ParanoiA

I wonder if we'll get to see the hanging. I'd like to see someone broadcast his execution like the american beheadings we witnessed.

I don't know if it's cheating really. The article mentions that the call starts off with "...important information about Lois Murphy" or similar. This would be no different than a TV ad starting with important information about Lois Murphy - a mudslinging commerical. I'm sure they worded it that way so if you hang up early, then you think the call is on behalf of Lois Murphy. But if you stay on the line, you'll then hear the dirt on Lois Murphy. Either way, they win. But believe me, there is no one sided political tactic. The demorats and republicans both have friends in low places doing their dirty work. Send a message to them and vote independent - like Libertarian.

It's not being missed, it's being challenged. Some of us reject the notion that it has to have brains, a nervous system, feelings, and etc in order to be deemed "human being". Yes you're right. A piece of oak bark might be "oak". Just like a piece of skin might be "human". But the cells that contain the unique genetic code and initial instruction set and propogate the growth of attributes are the oak tree and human being. We just use these labels to distinguish the stages of development. I see the same problem with the acorn. A tree is just a developed acorn. Most acorns don't develop - they just become food for murauding killer squirrels. I can't believe you all don't see the glaring hole in this logic. The hole in this is bigger than Jenna Jameson's money maker. ALL humans require oxygen, nutrients, and etc to develop. Long after leaving the womb we need these things - in fact for our entire life we are dependant upon the processes of nature to live and develop - oxygen, nutrients, iron, etc. or we will die - no longer develop. Your child will never get pubic hair just like a blastocyst will never attain a set of lungs if these processes aren't present. Some of my best friends would say I haven't developed past a blastocyst. But, I do believe your response is based on predefined end to moral structure and paradigm. And you're entirely dependant upon the processes of nature, outside of your control and domination, and you are very much a human being. You require the same things. A newborn - separated from the womb - still requires these nutrients from mom. We can simulate these nutrients without mom, just like we can simulate a womb and provide the services of such without mom - well in theory anyway. None of that has anything to do with whether or not it is a human being. And you will not be a human being unless you are provided food, water, specific nutrients, oxygen, and etc. So what's your point? We're all high maintenance.

Something else about Amendment 2, that has been batted around a little late in the game. From http://www.2tricky.org/exploitive.htm It is true that Amendment 2 makes it illegal to "discourage" or "create disincentives" for this research. Now, I'm no lawyer, so I don't see how this affects patient's or relatives' rights to sue for wrongful death or complications from selling eggs and so forth. But I have heard alot about this part of the debate the last few days, and apparently this makes it harder to get compensation for malpractice during these risky procedures. It also is common to pump women full of hormones and fertility drugs so their ovaries will release multiple eggs rather than one at a time. Women can die as a result of their ovaries being over-stimulated. As far as I know, that's already legal though. But I'm not sure. Either way, Michael J Fox isn't the poor saint the liberal guilt trip machine wants you to believe.

Just to clear some things up: That's the first line of the amendment. To me, SCNT sounds at the very least like the "attempt" to clone a human being. But here's the definition of this sentence: So, the actual first line of the Amendment 2 ballot initiative actually is: So, cloning and growing a human to full term is just fine, as long as it doesn't require or take place in a uterus. That's using the language defined by the Amendment 2 initiative itself. Cloning a human is perfectly fine under this Amendment. It's all in how you do it. This is the kind of shady smoke screen techniques used by politicians and activists to fool people into legalizing things they never intended to legalize. Thanks Michael...for helping to dupe the public again.

Well you have certainly lit up in here on this Rush thing huh? Look, I'm not Rush, so call him and give him a piece of your mind. I never said it was a badge of honor. I'm saying it's stupid and naive to under estimate your adversary just because you dislike them so much. Anytime I hear someone trashing Rush, it's usually an asinine generalization they heard from somebody else or the result of a 15 minute listening experience that pissed them off cuz Rush made fun of feminazi's, or PMSNBC. I do believe he is careful with his "facts", not his interpretations of them. So, let's see you rise above it and prove a "fact" that Rush has presented that is wrong and he should retract?

Well, not in a bad way. I think Fox eluded to that in the latest interview. He was trying to explain why he has to take the medicine, and the trade offs for taking it. It was a great interview and I think it did more for his cause than the ad. He comes across honest and candid, which to me works better than formal and scripted. Ok, so bad part is I get a phone call in the middle of this interview and apparently miss this part: He was explaining medicating himself for that ad, to be able to speak properly, without too much moving around, and actually took more than usual by the time it was done. Rush was talking about this thursday and friday. That was what his apology was about.

