, then there can be no toddler stage. If the child does not pass through the toddler stage they cannot achieve the states of development which follow.
Skip any of those stages and the new person will not achieve adulthood.
The human embryo is comprised of 23 stages of Human Embryonic Development, as catalogued by the Carnegie Stages of Human Embryonic Development, the charted stages of development referred to by professional Human Embryologists and required to be included in professional Human Embryology Textbooks.
Without passing through the blastocyst stage none of the other stages of development can be achieved.
zeroangel,
The blastocyst is not supposed to have a brain at that time. All the blastocyst requires to achieve his or her level of development has been provided for her and she does fine without that brain at that time.
Your claim that the blastocyst has no brain and therefore cannot be human or alive, but only a useless collection of cells is scientifically inaccurate. This is a living human organism. A mere collection of cells doe not act in collusion with one another on a developmental pathway toward a goal as they do in a living organism. They would not be involved in achieving all the developmental stages that a human being’s life includes if they were a mere “collection of cells.” The human embryo clearly shows that she or he is involved on the path of achieving the developmental stages required to attain adulthood.
zeroangel,
Your claim that the “blastocyst” cannot be a human being, or human, or alive, or only potential life because it has no brain is purely arbitrary, is not based on scientific fact. It is a politicization of the subject, and incorporating philosophy and theology, not scientific reality.
True, at first we do not have a brain, that is a fact, but it does not follow that, because we do not have a brain we are, therefore, not alive, not a human being, and not a living human being. If it were true that living organisms all must have brains, then a plant would not be alive, or a living organism. The plant will not grow to develop a neurological system, of which the brain is a part, as a human being will develop. It is also true that a possessing a brain does not make one human, or alive, as I showed above in which dead creatures with a brain are not alive, and not living organisms. Dead human beings might have a brain, but they are not alive, nor are they living human organisms as the new human embryo, including at the blastocyst stage, are.
You often use the word “potential” saying that the “blastocyst” has the potential to become a human being. That is false.
There is no “potential” to become a human being in this case, for the blastocyst, an early stage of the Human Embryonic Period, is already a living human being. That is why she can develop further, developing all her other organs and eventually achieve adulthood. She is not a non-human who somehow magically changes into a human being at some nebulous time later in her life.
I hope this helps clear things up for you.
William
William:
One long dodge. I am not surprised. Stop trying to pretend to yourself that I don’t know what you are talking about and that you need to educate me. It makes it painfully obvious that you are merely purposely tap-dancing and dodging questions to play to an audience.
Why can’t you simply address the questions I pose? It is true you weakly addressed the brain arguement, but resorted to strawman. My claim NOT that a blastocyst is not alive. My claim is that it can’t be yet considered a “person”.
Now, man up and answer the following otherwise it’s obvbious your are avoiding dealing with these questions because they will expose your arguement:
Since a blastocyst cannot think, feel, dream, or otherwise has any mind, why should it’s “life” be considered ethically equal to a 30 yr old?
Are you also against culling during IVF? IUDs? Freezing fertilized eggs? Do you think funeral services should be held for any of these “lives?”
How about my moral dilemma: if you had to choose between saving a blastocyst or a 30 yr old, which would it be? Would it be a hard choice at all?
William:
Oh, and since you brought up animals:
Which is more ethnically appalling and why:
1) Slowly dissecting and mutilating a live blastocyst.
2) Slowly dissecting and mutilating a live chimpanzee.
?
William:
Deal with the direct ethical questions I am posing and stop trying to pretend to yourself that you are making a scientific and legal arguement that is concrete.
1) It isn’t science, it’s ethics.
2) It’s not legally concrete.
They are both appalling to me.
I am follow a vegetarian diet. I do not eat animals, nor do I hunt them, or kill them. I love wildlife.
I am also against killing human beings from the time their lives begin till natural death. The blastocyst is a term for a new human being during part of the early embryonic developmental stage of life.
Ethically, it is worse to kill the human being during any time of his or her life, including the blastocyst stage, because we are of the human species and it is ethical to put our own species above all others where it applies.
Are you referring to an experiment in which surgery will be performed?
The live chimpanzee should be properly anesthetized if possible before dissecting.
You must watch your tone. You are behaving rudely, as you have throughout this forum thread.
I have addressed your statements throughout this thread, you choose to dismiss my responses.
I am not pretending at all. I state actual, concrete, scientific fact. It is you pretending not to notice, and to not acknowledge the truth. You have continued to fabricate, distort, and just flat out make up your own, false “science.”
