eaboclipper on BMG five years ago: "Is John Howard Right?"

5 years ago we didn't know Santuski was a pedophile either. n/t (0.00 / 0)

"Don't let me get away with it. Check me out. Don't be the sucker generation." -Ronald Reagan

www.inBrockton.com

---

by: BrocktonDave @ Mon Apr 02, 2012 at 19:11:41 PM UTC

Huh? (0.00 / 0)

What does that have to do with this? Are you saying that now we know something we didn't five years ago on this subject? What?

---

by: John Howard @ Mon Apr 02, 2012 at 19:15:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That we know more about YOU now than we did 5 years ago. (0.00 / 0)

"Don't let me get away with it. Check me out. Don't be the sucker generation." -Ronald Reagan

www.inBrockton.com

---

by: BrocktonDave @ Mon Apr 02, 2012 at 19:23:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

So what? (0.00 / 1)

Fuck you, first of all, by all rights I should have more credibility than I had five years ago and deserve respect for my efforts trying to preserve natural reproduction and equality and dignity, and second of all, what's it got to do with me? Ad hominem arguments are unbecoming of you.

---

by: John Howard @ Mon Apr 02, 2012 at 19:33:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

More credibility as a Pottymouth (5.00 / 1)

"Don't let me get away with it. Check me out. Don't be the sucker generation." -Ronald Reagan

www.inBrockton.com

---

by: BrocktonDave @ Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 13:30:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm an old school blogger (0.00 / 0)

I learned my on-line etiquette on the Fight Club message board back in 1999.

---

by: John Howard @ Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 15:55:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

So am I... But I'm not 12 anymore. (5.00 / 1)

"Don't let me get away with it. Check me out. Don't be the sucker generation." -Ronald Reagan

www.inBrockton.com

---

by: BrocktonDave @ Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 16:29:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

FU anyway (0.00 / 2)

You compared me to a child molester, so fuck you.

---

by: John Howard @ Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 23:58:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

This is what you need... (5.00 / 1)

John Howard Headgear

"Don't let me get away with it. Check me out. Don't be the sucker generation." -Ronald Reagan

www.inBrockton.com

---

by: BrocktonDave @ Wed Apr 04, 2012 at 14:05:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Blast from the past! Good work John! (0.00 / 0)

Molon Labe

---

by: Republican Ram Rod Radio @ Mon Apr 02, 2012 at 19:41:53 PM UTC

Crap! Speaking of Blast from the Past, I can't believe I haven't told you guys . . . (0.00 / 0)

About a year ago I got a call from one of my deep undercover informants.  He said 'Word on the street is Laurel, Laurel from BlueMassGroup ...(PAUSE for effect)... has been outed.'  [Dun Dun DUNNNNNNN!).

She was totally outed by (And this is going to blow your mind) She was outed by KnowThyNeighbor.org ... for using sock puppets and something about a conflict of interest.  Should be pretty easy enough to google ... but I warn you!  THERE IS A PICTURE OF LAUREL.  AND THE IMAGE IS FAR WORSE THAN YOU CAN POSSIBLY IMAGINE.  

Molon Labe

---

by: Republican Ram Rod Radio @ Mon Apr 02, 2012 at 20:14:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

yeah, that ruined it for me too (0.00 / 0)

I had always imagined laurel looked like this:

Here is a link to KnowThyNeighbor's complaint about laurel's sock puppetry, it's rather interesting especially in light of KnowThyNeighbor supporting Baker and libertarianism.

---

by: John Howard @ Mon Apr 02, 2012 at 21:52:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

man (0.00 / 0)

its gotta be a hard-up RMG'er who has to reach back 5 years to find anyone supporting him...

---

by: demolisher @ Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 14:37:20 PM UTC

What's with the "him"? (0.00 / 0)

Why do you guys think this is about me? Come on, anyone can see I'm just a crazy blogger, who obesses about the issues I think need blogging about, like crazy bloggers do. Take it as a given, that for every issue, there will be a blogger who is associated with blogging about it. Don't confuse the blogger with the issue, don't take me or yourself to seriously.