See, you're doing all of the cliche stuff people do when they're blinded by their hatred for an adversary. I've never heard him say that. But I only listen for about 30 mins a day, 3 or 4 days a week. But this call screener business? Please. I've heard so many people get through and start spitting out supposed Rush quotes and facts, only to get burned right on the air. You have to remember, Rush is a radio guy. Ratings are in the angry callers. This is why he usually bumps the liberals to the front of the call queue. Or at least he used to do that, I don't know anymore. I listened faithfully during the first few years of the Clinton reign, and he would claim to bump them to the top of the list, and sure enough if a liberal called in they would verify a short hold time. I've never heard any other radio conservative give liberals so much air time. Most of the talk show hosts I've heard just hang up on the caller after 30 seconds of frantically trying to make their point with no chance for reply. Rush will go back and forth, 5 or 10 mintues of radio time arguing with somebody. He really thinks he's right. That's either amusing or impressive. I think it's a little of both.

Hmmm..that's interesting because I was listening to Rush thursday and he was laughing about how the media reported that he had apologized for his comments when he hadn't. What he apologized for was that he didn't know MJF had actually over medicated himself. NOT for the comments he made. He even played this back over the air. And like Rhino tried to point out, he read MJF's book which is where Rush got the idea that Fox does that. Fox wrote, in his own words, that he sometimes doesn't take his meds so the effects of his disease are more obvious. That he does this when he needs to drum up support for his cause. So, Rush got the comments straight from the source - Fox himself. This is why I don't listen to supposed "quotes" from Rush. Everytime he is confronted by a caller, and plenty have been journalists as well, he proves them wrong and they've misquoted him. Over and over he has done this over the years. And I see how they do it. Because he's too damn careful with his language, at least most of the time. It's usually a lawyer's defense. Most of the Limbaughism's on that link are points of view. They're a gross misinterpretation of the facts and pseudo science application. They're pretty funny. I didn't see any "facts" to be retracted though. Most of the supposed "facts" presented in that link, could be turned into threads and argued here in this forum. A true fact couldn't really be argued...since it's a fact. And I agree Sequence, about the multiple points of view. I watch the liberal media, conservative media and try to figure out the truth between the two. Rush, Oreilly, Fox news are a corporate conservative direction, whereas CNN, MSNBC, Mathews are more of a corporate liberal direction. If you're a radio guy doing a conservative talk show, then listening to liberal view points and adopting them would be bad for business. So, you're doomed to misery if you're looking for ideologues to be open minded to the other political wing. Your ideas of open mindedness make you more credible in my view, since, in theory anyway, you don't have an agenda. Rush and Mathews, and all of those other idealists have agendas and they'll spin everything to validate their views.

You still keep considering morality while you judge whether or not it is a human being. Why? Morality has nothing to do with whether or not a snail is a snail. Morality has nothing to do with whether or not the tree in my front yard is an oak or a maple. So why does morality have anything to do with whether or not a blastocyst is a human being? I never said environmental influences don't shape attributes. You would be equally wrong to say genetics play no part in a being's attributes. I'm saying the cells are programmed to build and augment a certain way - hence, attributes. The environment doesn't cause a dog to grow a coat of specialized hair. The environment might have played a role at nudging evolution that direction over time, but the immediate genetics, the instruction set grow the hair. Other attributes are directly influenced by environment, others are not. Most are at the least an environmental influence, with a genetic based response. This is the argument to use when we start discussing whether or not it's ok to kill a blastocyst and not feel bad about it - morality, ethics...whatever you want to label it. Not the argument to use when defining whether or not it is a human being. Unless "feeling capacity" is your measurement to define all living things, it has no use in this part of the debate. I would say that neither a plant nor a blade of grass have any feeling, yet we are able to define one from the other. But it does though. It just doesn't make it a grown up oak. That acorn will grow up only as an oak tree, not a maple, ash, nor mohagany...only an oak. In fact, it's attributes simply change over time and we label this change "oak tree" when it takes root and grows to a sufficient enough size. But it always was an oak. Not an oak tree. Just like a blastocyst is a human being, just not an adult human being. Right, but these cells you're referring to don't grow into anything without being a product or dependant upon the being's system to propel it. My arm won't grow unless it is part of me - attached to me to receive messages, blood, and etc - it is part of the human being 'ParanoiA'. Skin cells in a dish won't become anything, they are not a being and are not attached to a being. But a blastocyst IS growing. It has a unique genetic code, all of the instructions to develop its attributes to resemble something you feel more comfortable with. It is a human being that will grow uniquely - even amongst like humans. And your point? Yes sometimes we get two for one, or more - but that doesn't erase the glaring point that we are all unique.

