Nurse Maria Issues Advisory on Medical Manslaughter Law
Bob Enyart LiveGreetings to the brightest audience in the country. I am Bob Enyart...... discuss Bob's shows here! Bob's show is aired live on the radio and rebroadcast at: KGOV.com
We've been down this road before, but I'm happy to go down it again. A human blastocyst is a living human being (i.e. a person). A human being comes into existence when a human sperm fertilizes a human egg, forming a new individual with a complete and unique set of human DNA.
You assert that life begins at some arbitrary or unknown point after fertilization in an attempt to dehumanize those humans in the earliest stages of development in order to justify killing those humans. You call yourself pro-life, yet you use the same tactics as every other pro-abort. The only difference is that your arbitrary are at which you no longer think it's okay to kill babies earlier than most other pro-aborts.
Again, you haven't bothered to listen to the show, so you make a fool of yourself. It was the conspiracy theorist who suggested that the U.S. government orchestrated the 9/11 attacks; Bob didn't just bring it up out of the blue.
I wouldn't characterize a blastocyst as human. I'd say "life" begins when we can quantify it--heart beat, brain waves. I certainly don't try to dehumanize anyone or anything. If a blastocyst qualifies as "human" in your book, fine, but what I see is a four day old cell that doesn't resemble anything "human" in any way, shape, or form. No sentience, no ability to feel pain, nothing recognizably human.
I know who brought up the theory; never said otherwise, did I. I was criticizing the thinking and the attitude. Nice job not addressing a thing I said vis a vis 9/11, the hijackers, their identities, any of it.
By the way, since you're on a crusade to point out "fallacies" and "ignorance," how about addressing claims that Brown is dead. Now there is a classic example of walking into a wall, because so far as I can gather the man's still vertical.
Theocrats are Social Darwinists.
Christianity has nothing applicable, appropriate, or worthwhile to offer the 21st century.
Slogan/motto:
I'll go with the one I learned from Bob Enyart: Do right and risk the consequences. Another one I like is: What did you expect?
Reputation:
August 5th, 2006, 10:43 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poly
I'm curious. Why is it that when person refutes what you have to say in a big way, no matter how cool, calm and collective they are, you make some comment about them being "cranky" or suggest that they are in some kind of bad mood?
Typical liberal tactic along with the condescending "laugh" and other antics with the goal of deflecting the fact they are unable to substantially argue the point being debated.
Typical liberal tactic along with the condescending "laugh" and other antics with the goal of deflecting the fact they are unable to substantially argue the point being debated.
At least I don't talk like a stuffed shirt without a clue.
Theocrats are Social Darwinists.
Christianity has nothing applicable, appropriate, or worthwhile to offer the 21st century.
Slogan/motto:
Trust in Jesus Christ's death and resurrection to become conformed to His image.
Reputation:
Granite says a human embryo has "nothing recognizably human." -
August 7th, 2006, 09:21 PM
Granite says that a human embryo:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Granite
doesn't resemble anything "human" in any way, shape, or form.
Turbo, I imagine Granite is unaware of genetics, and the embryo DNA's four billion base pairs, which not only "resemble" something human, but are exactly and identically human in every "way, shape [and] form."
But then, that's just genetics, and you can't expect Granite to see much significance in something so tiny.
Then Granite thought he was describing an embryo when he wrote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Granite
No sentience, no ability to feel pain, nothing recognizably human.
But Granite's claim--that a human embryo is not sentient--is false. And since he is unqualified to find "[any]thing recognizably human" in an embryo, I don't think he's intellectually honest enough to process the argument for the tiny one's sentience.
-Bob Enyart
The Bob Enyart Live talk show airs at KGOV.com. You can call weekdays at 5 pm E.T. at 1-800-8Enyart. And you can get BR VIIDoes God Exist?, and BR XThe Open Theism Debate in manuscript form!
Bob: when you provide a response two days after the fact once a thread's gone dormant, then trot out your armchair "findings" at your leisure, you are indulging in intellectual dishonesty of a real cheap nature.
Your patronizing attitude is nothing new to me and doesn't surprise me in the least, nor does this hit and run post. Nice job, sir.
For the record, Bob, I was referring to a blastocyst, not an implanted embryo. Apples and oranges. A four day old blastocyst is not the same as an implanted embryo and I think you know that.
So, if you don't mind, get back to me.
