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

1. #301
   On December 18th, 2009 at 1:12 pm, spaceycakes said:

   I didn’t think He was a ‘guy’ at all to you–let alone be powerful enough to ‘know you when you were in the womb’?

2. #302
   On December 18th, 2009 at 1:18 pm, zeroangel said:

   spaceycakes:

   We must have had this conversation before, but I’ll say it again, I consider all deities and super-natural beingsto be fictional.

   Apollo, Zeus, Ra, Odin, Yahweh, Santa, Satan, and the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man all equally false.

3. #303
   On December 18th, 2009 at 1:24 pm, spaceycakes said:

   LOL

4. #304
   On December 21st, 2009 at 9:38 pm, William said:

   On December 17th, 2009 at 8:06 am, Roland said:

   Don’t people get it?

   A fertilized egg is still obviously not a human being. It can still split and form two entirely separate human beings (identical twins happen that way) with completely separate identities (souls).

   So you can count me among those who don’t “get it.”

   Roland,

   I am the person you are quoting in that comment.

   Here is what I said:

   On December 17th, 2009 at 7:40 am, William said:

   The fact that we are even discussing abortion in the USA speaks volumes to our depravity!

   For cryin’ out loud! Induced abortion, and “emergency contraception,” and “the morning after pill,” RU-486, and other forms of “birth control” kill new, innocent human beings.

   Don’t people get it?

   Don’t people realize that with these methods, induced abortions and pharmaceuticals which abort babies, they are condoning and supporting the slaughter of innocent, new human beings, depriving them of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

   What a depraved, perverse society!

   Roland,

   I will respond to your comment, quoted above.

   1) Quoting you, Roldan:
   

   “A fertilized egg is still obviously not a human being. … “

   That is scientifically false, Roland.

   There is no such thing as a fertilized egg in human reproduction. Humans do not develop nor do human beings hatch from an egg. Lizards, fish, birds, and other creatures do develop inside an egg, and they do hatch from eggs, but not human beings, and not most mammals.

   The first stage of human reproduction is referred to as a Human Embryo. This stage of development encompasses the beginning of the person’s life at first contact of sperm and oocyte, in sexual reproduction in vivo (inside the woman’s body) till the end of the eighth week. That stage of development is followed by the Fetal stage, which continues till term-birth.

   The scientifically accurate term for the new human being is not “fertilized egg” for she or he is not a fertilized egg, ever. The proper term is human embryo, which is a human organism, which is a living human being, as all human beings are living human organisms.

   So, bottom line, the result of reproduction from the very beginning is a living human being.

   Second: Roland said:
   

   ” … It can still split and form two entirely separate human beings (identical twins happen that way) with completely separate identities (souls). … “

   Roland,

   Please make up your mind. Do you want to talk about objective scientific facts, as studied and catalogued through the science of Human Embryology, the science which studies and puts for the up-to-date nomenclature, terminology, and accurate information regarding human embryonic development, or do you want to talk philosophy, religion, and opinion?

   It makes no difference if there will be identical twins, triplets, or other. That does not negate the fact that the initial result of reproduction is an actual individual human being.

   Roland, the term for identical twinning, triplets, etc., in human reproduction is “Asexual reproduction.”

   There are two main forms of reproduction in human beings. One form, the most common form of reproduction in human beings is “Sexual reproduction.” Sexual reproduction results the meeting of the sperm of the male, the father, and the oocyte of the woman, the mother. The first new human being is the result of sexual reproduction, the meeting of sperm and oocyte.

   The second main form of reproduction in human beings is “Asexual reproduction.” In Asexual reproduction in human beings, a naturally occurring phenomenon, the sperm of the father and oocyte of the mother is not required. Instead, as the embryo goes through the early days of cell division, some cells can separate from the embryo. If cell, or these cells are totipotent, meaning they can become another entirely new, whole human being who can develop and live right into adulthood, then they could, and sometimes do, result in a sibling, an identical twin, triplet, etc.

   There are two main places in which human reproduction occurs: In vivo, meaning inside the woman’s, or mothers body, and ex vivo, meaning outside the woman’s, or mother’s body.

   Normally both sexual reproduction and asexual reproduction in human beings occurs in vivo, inside the mother’s body.

   With modern techniques, such as In Vitro Fertilization, Artificial Reproductive Technologies (ARTs), or Assistant Reproductive Technologies, Both sexual reproduction and asexual reproduction can, and does take place outside of the woman’s or mother’s body.

   In either case, the result is a new human being, a new human embryo, a new living human organism, a member of the human race.

   Of course another form of twinning in human reproduction is fraternal twinning. In fraternal twinning more than one sperm of the father finds its way to more than one oocyte, resulting in non-identical twins, or Fraternal twins. We are not referring to that in the case of your quote that I am responding to.

   It is mainly a lack of scientific literacy and knowledge that many people tend to make such mistakes in human embryology and make scientifically false, bias claims regarding the status of the new human being, attempting to strip him or her of her humanity, and reduce her to only a “potential human being,” or “a fertilized egg, ” who is “obviously not a human being,” when, in fact, he or she IS a human being, and is never a fertilized egg. Her father is human, her mother is human, and in reproduction, like produces like. Human beings produce human beings, and the initial, beginning of us all is that of a new human embryo.

   Regarding your use of the term “soul.” As I said, do you wish to talk scientific fact, or do you wish to talk philosophy, and religion? The term “soul” is most often discussed in the fields of Religion, Philosophy. People also tend to politicize the issue, thus ignoring the scientific facts, whereas the objective facts of Human Embryology, purported by Human Embryologists, the scientific field, and the scientists who specialize in this phenomenon of human embryonic development, points out that this new human being is, in fact, a human being, and that delayed hominization, or delayed membership in the human race, is not grounded in objective scientific fact and observation.

5. #305
   On December 22nd, 2009 at 10:16 am, zeroangel said:

   William:

   Well, this is off the front page, but someone has to answer this.

   There is no such thing as a fertilized egg in human reproduction.

   No, this is just plain wrong and equivocation. Of course humans don’t hatch from eggs and Roland does not make that ridiculous claim. How can you possibly imagine that Roland actually thinks that? Do you imagine he is brain damaged? It is true that what is scientifically called a zygote is colloquially referred to as a “fertilized egg.” That doesn’t change the fact that a zygote has no brain and is not conscious.

   You can make any kind of semantic argument you want and claim that a zygote is a living human being; however, it is still no more conscious and thinking than a skin cell.

   There was absolutely no need for your long drawn-out text describing the scientific facts that Roland (and the rest of us) are well aware of. It seems clear that you are trying to discredit his argument with your red herring.

   That said, did you read cheapseat’s concerns about the bizarre legal situations that might arise from given full legal “human” status to a zygote? The possibility of women who miscarry facing negligence charges (for example)? What about the idea that IUD’s, culling during IVF, and harvesting of ESC’s would end up being illegal?

   Shall we pick up our old debate with the questions you neglected to answer:

   http://michellemalkin.com/2009/05/06/hawaii-passes-islam-day-law/comment-page-4/#comment-699583
   

   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?

   ?

   Stop trying to claim “science” is on your side when many scientists and bio-ethicists are not.