You don't agree that an organism's genetic classification distinguishes it uniquely, even amongst like organisms while it's attributes are the consequence of these genetics, which will change throughout the organism's development and life, until death? Gee..it's not a loaded question or anything...

Well, I thought you were trying to box up the debate by redirecting attention to the chorus of "we can't ascribe human qualities, until the organism displays human qualities..." Apparently that's not what you meant.

I disagree. It seems clear to me this thread was started to determine whether or not a blastocyst is a human - or human being. Personhood is a quality "added" to the description of a certain human being. Kind of like an adjective. I see it valuable only in terms of moral discussion. But I didn't think we were considering morality, downstream consquences or anything other than whether or not a blastocyst is a human. To me, those things come second. First, I need to decide what is what. Second, what does that mean morally? Do I need to partition a moral definition? That sort of thing. I thought this thread, was just the first thing. Obviously throwing in morality doesn't hurt, but folks are deciding the first thing because of morality. That just seems obviously intellectually dishonest. It came from the Amendment 2 stem cell debate. The first line of the proposed amendment says no person shall clone or attempt to clone a human being. Then later in the document it says it protects the SCNT process. As a result, the republicans have said this is human cloning and therefore the amendment contradicts itself. The demorats have said no, a blastocyst is not a human, so there is no contradiction. So this post was created by Mr. Bascule to keep from derailing the stem cell thread. I completely agree with IMM's post wholeheartedly. Including the personhood. Morally speaking, I don't see why it matters that microscopic cells are human beings.

I disagree very much. News is a business and worse, this is a corporate business. If there is no news, they create news - hence, lack of substance. Emotion gets ratings. The news has little patience for substance unless it is accompanied with emotion, rage, grief, something to make us watch. And they print retractions in little boxes on obsure pages rather than the same front page the disinformation appeared on. That's why most people aren't aware of them. The newspapers know this, and that's why they do it. That makes them appear infallible to the average sheep. I agree, but what do you mean by false claims? If you mean presenting facts - I don't think he's ever had to retract anything. Usually this is because it's after the news has already had to deal with the sourcing, and he has his own fact checking staff - whatever that means. I think he approaches facts with more discipline than news organizations for a variety of reasons. But he also has the benefit of reporting these facts after they've already been circulating for awhile. Specious reasoning and false conclusions are definitely in his arsenal. Like his repeated false reasoning that embryonic stem cells haven't provided any cures, despite numerous promises, while adult stem cells are already providing results. This is stupid. What about cancer? Where's the cures? By this logic, we would have quit cancer research decades ago.

Thank you. Rush Limbaugh, the guy everybody seems to hate in here, has said this time and time again.."the best way to get out of a recession is to not participate in it". I've always thought that made sense. The economy seems to be a balance that relies more on attitude. If everyone would just spend their money as normal, then businesses wouldn't be going under, thereby causing people to get laid off, thereby reducing tax revenue...etc.. I almost wish economic performance was kept a secret that only the highest of officials know about. They could lie to us day after day and tell us how everything is smoking right along. Maybe we'd never have another recession. But I'm no economics expert by a long shot. I don't really understand GPI, how the strength of the dollar fluctuates, etc.. So, I may very well be full of crap.

We do too. Why isn't this asked and expected of them? I've been in a permanent state of awe at the one sided expectation of the US by everyone. We gave them the respect and understanding long before any of that was remotely returned. Why can't the same be expected from them? They were calling us the great satan while we were helping them kick the russians out of Afghanistan. It's a two way street man... Oh boy, you really need to do some reading or pay attention to current events. The US is arguably the most helpful nation in the world. No nation on the planet lends and offers more assistance, particularly in times of natural disaster, than America. Actually, there's a handful of nations that always contribute to these kinds of things, America is always one of them. That's why everyone threw such a fit over New Orleans and Katrina, because we are able to mobilize small armies of assistance and get them around the world to help, but apparently couldn't help our own people on our own soil. You have good intentions, but they are thoroughly misplaced. Reading your posts sounds like a plea from a contestant in the miss america pagent repeating the world peace pledge. You expect so much from us, and nothing from them. You tell us to be nice. Not them. You say we should do this and we should do that. Nothing to them. As if we have control over our actions, and they don't. As if they can't be blamed for their actions, and we can. Where does that come from?