I’ve addressed that and clarified those statements by posting the actual scientific facts, which, again, you won’t acknowledge, but dismiss out of hand.
Of course this is about the science. The ethics must be based on sound, accurate science. Your statements are rife with inaccuracies and not scientifically accurate. They required correction. I did so in a respectful, informative manner.
If you wish to be truly ethical, begin by using sound, accurate, factual science, don’t base your “ethics” on imagination and fabrication and denial of the facts.
The blastocyst is a living human being. They are not a stem cell, and the term “Embryonic Stem Cells” are inaccurate when referring to the human embryo at that early in his or her life. They are not stem cells, nor are they “embryonic stem cells.”
Legality is often whatever people make up and go along with, no matter if it is right, humane, moral, or accurate.
The Supreme Court’s dismissiveness in condemning blacks in the USA to being considered less than fully human, less than a full human being, but only property, is the result of the law, of “legality” as was exhibited in the Dred Scott v Sanford decision of the Supreme Court.
It was legal to declare Jews, Gypsies, Slavs, the handicapped and impaired, people with birth defects, etc., as subhuman and lives not worthy of life in 1930s Germany. Again, legalities that were not moral, not based on fact, and based on false, contrived, corrupt, malevolent use of “science.”
Of course my comments, based on the facts, would be legally concrete if it even mattered to those who count, the law, the courts, but they have politicized this, made it a “legal matter,” engaged in philosophical interpretations, and disregarded the scientific facts.
They act out of ignorance, thinking they are being wise.
They aren’t.
William:
Another long dodge.
Excuse, no. Rude behavior is when you misrepresent (strawman) what someone else is saying in order to paint them as ignorant.
No, you pretended or assumed they were inaccurate and went from there. A perfect example was earlier:
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/05/06/hawaii-passes-islam-day-law/comment-page-4/#comment-698157
The only question I see addressed is the chimpanzee one, and not surprisingly, you dodged it. Since you won’t answer the questions I’ll have to guess at them for you and you tell me if I got it right.
Since a blastocyst cannot think, feel, dream, or otherwise has any mind, why should it’s “life” be considered ethically equal to a 30 yr old?
This one is relatively easy, but makes little sense to me. You basically say it’s a member of the human race and should be treated as such.
Are you also against culling during IVF?
This is less clear since although you have said that a blastocyst is a human being, you have also given some kind of acknowledgement that it is not equal to a 30 year old. You haven’t clarified, but I am going to have to assume that you think culling is abhorrent and shouldn’t be done. As such, I have to suppose you either support the actions of someone like “Octomom” or you do not support IVF at all.
IUDs?
Similarly as above; you likely think IUDs should be illegal. Am I wrong?
Freezing fertilized eggs?
This is unclear. I’d like an answer.
Do you think funeral services should be held for any of these “lives?”
Unclear.
How about my moral dilemma: if you had to choose between saving a blastocyst or a 30 yr old, which would it be? Would it be a hard choice at all?
This I would really like an answer to. It goes basically to the heart of the matter.
…and to clarify the chimpanzee question:
If you had to choose (under some bizarre circumstance) which would you do (assume anesthesia is not available):
1) Slowly dissect and mutilate a live blastocyst?
2) Slowly dissect and mutilate a live chimpanzee?
I await another dodge and you playing to an audience (who probably stopped reading).
…Romans 1:22. The Bible, likely the same place you derive your idea of a “soul” which is the real issue for you.
William:
You’ve indirectly addressed the above questions at best. I would like direct answers to ALL of the above. I am unclear on several things. Anything less than direct answers will continue to expose you as refusing to argue in good faith.
William:
…and so everyone is crystal clear:
I have never referred to a blastocyst as an ESC or said anything like that. I have acknowledged several times though that I am aware of the fact that ESCs are derived from a blastocyst.
I am extremely suspect that you are plying this argument to poison the minds of any readers (if any are left) not educated on this subject. That is, you appear to be planting the seed that when people say “embryonic stem cells” they are referring to a blastocyst.
…and just so you don’t revert to your usual trick of only addressing my last comments, I’ll copy and paste these for you again:
Since a blastocyst cannot think, feel, dream, or otherwise has any mind, why should it’s “life” be considered ethically equal to a 30 yr old?
Are you also against culling during IVF? IUDs? Freezing fertilized eggs? Do you think funeral services should be held for any of these “lives?”
How about my moral dilemma: if you had to choose between saving a blastocyst or a 30 yr old, which would it be? Would it be a hard choice at all?