It's obvious what you are doing now, you are just trying to use ad hominem attacks against the blogger because you want to distract people from considering the issue.

Let me ask you, do you agree with Rob that "same sex conception should not be legal." Does Rob still believe that?

It occurs to me that local bloggers like Tom Lang and other dedicated libertarian transhumanists probably post here under sockpuppet names, perhaps like 'V' and 'demolisher' - after all those KTN guys are active both in the blogosphere and in Republican Massachusetts politics, and yet there is no "Tom Lang' user, or 'Alexander' user here, but there are plenty of anonymous users who make underhanded and offensive personal attacks on someone who opposes libertarian transhumanism and opposes same-sex conception. Of course, their best strategy is the underhanded slime strategy, because their biggest worry is people actually talking about this stuff and whether it is a good idea or not.

Let me ask you again, do you agree with Rob that "same sex conception should not be legal." Does Rob still believe that?

---

by: John Howard @ Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 15:34:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

let me rephrase (0.00 / 0)

"its got to be a long string of very weak arguments and wacky positions that we're talking about, when we have to reach back 5 years to find any support for any of them"

Is that better?

I have no idea what you are talking about with all this transhumanism stuff, I was going to look it up but I thought the better of it.  

Do I believe same sex conception should be legal?  Gee I never knew that was possible...  My inclination though, is that we should not even ask ourselves the question of whether something "should be legal" unless there is some actual harm that can come from it.  

So I'll take a ride into your hypothetical world and give you a straight answer:  Lets say 2 women could conceive a child, no complications, end of story.  How is that my business?  Its not.  On the other hand, if they could conceive a child but there is a high probability of it having scales and wings, then, maybe we need to think about that.  

Luckily for us you are way out ahead on this one!

---

by: demolisher @ Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 15:47:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It isn't possible and might never be possible (0.00 / 0)

Yes, there is a very high possibility that a baby made from stem-cell-derived re-imprinted heavily manipulated gametes would have serious health complications, and also serious psychological issues and social problems, and that others would also be negatively affected in addition to the child being created.

It would also open the door to other forms of genetic engineering, which would become an expensive entitlement we would all have to pay for, and which would sap resources away from medical care for existing people. This is already happening, you are already paying for it. The benefits that would come from prohibiting same-sex conception far outweigh the benefits of allowing it. There is absolutely no need to make a baby from two people of the same sex, there is never a need to make a baby at all, there is only a right to marry and have sex. There is a need for medicine for existing people, and that is sacrificed when medical resources are wasted on something for which there is no need.

Sounds like you are a Transhumanist, and the fact that you don't know anything about it and haven't really thought about it is par for the course for a Transhumanist. It's just a dangerous ill-conceived mean-spirited fantasy, it's a misanthropic mental illness.

---

by: John Howard @ Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 16:13:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

"mental illness" ... says the guy carping about ad hominems! (0.00 / 0)

lol

What do people need?  Well I know what they don't need:  someone else deciding what they need.  

Can you tell the difference between something being legal, and something being free (paid for by taxes?)  I can.  Outlawing things so that Democrats don't start giving them away free is a novel strategy, but a silly one, and one that risks losing the distinction between freedom and free stuff.

You seem really confused.

That aside, your positions are exactly those of a leftist:  big controlling government should dictate how we live our lives.  You just want it to make us do different things than they want it to make us do.  

---

by: demolisher @ Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 16:25:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Lesson (0.00 / 0)

Ad hominems are arguments against the person, instead of addressing the issue. For example, saying that I have a potty mouth and saying that now you know more about me and comparing me to a child molesting assistant football coach instead of addressing the issue I'm raising, is making an ad hominem argument against the person, which is logically invalid and offensive and lame. Saying that Transhumanism is a mental illness and misanthropic is not an argument against the person, it is an argument against Transhumanism, or maybe more an explanation of why people become Transhumanists. It wasn't even the argument I was making against Transhumanism, but apparently it was all you could respond to.