Very compelling. But I can't see the slide show or anything from here at work. I'll have to check it out tonight. That's a poignant photograph, and thought provoking caption.

I think the fact he didn't realize that Rush is a conservative explains why he would say "he doesn't give any room for other views" which tells me he's not very observant. Which, in turn, makes me doubt his point number two since he's proven to completely miss the obvious. Something everyone should keep in mind, is that his family is full of lawyers and he is the most careful wordsmith I've ever listened to. He knows exactly how to say things so that he doesn't box himself in. To say he doesn't have anything to back up his claims is a gross display of ignorance. I seriously don't mean to offend, I'm being dead honest here. If you don't listen to the show, you'll make those kinds of comments. The New York Times and USA Today have to retract statements and facts almost daily, which is exponentially more than Rush has ever had to, if he has ever had to.

Excellent post Glider. You've got me stuck on the organism part. So, when does it become an organism?

Hmm..well that's kinda sticky. My knee jerk response would be that mom is ultimate bearer of rights, father second..not really sure after that but the point being that perhaps it should still be considered a double murder since he killed the unborn child, violating its rights implicitly granted by its mother. Or, I guess you could also see it as robbing mom's right to grant her unborn child the right to live. I do draw a line a birth however, in that I believe it then has its own right to live. I just don't like the idea of the state telling a woman how she can grow something inside her body. It seems perverse to me. A woman shouldn't have to get an "ok" from anybody concerning her body, and how she chooses to manage the plumbing... When it is autonomous, then it can be smothered and processed by the state just like the rest of us, but until then it's mom's property that should be born by her choosing.

I didn't create anything, I interpreted it. I let the chips fall where they may. I don't care what the downstream consequences are in terms of how honest I try to look at something. I would rather see it for what it is, and move the chips accordingly. So far, I haven't heard any reason supporting a blastocyst not being a human that couldn't be applied to fully grown humans in some form. Legal consequences shouldn't exist for micro-scopic humans. I would say simply your maker grants your rights - mom, dad, a lab tech... Now, realistically speaking? Mokele's American Taliban would certainly love the interpretation of a human being begins with the first cell, and I've never met a democrat that objected to killing unborn babies so the battle lines would be drawn and innocent people would bear the consequences. But that's not going to keep me from realizing that human life begins with that first cell. No matter how odd and stupid you all think it is. I just respectfully disagree with, I guess 18 different people at this point. Wouldn't be the first time I've had to go it alone...

No I don't. The only rights it should have is what the mother gives it.

Do you two really understand what you are saying here? You're not going to judge objectively because of the legal consequences? See, this is why I can't stand humans and their overrated never ending pursuit of moral perfection. Just draw the line by saying people can kill what's inside them all day long any way they want. Done deal. Yeah it's a human and who gives a crap. Can these things even be seen with the naked eye? Seriously, I'd like to know. Don't get me wrong, I don't want all of that legal crap you outlined. But I'm not so sure that deciding life begins at the first cell, wouldn't actually validate the absurdity of giving it rights in the first place.

That's way better than the source I had. I was just talking about a news story. That's a sweet document there.

I get your point, I just disagree. I mean, I agree such distinctions are necessary for gagillion reasons, but the only logical starting point for deciding something is human, ape, cat, acorn, is the first known living cell of that thing. At that point, everything after that is just augmenting that cell. We just label the stages along that course. Fetus, Baby, child...etc. I think we have simply left off the original stage because we can't see it, talk to it, throw it up in the air and scare the shit out of it and laugh at it. And "being" just isn't doing anything for me. If it's alive, then it's "being" whatever it is. It is in the active state of being itself. kind of a hatchet job, but I can do better if you insist. You are just a blob of cells. You change, adding and subtracting cells, altering cells, your form and shape change as you grow up and as you grow down. You also require constant daily maintenance from nature or you will die. Just like the first cell and onward. I think it's our paradigms that refuse us to accept it as human. It screws up all of the really cool structuring we've done with morality. That doesn't mean you have to feel bad about killing it. It can't suffer anymore than Mr. Braindead can suffer. And it hasn't become anything we can relate to yet anyway.