Wednesday, August 03, 2005

Is This Human? / Stem Cell Research

Image hosted by

The above photo is of a Blastocyst, which is basically a fertilized egg a few days later with about 100 or so extra cells and a little fluid. At this stage of development, it has yet to even enter the uterus. It is from the inner mass cells of a human Blastocyst where stem cells are obtained.

I know this Blastocyst consists of living cells, as does my sperm and every pathogen that has entered my body. Why is one worth saving and the others are not? Could the people against embryonic stem cell research explain to me what, if anything, makes this human? And what information do you have that would back your claim? How do you know that this embryo will ever indeed be carried to term and result in a person?

With no nervous system, no heart beat, with no brain or anything else one would associate with a fully developed mammal, let alone a human being, how does one try to proclaim that this is indeed a human? Could someone please point out the human characteristics that are represented in this photo? Is this a human being?


Erudite Redneck said...

I'd say, myself, that this is no more a "human life" than the scab I pulled off the finger I like to chopped off with a pruner several weeks ago. And tried to feed to one of the dogs. Which appalled Dr. ER.

Come leave yer 2 cents at my place today. The current post is right up yer alley. (If you alrady have, sorry, I'm behind, myself, on readin' the comments.)


NewsBlog 5000 said...

This is just leftist propoganda. Everyone knows that human babies are fully formed at the moment of conception.

United We Lay said...

Stem cell research could save my sister's life, so I'm on your side on this one. My father, who has always been a Republican and is pro-life has even changed his position on this and hopes that research is allowed. I guess a lot changes when the life of someone close to you is at stake.

Fitch said...

What's the difference. The difference is that one would develop into a human being, like me or you, and the oter is only an insignificant portion of a person. I'm sure you are fully aware of that fact.

Tom Harper said...

Oh my God! Take a closer look at that picture. That ain't no blastocyst. There's a face in the picture. It's, it''s Jesus!!

BRUISER said... the Heavens open up at the sight of baby the jesus on the stem cell in question!!!!!

The Neo Con Radicals are finally raptured to their content and the rest of us get our country and world back...thanks jeebus...

ps- nice baby picture by the way it a boy or a girl or fly food in the evolutionary chain?

Toad734 said...

Hmmm... I guess Fitch solved this one. He is certain that this is going to turn into a human; amazing that he has so much foresight, based on years of scientific study I presume.

I wonder if he would have said the same about the embryo that my mom miscarried.

Trixie said...

Just dropped by to see your site. Boy did I pick the right day, huh?? LOL. I agree, what you show in the photo is not, in my opinion, a human -- not yet. But it really isn't a simple question, is it? There comes a point where those cells do become a human being. I think there is a lot of benefit to stem cell research and I HOPE that there are continuing discussions about it from both sides. It's not a decision to be made lightly.

But anyway, I mostly just wanted to invite you back to my blog. I followed your suggestion. Our buddy Gumby wants to buy you a drink.

Toad734 said...

RE: Trixie

Ya sure it may become life, but every period a woman gets could become life, every sperm that I release could become life, but those are just what ifs. The question is this; is what's in that photo a human being?

I have met a lot of humans and none of them looked even remotely like this.

Sandi said...

It may not be a human, but it keeps the heat off Rove, war, and lying. So everyone argue about stem cells.

Seriously, no it is not a human, will never be a human. Why will it never be a human you ask, because it is in a petri dish! I say if you want a human to save send your pennies to Africa, and save a living human.

erinberry said...

Toad, haven't you ever listed to Monty Python's "Every Sperm is Sacred"? Then you'd know that anything with the potential to ever be involved in creating a human being must be worshipped!

Boiled Owl said...

At last Toad, you found the answer to the classic question" "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin"
(Hmmm...looks like about 100 or so.)

Ok, fitch, does "develop into" mean the same thing as "nascent"? Is "night" nascent "day"?

Fitch said...

I wonder if he would have said the same about the embryo that my mom miscarried.
People die. It's a sad fact of life. Sometimes they die old, sometimes they die before they are born. BTW, I had my own experience with miscarriage of a child I helped create, so I understand that it can be hard to deal with.

