Letter to Mr. Harris

Hello Mr. Harris,

I have two main objections to your argument concerning the validity of using human embryos in stem cell research. Firstly, I disagree with your assertion that embryos are somehow less than human, and therefore fair game for exploitation. Secondly, I disagree with your systematic “ranking” of life. According to your worldview, certain varieties of life—such as human embryos—are less valuable than others, effectively condoning abortion, euthanasia, and genocide. Hitler’s comparable belief in the inherent supremacy of German Aryans over inferior Slavs/Jews/Gypsies resulted in the death of millions. Will your beliefs result in comparable carnage? 
The premise that embryos are sub-human is central to your argument. If embryos are not really human, then we must logically conclude they do not deserve any of the protection normally afforded to humans. Near the beginning of the audio clip you articulate this thesis, saying, “Let us look at the details: a three day old human embryo is a collection of 150 cells called a blastocyst. There are, for the sake of comparison, more than 100,00 cells in the brain of a fly.” You go on to explore the implications of this claim by later stating, “If you’re concerned about suffering in this universe, killing a fly should present you with greater moral difficulties than killing a human blastocyst.” This logic is preposterous! According to your reasoning, it is more regrettable to kill a common housefly than it is to kill a human embryo—simply because a fly's body contains more cells! Since when have civilized cultures evaluated something’s worth based on the number of cells it contains? Does our justice system find the murder of a three-foot midget to be less despicable than the murder of a seven-foot giant? Both are murders, and the murder is equally culpable, regardless of the size of his victims. 
Furthermore, you argue that because a blastocyst’s brain has not yet formed it ought to be subject to the same ethics used with brain dead humans, saying, “It is worth remembering in this context that when a person’s brain has died we currently deem it acceptable to harvest his organs provided he has donated them for this purpose…If it is acceptable to treat a person whose brain has died as something less than human, it should be acceptable to treat a blastocyst as such.” I find this argument to be fundamentally flawed—you’re comparing apples and oranges. Someone who is brain dead has likely faced a huge trauma and will never recover their brain function. On the other hand, a human embryo has all the genetic material needed to create a perfectly functioning brain—all it lacks is nine months of formation. Yet despite this discrepancy you give ethical preference to the brain-dead individual, stating that it is acceptable to harvest his organs solely, “provided he has donated them for this purpose.” However, equally human embryos are given no such courtesy. They are not required to give consent or sign any forms. And although they have not legally willed their bodies to research facilities you claim that human embryos ought to be experimented upon. You claim that we must dissect future generations to solve the ills of the present generation. And yet, outraged, you call Christians “uninformed” and without “moral reasoning and genuine compassion” because they disagree with this infanticide. In your world, Mr. Harris, a paltry nine months decides whether a complex conglomeration of tissues is known as a baby or is simply viewed as a faceless and disposable blastocyst.

Sincerely,
Hanna Kahler

Sabbath Rest

"Remember the sabbath day to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work. But the seventh day is the sabbath in honor of the Lord thy God; on it thou shalt not do any work, neither thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it." 

I've recently become convicted about working on the Sabbath. God states above, point blank, to rest on the Sabbath. Really--the commander of the universe is asking us to take a break, to take it easy for one day out of seven--how hard should it be? Ha! Hard to remember, but so, so, easy to forget. We have a pressing homework assignment, or want to wash a pair of jeans for Monday, or are just bored and check our email...only to get sucked in to the computer. 

You know, a week is really a rather artificial time unit--nowhere in nature is there a basis for this strange seven days time segment. A day is based on the time it takes for our planet to rotate once--a year is based on the time it takes for our beloved earth to circle the sun. Even a month is based somehow off the lunar cycle--but the week? No graceful participant in the celestial dance marks a week. The week is God-breathed. If even God needed rest, why should we attempt to be "productive" 24-7? God took a break after six days--who are we, his paltry creation, to scorn at that? 

 

One Sunday a few weeks ago I did rest, really rest. It was a very peaceful day. I snuggled with my mom, worked on a cross-stitched sunflower, and maybe cooked something--I don't remember. The point is, I felt rejuvenated. Refreshed. Rested. Ready to joyfully face another week. Why don't you try it this Sunday? Turn off your computer and go for a walk. Enjoy your family. Read that book you've had on your nightstand for the past month. Embrace God's time management. 