Yes, I can see that there is a line between something being legal and something being paid for by taxes, but it's a very unimportant line that is given far too much significance by Libertarian Transhumanists who want the right to do wrong. But if you think it is significant, you should know we are ALREADY paying taxes and mandated insurance premiums toward genetic engineering research and reproductive technologies, and any moron can easily see that same-sex conception is going to have to be free just like IVF and contraception are free, especially if it is declared a right. Even if there was some way to let rich people pay for their own artificial stem cell derived gametes, it would still be terribly wrong. There is no right to manufacture people, it is not freedom, it is slavery. Slave owners thought they should have the freedom to own slaves. They argued that it was their own money, they weren't asking for slaves for free. It was as lame an argument then as it is now. No one has a right to manufacture human beings, and sophist arguments about paying for it yourself and ad hominems against those that object aren't going to win the day.

If you are against Big Government you really should support a law preserving equal procreation rights for everyone and prohibiting manufacture of genetically engineered people. It's super foolish to think that government will be smaller if genetic engineering of people and same-sex procreation are allowed, and if we don't protect marriage's right to procreate using the spouse's own genes.

---

by: John Howard @ Wed Apr 04, 2012 at 00:28:41 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

"Sounds like you are a Transhumanist" - John Howard (above) (0.00 / 0)

Would I be going overly ad hominem on a crazy blogger if I were to point out some rank hypocrisy?  

Yes, I can see that there is a line between something being legal and something being paid for by taxes, but it's a very unimportant line that is given far too much significance by Libertarian Transhumanists who want the right to do wrong.

I'm sorry, are you assailing an idea, or some class of people that you label thus?

I personally find the idea of using some made up label (liberal transhumanists) with which to brand opposition to some pet idea to be ineffective and unconvincing. I would go further and say that any worldview that is totally dominated by defending against hypothetical affronts to sperm and egg is probably a bit wacky. I would go yet further and say I would find it hard to blame the average person, when evaluating ideas of this nature, to draw inferences about the author of same.

Which, unfortunately, is you.

---

by: demolisher @ Wed Apr 04, 2012 at 04:46:54 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

you could try googling (0.00 / 0)

Start with a google search for Libertarian Transhumanism and read the wiki article that explains it objectively. See, there is a bigger world than what you see on RMG, and people who expose you to it are not wacky and you shouldn't be so closed minded.

---

by: John Howard @ Wed Apr 04, 2012 at 12:42:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

no, you really are wacky (0.00 / 0)

oops I mean your ideas.

So there is a group of people who affirmatively argue for the right to human enhancements of various kinds, and even though I never think about this topic at all nor have any real affinity for it, nor is it very important to me at all even now that I am thinking about it (in the grand scheme) you feel the need to lump me in with these people who are taking a positive stand on human modifications of some kind.  And all because I don't sympathize with your ridiculous bent on interfering with and controlling the sex lives of other people.

I mean I can't imagine where that could possibly come from, but hey its your opinion and you're welcome to it, I guess even if it means you believe people should be telling each other how to live right into their bedroom habits.

But why am I calling you wacky?  Because even here on RMG, where you are most likely to find a single supporter for your crusade, you got nothin.  5 years of strike outs.  Pathetic.

I guess this whole idea of being a crazy blogger to spread your beliefs and ideas (or however you put it) isn't working out to well, is it?

---

by: demolisher @ Wed Apr 04, 2012 at 14:02:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

no... (0.00 / 0)

...you were right the first time.