Trixie said...

Well, Toad, I disagree with your comment. A woman's egg, by itself, will not become human. Neither will a man's sperm, alone. But this comes from the union of those two things, and at some point was on its way to becoming something that neither egg nor sperm would ever be, alone.
I'm not really hot to debate this issue, though. The stem cells are there. No pregnancies (or products of conception) have been interrupted for the purpose of harvesting stem cells. There are plenty enough available for other reasons.

And as far as when it becomes human? Well, ask any woman who has lost a pregnancy, no matter what stage. If it was a wanted pregnancy, it doesn't matter if it was at month 1 or month 9. (And yes, I know some women do have pregnancies they don't want.)

Toad734 said...


But the photo above will not necessarily become life either; there are still other circumstances that have to work in its favor to do so. Really that isn't even the point; I was asking if this photo, roughly 5 days after conception, was a human being.

Plus as you pointed out, it's not like the government is lining up pregnant women and forcing them to fork over their embryos.

Nölff said...

That's what happens when you accidentally spill protien. It's not a miricle. It's a bubble.

Ryan said...

Just wanted to let you know that I commented on your comment to my "Make Poverty History" Post...if you are interested.

Anonymous said...

You don't have to have a heart beat, brain, or nervous system to have a soul. THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE.

Since Roe V. Wade, over 532,000,000 innocent babies have been MURDERED by people who do or don't understand how birth control and so called "research" works.

May God have mercy on us all.

Toad734 said...

Really, so where is this soul, I don't see it in there.

Are you sure this thing has a soul?

Says who?

From what scientific journal did you obtain this information?

Anonymous said...

Can you see gravity? No. But it exists all the same.

Toad734 said...

And I also see proof of gravity and can reference it in several scientific journals.

Where is your proof of this soul?

You are saying there is a soul in this bubble?

What does a soul look like? It must be pretty small.

If you have proof, and that is the reason this thing should be allowed to mutate into a fetus than please explain.

just sayin' said...

a squiggly wiggly living sperm has no soul or it does? i'm confused.

Anonymous said...

Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth
Harvard University Medical School:

"It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive...It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception."

Dr. Alfred M. Bongioanni
Professor of Pediatrics and Obstetrics, University of Pennsylvania:

"I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception."

Dr. Jerome LeJeune
Professor of Genetics, University of Descartes:

"After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being. [It] is no longer a matter of taste or is plain experimental evidence. Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception."

Professor Hymie Gordon
Mayo Clinic:

"By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception."

Dr. Watson A. Bowes
University of Colorado Medical School:

"The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter – the beginning is conception."

The official Senate report reached this conclusion:

Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being - a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings.

Anonymous said...

It's not a squiggly thing. It's a human life, and it DOES have a soul.

Anonymous said...

They, have souls because David tells us, "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me" (Ps. 51:5, NIV). Since sinfulness is a spiritual rather than a physical condition, David must have had a spiritual nature from the time of conception.

Toad734 said...

Hmm, I see a lot of quotes here, including one from our conservative pro-life senate stating that "life" begins at conception, some say "human life" is present, and one from the old testament insinuating that David had a "spirit" at conception.

So still scientific backing for your soul theory and some, I'm going to go out on a limb here, Christians in the medical field who are obviously making these statements for a cause.

And the Bible quote which is a bit different in the King James version: Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me. implies to me that he was conceived out of a sinful act or relationship. Plus the fact that after the New Testament Jesus wiped away all the old laws and then states that babies are not born with sin. So do you really want to use an outdated bible verse of "proof" of a soul?

I don't doubt that life is present; as I said there are about 150 living cells in a blastocyst. Life also exists in my sperm so what's the difference.

So if sperm doesn't have a soul, and a woman’s egg doesn't have a soul, does God personally shoot down an available soul the minute someone gets laid? Or does it happen when the guy cums? Or does he wait until the sperm reaches the egg? Or does he wait until the zygote undergoes cleavage? And if God is against pre-marital sex, Rape and all the above why would he hand out souls so freely? And what were all these souls doing, just waiting for a host, how long were they waiting? Were they reincarnated?