Randomonia...?

Since my last blog post I've come across a several interesting links. I'll post the "fluff" here before metaphorically rolling up my sleeves and analyzing Blue Like Jazz and The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism.

This links to an interesting website showcasing uncommonly used words.

Save The Words

This article discusses the work of a University of Utah professor of anthropology, who theorizes that due to a "founder effect" Ashkenazim Jews are genetically predisposed to high intelligence. According to the research paper, this high IQ has the side effect of causing several genetic disorders, including Tay-Sachs. I don't entirely agree with this paper. Although there have certainly been many brilliant Jewish thinkers, it seems unfair that any people group should be inherently more intelligent than any other people group. Additionally, since Jews place a high cultural value on academics and study, it could be argued that this intelligence is not inborn, but achieved. A classic example of nature vs. nurture.   

http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/culture/features/1478/

Grammar generally causes my eyes to glaze over. That said, the below website fairly clearly describes a compound complex sentence and the real difference between a dependent and independent clause. Yay for nitty-gritty grammar!! 

http://www.evergreen.edu/writingcenter/handouts/grammar/compoundcomplex.pdf 

As long as we're on the subject of grammar, an interesting note. In quoted text an ellipsis with three dots (...) indicates editing inside the sentence. For example, instead of, "My Uncle Moe, who builds houses, lives in Vermont," you could say, "My Uncle Moe...lives in Vermont." On the other hand, an ellipsis with four dots (....) is used to indicate word omission between several sentences. For example, rather than, "My Uncle Moe, who builds houses, lives in Vermont. He called today," you could simply say, "My Uncle Moe....called today." Neat, huh? 

Political Cartoon

Old-Fashioned Fun...New Fangled Yum!

Okay, that was pathetic rhyming. What can I say? I'm sorely out of practice at writing eye-catching titles. Have any of you ever read the maple sugaring scene from the Little House on the Prairie series--I'm not sure of the exact book--where Ma pours some hot syrup on the snow and makes homemade maple sugar candy? For any of you who've never had it--you are missing out on a critical life experience--it's delicious! Very sweet/creamy with a melt-in-your-mouth texture. An all-natural truffle! So....trying to duplicate that ethereal experience, I ventured outside into our sub-zero weather--okay, a bit of a hyperbole, but not by that much!--armed with a jug of raw material and fierce determination. Perhaps because I didn't heat the syrup first, or maybe for some chemical quirk, the syrup didn't harden, but oozed into the snow. :-( Not to be deterred, I seized my nearby spoon, and ate my first maple-sugar flavored slushy. Ummmm...almost worth the incessant driveway shoveling!

Yay! Kathy Tyers autographed my book!!!!

The title is fairly self-explanatory...but (yay!) all the same. I've been a fan of Kathy Tyers' books since reading Firebird last year--which at least partially influenced the name of my gmail account. On her website (http://www.kathytyers.com/) she graciously offered to autograph books, so I sent off my copy a couple weeks ago along with a little note. She actually answered my letter with an entire typed page! Hehe! I danced a happy jig!!

If you're at all interesting in sci-fi/speculative fiction, I would definitely recommend her books. Shivering World--another favorite--is excellent, abet very intense and a trifle confusing at first. It escapes classification, at once a mystery, but also a bit sci-fi with a dash of romance--altogether a very winsome combination. Although I haven't read them, Mrs. Tyers is also known for her two Star Wars books: The Truce at Bakura and Balance Point.

Some photos of me, ridiculous with excitement and sporting a pronounced winter look--no? ;-)

PS--The fuzzy thing in the corner of the photos is our Christmas tree.

Vocab Word: Environing--Archaic for 'encircle' 'surround'

Visual Argument

So...this is my visual argument. Originally it was arranged in a square, but my untechy self had an exceedingly difficult time working with this...thus the lineup! The argument itself is a bit simplistic, basically exploring the effects of technology on our lives. Pretty straightforward. Anyway...feel free to comment!