"Don't let me get away with it. Check me out. Don't be the sucker generation." -Ronald Reagan

www.inBrockton.com

---

by: BrocktonDave @ Wed Apr 04, 2012 at 14:06:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Also... (5.00 / 1)

Romney is a tramshumanist because he's a mormon and there's a Mormon tramshumanist organization that is comprised of a whopping 120 people who are "neither a religious organization nor affiliated with any religious organization"
All to advocate for the ETHICAL use of technology and science to extend human capabilities.
PhD JHoward, the self-avowed sexist, racist, classist biology behemoth doesn't understand that  antibiotics "extend human capabilities"...vaccines "extend human capabilities"...medical treatments and all types of surgeries "extend human capabilities".

The average lifespan of modern Americans being 80+ years is due to science and technology and it's ability to "extend human capabilities"

Controlling many of the behaviors of other people is what Johnny here is all about......that and wastin bandwidth to obsessively check his posts to see if anyone's paying attention to his lunacy.

.....and anyone that ignores his lunacy is a..booga booga...tramshumanist...

"I acknowledge having racist and classist and sexist feelings of white male superiority." -John Howard

---

by: ElectricStrawberry @ Wed Apr 04, 2012 at 15:38:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

ES, you forgot pottymouth in your list. (5.00 / 1)

"Don't let me get away with it. Check me out. Don't be the sucker generation." -Ronald Reagan

www.inBrockton.com

---

by: BrocktonDave @ Wed Apr 04, 2012 at 16:14:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Anyone who thinks GE should be legal (0.00 / 2)

is a Transhumanist. And arguing that all medicine is Transhumanism is another sign of a Transhumanist.

But you are perhaps a Democratic Transhumanist, because apparently you want to prohibit UNETHICAL uses of technology to extend human capabilities. Does that include the ability to reproduce as either sex, or with either sex?

Also, I'm not an "avowed racist," you shithead, that implies I'm proud of it, and advocate racism. No, you shithead, what I said was that I acknowledge having feelings of white male privilege, subconscious biases and expectations of entitlement that I learned as I grew up as a privileged white kid, that occasionally surprise and embarrass me when I realize I have them, and that I work to overcome and compensate for. Your attempt at character assassination is libelous and a serious crime, now that I've corrected yo several times but you continue to make the false claim. I think I'll look into getting a lawyer to put an end to this and put you in jail.

---

by: John Howard @ Wed Apr 04, 2012 at 16:50:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

How many (0.00 / 0)

times did you hit refresh, wasting bandwidth?

Seeing transhumanists everywhere is surely a mental disorder.
Sorrry, loon...I don't belong to a Party...I'm a Constitutionalist...something you could never be.

One does not need to be "proud" of ones racism...one only needs to believe it, Mr. "I acknowledge having racist and classist and sexist feelings of white male superiority"   Continuing to try to explain away your racism, sexism, and classism just digs your hole deeper....but at least you're at the first step....admittal.

Oh NO!!!!!!  Johnny's going to get a lawyer and put me in jail!!!!   Does this include a trial or is it straight to jail for ES in your fascist world? Seeing as you have a complete disregard for the Constitution, I know the answer to that one. BTW, when you do talk to your lawyer, tell him all about the continuing 100's of false claims you've made about me...Mr.  "I acknowledge having racist and classist and sexist feelings of white male superiority"

"I acknowledge having racist and classist and sexist feelings of white male superiority." -John Howard

---

by: ElectricStrawberry @ Wed Apr 04, 2012 at 18:59:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

OK, sue me (0.00 / 0)

So I'm obsessed, totally crazy, so what???? I consider myself a Constitutionalist also, I have Alan Keyes' family Christmas card on my Fridgedaire.

I don't believe in racial supremacy, I am very cognizant of my shortcomings and failings and cognizant of other people's superiority in so many respects; black and white and every other race, surpass me easily.  I do believe in gender roles and superiority of one gender for some respects.

So far, it doesn't seem worth it to get a lawyer, I'm just warning you that I think you are over the line, as I am a real person. And me calling an anonymous poster out for being a shithead is not libel, because you're anonymous, dickweed. You know I'm John Howard, the egg and sperm guy who is a write in senate candidate in 2014, so making slanderous statements about me is different.