What makes humans different from animals? It's not that we walk upright or have very little hair is it? No, what makes us Human and separates us from animals is our ability to reason, speak and our capability of abstract thought and introspection, we know that we will someday die.

This thing in the picture can do none of these, nor is it a social being. So again, what makes this Blastocyst human?

I guess I should go dig up some quotes from the medical community that contradicts yours, right anonymous?

Anonymous said...

God is against a lot of things in this world -- death, war, hunger, poverty, etc. He still allows them to happen. That's the nature of the world we live in -- we are sinful creatures, and by Adam and Even's original sin, we've brought pain and suffering on ourselves. The same goes for rape, etc -- God allows this, it doesn't mean He likes it.

Jesus did not wipe away original sin -- we are still born in the state of sin: hence, the necessity of baptism. Jesus' death on the cross paid for our sins by opening the gates of Heaven, but we still need baptism in order to enter ("He who believes and is baptized shall be saved; he who believes not shall be damned" Mark 16:16 -- this includes infants.

I don't care how many quotes from your community you find to contradict mine -- once conceived, there is a baby present in the womb of the mother, and this baby has a soul.

Jeremiah 1:5 says, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you". This means that once conceived, even before taking on the "human" form, the baby has a soul -- and God wants that baby to one day reach Heaven.

What makes us different from animals, is that humans were created in the image and likeness of God, have the ability to reason, and that we, unlike animals, have a soul.

I think you're stuck on the picture--of course it doesn't "look" like a human, nor does it "look" like it has a soul.

You say that we're "Christians in the medical field who are obviously making these statements for a cause" -- you're obviously doing the exact same.

United We Lay said...

If you can only rely on God to back your opinion, you're way off. To many people your God is just a myth, so using his word as a justification for your argument just voids your argument completely. There is no soul in that tiny grouping of cells. It is just a tiny grouping of cells.

Toad734 said...

You are obviously Catholic, most other religions, or sects don't believe in original sin. How is an infant able to believe in Jesus?

And no, I am not doing anything; I haven't stated anyone’s opinion except for my own.

So is there like a soul closet in heaven that is ready and waiting to find a match?

And if the purpose of man is to obey Gods rules all his life, in order to get back to heaven, wouldn't you just rather skip the middle man and just go straight back to heaven, and skip the life think all together? I mean since it's so great there. Really you are only hurting your chances of getting back to heaven if you are to be born; you have a 100% chance of getting there if you had only left 5 days ago, unless of course that soul happens to be Catholic and is an original sinner, but if it was a Protestant soul, you’re better off doing the stem cell research option and just going right back to heaven. After all, with all the murder, rape, and war on Earth, why go through all that.

Republicans Against Gravity said...

Hey pussbag Anonymous ....Bush has no soul ... explain that .... have you heard recently that Republicans want to teach "Acension Rope" instead of the secular "jump rope" in public schools ??? These cats a fucked.

erinberry said...

People who post as "anonymous" are nothing but cowards.

Erudite Redneck said...

Geo. Carlin had something to say about this:

"Suicide is for people who can't wait to find out where the hell it is they're going to go. holy shit, i've been waiting a long time. i don't have many nights like that - but when you think about it, you know, kind of it'd be a goof, man, yeah. suicide. i've always pictured myself on the ledge. there's got to be a little show business involved. you know. you don't want to slump over a porcelain fixture. let me get up here. set the record - be the first guy to reach the double yellow line, have your picture in the centerfold of the newspaper. actually a picture of the building with a dotted line showing 'leaper's path.' suicide. suppose you worked on the suicide hot line, helping people, talking them out of it. that's your job. hello? suicide hot line? then one morning you wake up a little depressed. should you call in sick? i'd like to see a top salesman commit suicide, a real persuasive guy up on the ledge, and the priest talks him out of it - and he talks the priest into it. people say maybe you come back. reincarnation. do you think so? well, it doesn't seem mathematically possible to me, man. uh, 'course at one time what we had on the earth was six people, you know. i avoid 'two' because it's controversial, but six most people agree - 'fuck, yeah, we had six at one time.' six people, six souls- cool. they died, souls went back to the place; six new people souls - still six souls. now we have four billion people claiming to have souls. someone is printing up souls, and it lowers their value, you know."