Theocrats are Social Darwinists.
Christianity has nothing applicable, appropriate, or worthwhile to offer the 21st century.
Slogan/motto:
To whom much is given, much is required.
...or...
With great power comes great responsibility.
Reputation:
August 9th, 2006, 02:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Granite
For the record, Bob, I was referring to a blastocyst, not an embryo. Apples and oranges. A four day old blastocyst is not the same as an embryo and I think you know that.
In what way are they different?
Everything Bob said about embryos applies to blastocysts as well:
Turbo, I imagine Granite is unaware of genetics, and the blastocyst DNA's four billion base pairs, which not only "resemble" something human, but are exactly and identically human in every "way, shape [and] form."
But then, that's just genetics, and you can't expect Granite to see much significance in something so tiny.
...and even zygotes:
Turbo, I imagine Granite is unaware of genetics, and the zygote DNA's four billion base pairs, which not only "resemble" something human, but are exactly and identically human in every "way, shape [and] form."
But then, that's just genetics, and you can't expect Granite to see much significance in something so tiny.
Since you are the one making the claim that there's a difference, isn't it up to you to provide this information that you think Turbo should find?
Poly, I don't need to "claim" there is a difference between a blastocyst and implanted embryo because they are different. Puh-LEASE don't make it sound like I'm making something up here.
Wikipedia, google, five minutes of Turbo's time. This is not difficult stuff to find. Since when is it my responsibility to do somebody's homework for them? I did that in high school one too many times. Didn't exactly see a return on my investment.
(Well, strike that. I charged for my homework.)
Theocrats are Social Darwinists.
Christianity has nothing applicable, appropriate, or worthwhile to offer the 21st century.
Slogan/motto:
To whom much is given, much is required.
...or...
With great power comes great responsibility.
Reputation:
August 9th, 2006, 03:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Granite
If you don't know the difference between a blastocyst and implanted embryo, Turbo, I suggest you find a bio 101 textbook or go to wikipedia.
I do know the difference, but I also know what's the same: They are both alive and they both have a full and unique set of human DNA. Therefore everything Bob said about embryos applies equally to blastocysts and zygotes. Do you dispute this?
I do know the difference, but I also know what's the same: They are both alive and they both have a full and unique set of human DNA. Therefore everything Bob said about embryos applies equally to blastocysts and zygotes. Do you dispute this?
Sure do. Sentience and pain are not present in a blastocyst. Except in somebody's imagination.
Theocrats are Social Darwinists.
Christianity has nothing applicable, appropriate, or worthwhile to offer the 21st century.
Slogan/motto:
To whom much is given, much is required.
...or...
With great power comes great responsibility.
Reputation:
August 9th, 2006, 03:09 PM
Granite, which difference makes it OK to kill human blastocysts? Is it because they are younger? Is it because they are smaller? Is it because they have fewer cells? Is it because they have not implanted? Something else?
Granite, which difference makes it OK to kill human blastocysts? Is it because they are younger? Is it because they are smaller? Is it because they have fewer cells? Is it because they have not implanted? Something else?
Let me ask you this: would you consider the trophoblast "human"? As in, and I quote: "[i]nvasive, eroding, and metastasizing cells of the placenta...Trophoblasts mediate the implantation of the fetus into the placenta, but they are never incorporated into the mother's body or the fetus. They are not 'fetal' cells. Trophoblasts become inert during pregnancy and are completely rejected by the fetus and mother at delivery. They can be seen as the thin membrane covering the fetus at birth, the caul."
So. Are you concerned merely with the embryoblast, that is, the mass of cells that go on to become stem cells, or with the whole shooting match? How much of a blastocyst would you consider "human": the invading part that becomes membrane that surrounds what may go on to become a successful embryo and child, merely the inner cells, or both components of a blastocyst?
How much of a blastocyst, given what you know about trophoblasts, is "human"?
Theocrats are Social Darwinists.
Christianity has nothing applicable, appropriate, or worthwhile to offer the 21st century.
Slogan/motto:
To whom much is given, much is required.
...or...
With great power comes great responsibility.
Reputation:
August 9th, 2006, 03:21 PM
Granite, you keep mentioning implanted embryos. Why is that? Do you think something significant or mystical occurs at implantation? Is the moment of implantation the point at which it become no longer okay to kill a living human being in your view?
Linear Mode