---

by: John Howard @ Thu Apr 05, 2012 at 06:52:18 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

You said it. (0.00 / 0)

Obsessed and crazy....sorry, YOU are the "I'm gonna get a lawyer" type, not me.
That you consider yourself a Constitutionalist yet show such ignorance and disdain FOR the Constitution furthers your lunacy.  Wow....Alan Keyes, eh?  Not the same perrenial losing candidate Alan Keyes?  

Continuing to attempt to explain away your racism, sexism, classism......dig dig dig...at some point, you MIGHT lose your sexist, racist, and classit feelings, but until then, you're a racist, classist, sexist.

Ooooo.....you're "warning" me?????!!

DO TELL...but I get it...YOU get to slander and lie all you want, but other people telling the self-admitted truth about you, using your own words....well, THEN the law gets involved and people go to jail. DO TELL, Mr. Mussolini....when are your fascistii coming to get me?  Don't forget to be the first through my door.

BTW, candidates for Senate are public figures.  Don't forget to tell your lawyer about that one.

All pathetic threats, nothing more.  Bet you've been doing that your whole life.  "Better not or I'll tell my mooooooooooommmmmmmmyyyyyyyy!!!!"

"I acknowledge having racist and classist and sexist feelings of white male superiority." -John Howard

---

by: ElectricStrawberry @ Thu Apr 05, 2012 at 15:32:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

this is obviously a gay libertarian blog (0.00 / 2)

All you have to do to be a Libertarian Transhumanist is to believe that government should not regulate how labs create human beings. You (obviously) don't have to give it a lot of thought to be a Libertarian Transhumanist, you just have oppose regulation of human genetic engineering. So yeah, you get lumped in with people that agree with you that it should be legal. Perhaps after some thought, you might want to decide if you are comfortable with your bedfellows, or if you are more of a Democratic Transhumanist, or perhaps not a Transhumanist at all.

A Democratic Transhumanist believes there should be government regulation and subsidies to make it safe and available to everyone. A Non-Transhumanist, AKA a Bio-Conservative, believes that genetic engineering of human beings should be prohibited, and same-sex procreation should be prohibited. If you think you fit into some fourth category, no, you're just being slippery and deceitful. But I'd be willing to hear your case.

And prohibiting genetic engineering with the egg and sperm law doesn't "interfere or control the sex lives of other people." It regulates labs, not bedrooms, and scientists, not sex partners. At least try and make a fair argument.  

---

by: John Howard @ Wed Apr 04, 2012 at 16:29:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Wow... (0.00 / 0)

so now this is a homosexual blog, eh?  Do you have feelings of heterosexual superiority to coincide with your "racist and classist and sexist feelings of white male superiority"?


"I acknowledge having racist and classist and sexist feelings of white male superiority." -John Howard

---

by: ElectricStrawberry @ Wed Apr 04, 2012 at 19:02:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I can't tell (0.00 / 0)

RMG seems to be aligning with the gay knowthyneighbor libertarian transhumanists like Baker and Romney and Brown probably are, and abandoning eaboclipper's personal (as of five years ago) belief that same-sex procreation using lab-created gametes should be prohibited.

As to feelings of heterosexual superiority, I personally feel no such feelings of righteous superiority over anyone, but I certainly do think heterosexuality is superior and to be respected, and homosexuality should be ridiculed and ostracized to foster maximum heterosexuality as much as possible. Heterosexuality equalizes the sexes and joins men and women, and naturally procreates life, boys and girls, like everyone is, and sex is not only the spark of accelerated evolution, it is mentioned in the most ancient books on which civilization is built. Postgenderism and homosexuality and transhumanism suck up resources, and for no rational reason. They are irrational pathological mental illnesses, stemming from science fiction fantasies suckled on fear and weakness of natural sexual ability and responsibility, feelings which are forgivable in these porn-saturated days, but which certainly do not stand up in court. We should certainly consider heterosexuality vastly superior to homosexuality, because it is.