Anonymous said...

I'm Annonymous2. I'm a human being designed by God with a soul. The rest of you must have evolved from apes and are big blobs of cells with no souls. So donate yourselves for experimentation.

Toad734 said...

RE: 2

The difference is that we are living breathing people, with heart beats, brain function and nervous systems.

The Blastocyst has none of these characteristics.

Chesterton said...

A madman is not the man who has lost his reason. The madman is the man who has lot everything except his reason. Such a man is in prison; the prison of one thought. Having developed all of the logical arguments in support of that one thought, the madman's explanation of a thing is always complete, and often ina purely rational sense satisfactory. If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probably that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment.

Anonymous said...

Hey toad 734 I wish you would have traveled to Iran and stay there for a while and then come back and realize what is like t be free there is no absolute freedom in the world but I am sure you would get upset if you would live in a country that the government would decide for you to what to wear and what to eat and what to drink and what to watch and if you don’t follow their rules ( Islamic Republic regime) your dead I suggest you to do some research about Iran’s history and the current situation in Iran then you would know that there is much more freedom in here compare to Iran!
And I am not saying republicans are the best but they have certainly done more in supporting the freedom fighters in Iran since your presidential candidate Craze John Kerry was going to give Iran the nuclear technology to see what they were going to do with it to use it for electricity or to make bombs!
Of course they would use it for bombs Toad I am coming from Iran I know them( Mullahs not the typical Iranians) they hate what this country is standing for meaning democracy they want theocracy and dictatorship why don’t you leave this country for a while if you don’t understand the freedom that you are enjoying right now by writing in this blog? did you know that people would get imprisoned for writing in blogs?
I am sorry to see many people like you who don’t understand the value of democracy and the importance of it in the world.

Boiled Owl said...

What's up with korosh? I thought we were talking about souls here, and abortions.

I know they oppress women in Iraq, but I'm not sure how many souls Muslims think there are in a blastocyst, do you korosh?
And are Muslim women free to choose whether they want to reproduce or not? Does Toad really have to go to Iraq to find out?

Who's side are you arguing here, friend? It seems like Toad and you are both against theocracy, aren't you? So why all the heat on Toad?

Maybe you should talk to our Theocrat president. He's the one who wants our schools to teach religion in science class.

Toad734 said...


I take it you must be responding to a comment I left on your website.

Do you really think that what you watch here isn't being controlled by someone else?

I do understand the value of Democracy that is why I started this blog; to inform people it was heading towards a theocracy.

~Jen~ said...

such a laugh....the govt bombs fully formed walking humans but worries about a blob of goo used for research.....fuckwads.

Grant said...

The Blastocyst (which would be a cool name for a Transformer) has loads of potential, but has nothing invested in it. At the other end of the spectrum is the person who dies of old age - lots of time and experience there, just no remaining potential. If you do the math, that makes 36 the perfect age with a balance of potential and worth, and just happens to be my age. What are the odds? :p
But I agree that a fertilized egg is not a life. A man, a woman, a bottle of Chianti and a Barry White song are a potential new life, but nobody would force them to conceive if they accidentally landed in the same room.

Toad734 said...

Should we ban Barry White?


Come on, we all know that the culture of life only focuses on beings without brain activity.

Craig said...

Kinda funny how you've really ignored the facts here.

Bush as president has spent more money on embryonic SC research than any other president has offered up. As a matter of fact, He is the only one to ever fund it. But somehow you get to portray him as being against it.

Thats pretty lame.

The other thing that strikes me as funny on this issue is that everyone always says that it is the key to saving the planet. We need it so badly...

If it was as promising as you make it out to be, we wouldn't need the public money that Bush could throw at it. There would be lines of people waiting to invest in the future of Ebryonic SC research.

