Posted on 10/25/2006 10:21:35 AM PDT by freepatriot32
Michael J. Fox is a famous TV and movie star. He is witty. He is charming. A few years ago, we learned he has Parkinson's disease.
PD is a slowly progressive neurological disorder, characterized by tremors, shuffling gait, a masklike facial expression, "pill rolling" of the fingers, drooling, intolerance to heat, oily skin, emotional instability and defective judgment (although intelligence is rarely impaired).
PD is currently incurable, although there are several methods to slow its advancement, including drug therapy and surgery.
PD is tragic, particularly in Fox's case, because it rarely afflicts persons under 60 years old.
Yet everyone faces tragedy at one time or another, in one form or another. A person's moral fiber is revealed in tragedy.
So we learned through Fox's affliction that he has either extremely poor judgment or a diabolical character flaw. He supports human embryonic stem-cell experimentation, thus contending that some humans are subhuman and expendable for others' personal gain.
We know there is nothing new under the sun. So Fox's character flaw is not new, just a variation of the worst of human behavior throughout history.
Slaveholders thought those whose lives and deaths they controlled were "property," as the U.S. Supreme Court determined in the 1857 Dred Scott decision. Hitler thought Jews were evolutionary mistakes. The Islamic government of Sudan currently has it in for black Christians.
Different day, different holocaust.
As is always the case, the powerful determine the fate of the powerless, and if the powerful don't hold the view that all humans are created equal, then the powerless end up enslaved or dead.
Some may think I'm going over the top to compare Fox to slave owners or Hitler or the Sudanese government. "Fox is a nice guy, and he's sick. Be nice."
If you think that, your sympathies are misplaced. Fox advocates killing certain people to experiment on them "for the greater good" simply because those people don't look like we do – yet. This is odd, because some day Fox won't look like most people either.
If Fox wanted to kill a football stadium full of toddlers to experiment on them, I doubt anyone would think he was normal, and I doubt anyone would bear with his barbaric rambling to be nice.
But using Fox's logic, experimentation of 2-year-olds should be acceptable. Toddlers are certainly far less developed on the human continuum and don't look at all normal by adult standards. The reason they are called "toddlers" in the first place is because their oversized heads and bellies cause them to "toddle" when they walk.
Scientifically speaking, a human is a human from the instant of fertilization, no matter what phase of development. "Take that single cell of the just conceived zygote, put it next to a chimpanzee cell, and 'a geneticist could easily identify the human. Its humanity is already that strikingly apparent,'" said Randy Alcorn in his newly released book, "Why Pro-Life?," quoting from "Preview of a Birth."
I'll worry about Fox's feelings after he stops using his considerable influence to convince the American public to support taxpayer-funded human embryonic stem-cell experimentation. Fox is not only pushing an ideology on me that advocates the destruction of human life, but he also wants to force me to pay for it. What gall.
I feel sorry for Fox's kids. Flashing them either forward or backward in one of Fox's "Back to the Future" movies, they are in lose-lose situations.
The future Fox wants to create for his three daughters looks bleak. No longer will only hens lay eggs for human consumption if Fox has his way. His daughters will be exploited for their eggs, too, because the only source of these pre-embryos is women. It is foolish to think technology will be sated by the availability of today's orphaned embryos, as is now the spin.
And in an altered past, Fox would have allowed the dissection of his days-old embryonic children so he could surgically ingest them in an effort to cure his own ailments – high tech cannibalism.
It's funny that Fox calls himself a vegetarian.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jill Stanek fought to stop "live-birth abortion" after witnessing one as a registered nurse at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Ill. In 2002, President Bush asked Jill to attend his signing of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. In January 2003, World Magazine named Jill one of the 30 most prominent pro-life leaders of the past 30 years. To learn more, visit Jill's blog, Pro-life Pulse.http://www.jillstanek.com/
I hope your comment was directed at MJ Fox and not me. I agree with your sentiment. I guess I was attempting sarcasm and fell short.
I always thought was a strange ad
I wonder if the lot of you would feel the same way if YOUR stepfather has Parkinson's, which is what my boyfriend is going through.
I wonder if you pukes would think all the shaking, the hesitation, and some of the spills he's taken was mere acting.
BUT - it had 'staying power', lol.
Gridlock -- It is a certain stage in human development, kind of like a four-and-a-half year-old.
A blastocyst is a preimplantation embryo of about 150 cells produced by cell division following fertilization. The blastocyst is a sphere made up of an outer layer of cells (the trophoblast), a fluid-filled cavity (the blastocoel), and a cluster of cells on the interior (the inner cell mass). The uterus accepts a blastocyst for implantation for a limited period of time (the receptive phase) and then becomes refractory. And unlike most four-and-a-half-year-old's, a large percentage of blastocysts fail to implant and are naturally discarded by the body.
blast = referring to immature (developmentally speaking) or primative cells.
You're not too far off the mark. A neoplasm is a new growth, and can refer to both a newly fertilized egg, or a tumor. So, your logic is very good :-)
Of course, I bow down to your definition. Had to steal my thunder, huh? :-)
Good rhyming!
Ooops. I was responding to another post, and I didn't see your definition. It was nicely succinct, and didn't need my two cents.
It's all good :) My post was after yours, after all.
Well, it stands to reason that the vast majority of four-and-a-half year olds were expelled from the body at some point...
But, of course, my point was that a blastocyst is a certain stage in human development, just as a four-and-a-half year old is a certain stage in human development.
Surely, you would agree...
And the last time you saw an "expelled" blastocyst riding a bicycle?
But, of course, my point was that a blastocyst is a certain stage in human development, just as a four-and-a-half year old is a certain stage in human development. Surely, you would agree...
Ahhh. No equivalency intended. Just a rather mundane observation that there is a lot of biological "stuff" that happens in human reproduction and maturation. Thus, an immature spermatogonia is a "certain stage in human development" just as a 25-year old is a "certain stage in human development." Profound.
I am going to assume that your characterization of that statement as profound is sarcastic. Which means you fundamentally misunderstand the point.
No problem. Go about your merry way. Don't let me bother you.
No, thanks.
What say gridlock on mutilating infants? Disfiguring children?
Enjoying this game? Go on, answer...
Do you believe that God has a hand in deciding which of these blastocysts gets expelled without being allowed to develop? When does God put their soul in? Is God a terrible wastrel?
Well, I'm against those things, of course. But I wasn't the one who was bringing up destroying children, or pre-children, or whatever you want to call them. Since you are going to make a statement that the ownership of the whatever-they-are is important, I was just trying to see if that distiction extended to one's own born children, farther down the line.
I am heartened to see that apparently you see that at least some children deserve to be protected. Apparently there is some line that has to be crossed, in your view.
Well, gee, Gondring, I don't know...
Do you?
Are you sure?
I'm assuming you live in the same convoluted world in which I live...21st Century America. I don't make the laws; I don't make the court rulings. I was simply explaining that the logic (about bird eggs) is valid--but you merely disagree with the basic assumptions.
Actually, it has. Tumors.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.