---

by: John Howard @ Thu Apr 05, 2012 at 06:25:01 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Admitting you have a problem is the first step to recovery... (0.00 / 0)

"Don't let me get away with it. Check me out. Don't be the sucker generation." -Ronald Reagan

www.inBrockton.com

---

by: BrocktonDave @ Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 16:28:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Just one of a long line of comments Rob has made... (0.00 / 1)

...that shows how low he will go to shape a narrative in a particular moment.

---

by: Simple J. Malarkey @ Wed Apr 04, 2012 at 01:53:22 AM UTC

What's low about it? (0.00 / 0)

The particular moment was the moment when the researchers announced they got sperm from bone marrow, and the prospect of same-sex conception hit the big time of this story being linked on DrudgeReport, which showed I wasn't crazy. It still shows I wasn't crazy, so I don't see how this is low. And it's courageous and brave to say he thought same-sex conception shouldn't be allowed. I guess the Libertarians have gotten to him, maybe he doesn't think that any more?

---

by: John Howard @ Wed Apr 04, 2012 at 03:03:49 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

So your PhD (0.00 / 0)

in biology tells you that step one is "sperm from bone marrow"....step 2 is "same-sex procreation"?

How about....for those men that do not generate viable sperm, they can now have children with their wife because they can have unmodified gametes created from their own bone marrow?
...but then you've outlawed every step of THAT path and had all the biotech workers put in jail.

"I acknowledge having racist and classist and sexist feelings of white male superiority." -John Howard

---

by: ElectricStrawberry @ Wed Apr 04, 2012 at 19:07:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You should read the bmg comments (0.00 / 0)

Eabo and I discussed this at length. He thought all attempts at using stem cell derived gametes should be prohibited, I thought that replacement gametes for infertile people might qualify as medicine if it created gametes that were indistinguishable from the gametes the person would have if they were healthy, and it would be more feasible and safer and less weird for the child than attempting to make sperm from a woman's genes, which is not medicine because it doesn't restore health, it's transhumanism. But I think even replacement gametes still should be outlawed until it is found to be safe and good medicine and public policy.

Also, you'd see that the article makes the leap to same-sex procreation, and yet I don't think they've gotten sperm from a female's stem cells yet, which might never be possible.

---

by: John Howard @ Thu Apr 05, 2012 at 13:33:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Wow.... (0.00 / 0)

HOW DO YOU LIVE WITH THIS ARADOX IN YOUR HEAD??????????????
Doing this things you're already on record of wanting Federal prohibition of.
Might make you crazy.....oops...too late.

"I acknowledge having racist and classist and sexist feelings of white male superiority." -John Howard

---

by: ElectricStrawberry @ Thu Apr 05, 2012 at 15:37:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

There's no paradox (0.00 / 0)

The egg and sperm law I have been promoting doesn't prohibit using replacement gametes from adult stem cells. Rob Eno is on record as saying that shouldn't be allowed, but not me. I think it could be unsafe and expensive and that there is no need for it, it wastes energy and might create a demand for eggs from men and sperm from women, but I've always been careful to note that it might qualify as medicine and that people might have a legitimate right to use it as part of marital and medical privacy.

---

by: John Howard @ Thu Apr 05, 2012 at 16:27:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Comments (0.00 / 0)

aren't made in a vacuum.

You're on record as against many things needed to make gametes and use them.  It would take IVF.  It would take genetic manipulation.

.....but what you'd have is gametes with your own unmodified DNA.......sort of.  I'd get into the finer details of that, but the science of it all surely isn't your strong suit.

If it is "medicine"....everyone would have to pay for it.  Just think of the ever expanding replacement gamete industry!!!  Women would have kids into their 80s!!  Why use your own nasty eggs at 40 years old when we can give you new fresh Johnny approved eggs!!!  Hell, it'll be made mandatory over 35 years old to get rid of the risk of Down syndrome from those dried up nasty eggs!!