No... the whole argument for increasing the federal funding is mostly a ploy by the same anti-fetal bigots that promote the exclusion of unborn americans from the protection of our civil rights laws. It is the abortion crowd who stands to gain by tying more and more federal resources up in this ploy.

We're on to you... and what's more... we've got the power.

Toad734 said...

RE: Craig

Did I say anything about funding, did I say anything about Bush, and did I say it would save the planet?
I am just making a point that stem cell research doesn't involve the bulldozing of 2 year olds into ditches and executing them as many have made it out to be. And, I want everyone’s input whether they think the picture above is a human being. That is the only "fact" I was presenting Mr. poopy pants.

Bush is only in favor of funding research on existing embryos, nothing further than that.

But you are right the same argument that can be made about abortion can be made about sc research; that it's just a clump of cells, and not human life.

Take a look; does this picture look like any human you have ever met?

Toad734 said...

Note to self:

Not one person against stem cell research has left a link to their web page or their profile.

Jack Mercer said...


I have to admit to ignorance on this issue. I am not God, nor do I pretend to be. Gut feelings are often what I have to go on, and I struggle with the idea of creating something living that just might be human to harvest its useful parts. Will we clone people one day for transplant material?

I guess where I come from is that people on both sides of this hugely unknown and unsubstantiated issue have granted themselves god-like qualities and have passed judgement, coming down one or the other side of the argument. To me, it is an unknown, and until we are absolutely certain, we need to tread carefully. Otherwise we are simply shooting now and saving the questions for later.


Toad734 said...

RE: Jack

I don't think we should create a human for spare parts either; my point is that this group of cells is not human.

As you pointed out, I am no expert but to me, no brain, no heart beat, no nervous system = algee, not humanity.

Rob said...

The whole debate over "when human life begins" aspect of stem cell research seems to me to be a red herring used by BOTH sides in this issue. It really comes down to whose MONEY is going to be used to fun stem cell research. There are NO Federal prohibitions against conducting stem cell research, just (so far, anyway) no agreement to FUND the research (except in a few limited circumstances) with taxpayer dollars. Supporters of the research can do so to their heart's content -- with PRIVATE funds. It seems to me that those who believe in it so strongly should put THEIR money where their mouths are and not try to coerce funding (via Federal spending of tax dollars) from a significant portion of the population who oppose it on moral/ethical grounds. If it delivers as much as its supporters project it might, they will be amply rewarded for their investment. To me, it really comes down to this: Are stem cell researchers and their supporters going to gamble with their OWN MONEY or are they going to play with HOUSE MONEY? Why sidetrack the discussion with endless (and, in my opinion, unanswerable) questions about whether or not stem cells represent human life. I encourage the scientists, pharmaceutical companies, research companies, academia, and their supporters in the stem cell debate to raise as many funds as they would like and research away; then, if and when they achieve major medical breakthroughs, reap the enormous profits from their investment. That will end the tremendous waste of time and energy expended in debating the peripheral questions over the "human life" issues. Just another perspective that seems to get short shrift...

Toad734 said...

RE: Rob

Well maybe I don't want my tax dollars subsidizing oil companies nor paying for pre-emptive wars, so does that mean those should all be private?

Also, once you privatize it you do open yourself up to the possibility of cloning and what ever else they decide to do for a dollar. At least when the government funds it they can regulate how the money is spent.

Again, that is not why I am here, I'm not sure the government should fund it, but I would rather them fund this than the corn crops, mining and logging companies and fortune 500 companies who don't need the money and will probably just waste it.

I just don't want it to become illegal to research it and I am just pointing out that a clump of cells without any thing remotely human about it is not indeed a human.

Boiled Owl said...

Rob, as though you, or Toad, or I were somehow the gatekeepers over government funding!

That's the grandest of grand illusions, don't you think?

Hey man, we're not even in the game any more!

At a minimum, that's what we've got to get back to... Just being in the game.

You need to be on Toad's side, in this, Rob.

Don't buy into that corporate divisionist Bushit, ok?

You seem too smart for that.

Two Minutes J said...

Hey I got an idea! Who really gives a shit? For me I would probably feel better if it was an actual human I was destroying. But thats just me. Anyways, I know this doesn't really follow the blog but I don't really care. Hear me out, this is my proposal: There should be an international boycott on people trying to have conversations with you before 7am in the morning...I mean really. Before work, I just want to be alone and in peace while I drink my morning coffee. Leave me the fuck alone or you're bound to get an eye full of life (sperm). I was talking to a friend of mine the other day and he asked me if I'd ever get married and have kids. I told him probably not. Why?, he asked. 'Well,' I replied, 'I've never met a chick that I was so in love with that I could tolerate her for any extended period of time. Not that they don't exist, but I've just never met one.' I told him when I go on dates I usually blare my music really loud. Why? he asked. Well you see, I don't want to hear her talk that much. But I'll lower the volume periodically just to get a little conversation in. That way I keep them interested just enough so that they'll let me fuck them.

Boiled Owl said...

Well now, jason has a unique perspective, huh Toad?

C'mon jason, don't hold back, man. Tell us what you really think.

(What an ornery little fucker!)

Hey jase, you're outa the race, dude.

Come back when you evolve into a human being.

curious servant said...

I understand your point of view, and usually I avoid this topic, but here is my take any way.

The scientific view here is that yes, it is human. The Roe v Wade decision was not based on science but on politics. A completely different paradigm with different needs, different values. not necessarily wrong, just different.

From one perspective all organisms are simply the tools DNA uses to replicate itself.

The conflict here is from the clash of differing paradigms (scientific, medical, political, and moral).

The dangers in choosing a paradigm other than the scientific is that there are now huge grey areas that can be debated about when life begins. But in truth, everything that makes a human being begins right here, at conception. Unpopular view, I know, and creates many difficulties, but true none the less. This is where it starts.

Sorry if I offended.

Toad734 said...

RE: Curious

No offense taken, this was the type of answers I thought I would have been getting all along. One of the reasons I am exploring this is exactly as you stated; Roe v Wade wasn't about life it was about the personal freedom to choose, privacy and what many see to be constitutional rights and the same arguments made for the abortion issue can be made for stem cell research as well.

I want to look at this from the other side which says it can't be human without a brain, heartbeat and a nervous system. Yes this is one of the stages of "pre-life" or you could say this is the beginning of human life, but just as sperm and a woman’s egg, and as other pointed out, a little alcohol and a Barry White album are stages of conception and cellular life as well. They are all precursors to life but that doesn't mean that within each of these stages you can call something human; every menstrual cycle is the termination of a potential human; every ejaculation is the waste of a potential human, what I am talking about is just a few more cells than either sperm or an egg.

As mentioned with the Barry White, sperm and eggs, there has to be certain conditions present to make all these come together to lead to an eventual human life. A blastocyst may or may not eventually become a person, or it may miscarry; how can you even say that every zygote or blastocyst will eventually become a person? You simply don't know. Not to mention the fact that neither of those have a heartbeat, a brain, a nervous system, the ability to reason etc; all the things that make us human beings.

And no, not all science agrees that a blastocyst is a human, or else there wouldn't even be an issue to debate.

I appreciate your level headed, rational input.

Jack Mehoffer said...

Nice Blastocyst...but help support Cindy Sheehan...a Fellow American to Bush...


The republicans nee the highjacked republican party has already started a smear campaign agaisnt the Mother of a fallen soldier. Using soundbites and Rovesque tactics against a Soldiers Mother who gave his life for this country is simply disgusting and should never be stood for as Americans be they red or blue. Please I urge you to counter this disgusting act and tell them what you think. Thank you...Cindy Sheehan America is with you.

the blog-o-smear:

Tell them what you think!!!

SondraK said...

where'd my comment go, TOaD?

Reiteration: Hey, Jackoff:

She had something different to say awhile ago. Maybe that's why the "smear campaign" eh?
Re TOaD.

Toad734 said...


I think you are confused; I have no idea what you are talking about. Perhaps you were trying to get to my latest post that you commented on a few hours ago?

SondraK said...