Sweeeeeet......I'm changing my resume focus right now!!!  Call me ES master egg maker extraordinaire!!

"I acknowledge having racist and classist and sexist feelings of white male superiority." -John Howard

---

by: ElectricStrawberry @ Mon Apr 09, 2012 at 02:55:51 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Now you are thinking! (0.00 / 0)

I think you are starting to see the issues more clearly now. Imagine how expensive it will be if people have to use lab-created gametes to create children. I completely oppose the use of lab-created gametes, and I only approve of natural gametes.

"Johnny approved eggs" would always be a woman's natural unmodified eggs, even if they were 80, never an artificially conjured up egg, never someone else's. My whole point is to preserve everyone's right to use their own gametes to conceive with their spouse, no matter how old or unhealthy they are. Do you disagree with this?

---

by: John Howard @ Mon Apr 09, 2012 at 05:24:51 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

PARADOX!!! (0.00 / 0)

Friggin' loon......"replacement gametes" ARE LAB-CREATED GAMETES!!! Can't have it both ways. Now dance your little dance, marionette.
What you think I think or are starting to think....is wholly irrelevant and incorrect, as always.

I do not answer your stupid questions.

"I acknowledge having racist and classist and sexist feelings of white male superiority." -John Howard

---

by: ElectricStrawberry @ Mon Apr 09, 2012 at 14:58:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I can oppose them and not prohibit them with my law, can't I? (0.00 / 0)

It's not a paradox, there are multiple issues and questions here, and different levels of creation going on in the lab. The question of whether we should allow lab-created REPLACEMENT gametes, which contain unmodified DNA and are intended to be exactly like the person's own gametes, is different from whether we should allow lab-created opposite-sex gametes or lab-created genetically modified gametes. The first one might qualify as medicine and so the public policy decision of allowing the or not would have medical privacy and marital privacy to contend with, even if it was dangerous and expensive and useless (like IVF and abortion). The other two are not medicine, they are Tranhsumanism, and can be banned without affecting medical or marital privacy.

The Egg and Sperm law as I have proposed doesn't differentiate between replacement gametes and original gametes, it would allow replacement gametes. But I still oppose them, they'd be expensive and there is no need for them, and it denigrates humanity to create people on demand like that, same as IVF and gamete donation does. I oppose gamete donation and IVF too, remember, but the Egg and Sperm Civil Union COmpromise laws don't touch them.  

---

by: John Howard @ Mon Apr 09, 2012 at 16:56:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Wait, you refused to answer this question? (0.00 / 0)

My whole point is to preserve everyone's right to use their own gametes to conceive with their spouse, no matter how old or unhealthy they are. Do you disagree with this?

And you respond that you do not answer stupid questions? Come on, why not give it a try, what are you afraid of?

---

by: John Howard @ Mon Apr 09, 2012 at 18:10:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Now you are thinking! (0.00 / 0)

I think you are starting to see the issues more clearly now. Imagine how expensive it will be if people have to use lab-created gametes to create children. I completely oppose the use of lab-created gametes, and I only approve of natural gametes.

"Johnny approved eggs" would always be a woman's natural unmodified eggs, even if they were 80, never an artificially conjured up egg, never someone else's. My whole point is to preserve everyone's right to use their own gametes to conceive with their spouse, no matter how old or unhealthy they are. Do you disagree with this?

---

by: John Howard @ Mon Apr 09, 2012 at 05:24:52 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

OMG OMG OMG... (0.00 / 0)

I only had to hit "refresh" 100 times and someone finally commented!!
Feed the obsession......

"I acknowledge having racist and classist and sexist feelings of white male superiority." -John Howard

---

by: ElectricStrawberry @ Wed Apr 04, 2012 at 19:03:47 PM UTC