Well, here's something very strange. Two months after her son died, Cindy and her husband Patrick did meet with President Bush, as she said. After that meeting, Cindy was quoted by a California newspaper as saying, 'I now know (President Bush) is sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis. I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss.'

You make me yawn, TOaD. I'm not drunk or confused, and I was referring to your commentor above.'re really booooooring me now.

Toad734 said...

That wasn't my comment; it was Jack (AKA Bruiser

It's not me, it's all those boring Jesus freak Blogs for Bush that you have been reading.

SondraK said...

You're not paying attention.
Are YOU drunk?

If you're just going to be stupid and not "listen" to what others (me) say...then there's no need to continue to converse.

Proof is in the details. Wipe the spittle from yur mouf and take a deep breath. This is the last time I'll engage you if you don't, lameass.

My original comment that you refer did in fact note that it was a response to Jackoff. Put the bong down, TOaD.

Final warning.

Toad734 said...

Actually yes, I am drunk now.

But if you want to have a conversation with Jack, leave me out of it. I am not inhibiting you from engaging in a conversation with Jack.

I may not be listening but that is because you guys (you) are talking about something completely different. Maybe Jack just needs his own blog, or maybe you just need to discuss this topic on your blog.

I don't think I am touching it; where someone decides to camp is of no concern of mine; someone wanting personal access to their president is nothing new, and is completely rational; of course we would all like that but what are you going to do?

Ryan said...

There will be no personal access to American public officials in the new American century! So we sayeth and so it will be.

I hate to be an unabashed liberal citing the Michael Moore "propaganda film" about September 11th, but I guess I will anyway.

For those who saw the Moore film, do you remember the army mom who initially was a Republican and hissed Bush praise at the documentor early in the film, and then later on in the film became one of the biggest and most vocal critics of the war after it took her son's life?

Is this an isolated phenomenon, or just the natural force of tragedy to weaken a person to spineless liberalism after their soul has been crushed? Is it either?

I think that one distinct characterization of American culture today is that we are very wrapped up in ourselves. We really dont care about anything until it hits us where we hurt.

In the midst of this bloody and arguably meaningless war you still have family members of troops standing tall by the president- even sometimes after they have lost a loved one to this cinamatically quixotic crusade for oil.

People need something to believe in, and unfortunately this need works both ways. Some will take the death of their loved one to be a mandate to assail this unjust war in any and all ways possible.

Others will stand even taller to affirm their initial dispositions about the politics of this war and offer as example the great personal sacrifice that they have endured. It couldn't have just been for nothing, right?

Its a damn shame that in most cases it takes an affliction of the American Disaster Disease to get many Americans to even take the time to notice the death and destruction that is going on over there, far far away in a land that is actually in a state of war, and not just by verbal classification.

Will every American have to lose at least one family member to even care in the least bit about this war? Ominously from the looks of things we may all have a chance in some way to be a part of the sacrifice to a god that many of us has ever even known existed.

We are all pawns, but a pawn used strategically can topple a king.

Sorry Toadmaster for not commenting on the initial Stem Cell topic of the post. I just picked up on the latter part of the argument and it struck on something I've been thinking on lately.

Your blog is surely the best of it's kind that I have been able to find- and I commend you on the scope and depth of your posts and responses to the seemingly insane masses who frequent and dialogue on your page (of which I consider myself one of the insane in the mass).

Mike said...

Hmmm... I guess Fitch solved this one. He is certain that this is going to turn into a human; amazing that he has so much foresight, based on years of scientific study I presume.

I wonder if he would have said the same about the embryo that my mom miscarried.

So, what would your mother have carried to term? Would it have been a dog or perhaps a cat? Is it your contention that the dna information is not yet set into motion as to what the fertilized egg will become? Is there any scientific evidence of any embryo ever carried by a human woman carried to term and delivered as something other than a human being?

Toad734 said...

No it probably would not have been a dog if it was carried to term; the point is that it wasn't carried to term; it never became this precious human being you guys keep yelping about. As with about 1/3 of all pregnancies, sometimes they turn into nothing at all.