Obama chief : Embryos are 'just a handful of cells'

WorldNetDaily ^ | SEPTEMBER 14, 2009 | Aaron Klein

[RobinMasters]

TEL AVIV – There is no moral concern regarding cloning human beings since human embryos, which develop into a baby, are "only a handful of cells," argued President Obama's newly confirmed regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein.

"If scientists will be using and cloning embryos only at a very early stage when they are just a handful of cells (say, before they are four days old), there is no good reason for a ban (on cloning)," wrote Sunstein, who was confirmed by the Senate last week as administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.

"It is silly to think that 'potential' is enough for moral concern. Sperm cells have 'potential' and (not to put too fine a point on it) most people are not especially solicitous about them," Sunstein wrote in a review of the 2003 book "Our Posthuman Future" by Francis Fukuyama.

Sunstein's comparison is not firm, however, as sperm cells, unlike embryos, do not have the potential to develop into life on their own.

Sunstein, nevertheless, expounded on his attitude toward human cloning in a 2002 paper for the Harvard Law Review, "Is there a constitutional right to clone?"

[PhilDragoo]

Cass Sunstein doesn't have human potential; Obama is a punishment.

[G Larry]

If we drain all of the water and crap outta this clown, he’s “just a hand full of cells” also!

[beethovenfan]

This guy is evil. He’s got to go.

[aruanan]

Genetically speaking, there is a time before which an individual of a species does not exist and after which it does, be it ever so humble. From that moment to the moment of its dissolution it passes through definable stages of development and degeneration. Here are some that apply to us: zygote, embryo, fetus, newborn, infant, toddler, child, pre-adolescent, young adult, mature adult, old-aged. Upon this continuum of development place an asterisk where “it” becomes “human” and perhaps another where its humanity ceases as far as the empirical world is concerned. Many would place the asterisks at conception and death (death defined as the irreversible disruption of the continuum). I do. It is this creature appearing at conception and disappearing at death that is human. Against this, talk about seeds not being trees and fertilized eggs not being chickens shows itself for the silly ontogenocentrism that it is--an acorn is not a tree, but both are equally oak. The full-grown chicken is not a fertilized egg, but both are developmental stages of the same being.

If “human being” is a later stage of an individual’s existence, then what is the name for the being started at conception and ended at death? On the individual level the pro-life view calls it human whether conscious or not, cripple, retarded, senile, diseased, sinful, intelligent, female, or male. The pro-abortion view permits “quality of life and “value to society” to define the parameters of being human and those who have the power to do so to define those terms, whether a woman and her physician, N.A.R.A.L, or Big Brother.

[Da Coyote]

And the person who said this is simply multiple handfulls of cells.

Volunteers for someone to treat this slime the same way? We can simply “abort” it (not him) multiple times.

I promise not to tell.

[aruanan]

Obama chief : Embryos are 'just a handful of cells'

Well, ole Cass is just a bigger handful of cells. What's the case for keeping him around?

[trisham]

Pro-life bump!

[aruanan]

"It is silly to think that 'potential' is enough for moral concern. Sperm cells have 'potential' and (not to put too fine a point on it) most people are not especially solicitous about them," Sunstein wrote in a review

Someone whose reasoning is this specious has no business being considered an educated person.

[TBP]

Obama and his advisors are just handfuls of cells.

[SaraJohnson]

The rinos voted to confirm the aggressively amoral freak.

[madamemayhem]

but i bet he p*sses his pants when that “handful of cells” we call chicken eggs hit a nice hot griddle. NOT THE ANIMALS, TAKE THE CHILDREN INSTEAD, BUT PLEASE NOT THE ANIMALS./S

[bjorn14]

Embryos are ‘just a handful of cells’

That argument is so 1970’s...when we could start to see body parts forming at 6-8 weeks the abortionist stopped using that argument.

[truthfreedom]

Been reading Sunsteins articles.

Here’s one “The Rights of Animals: A Very Short Primer”
http://www.scribd.com/doc/11065802/The-Rights-of-Animals-A-Very-Short-Primer

“We do not, after all, allow scientists to experiment on human beings, even human beings with serious disabilities, when and because medical advances would be significant.” - page 8

“even human beings with serious disabilities”

It seems like Sunstein thinks that it’s worse to experiment on humans without disabilities than it is to experiment on humans with disabilities.

Put differently, Mengele would’ve been more acceptible if his subjects had serious disabilities.

This is very similar to Holdren’s - babies don’t become human until after “essential early socializing experiences”.

I think we here on FR all pretty much agree that people are people and animals are animals. All people have human rights. It seems like a bunch of Obama’s people aren’t clear on this.

[Salvation]

Embryos are a new life. Period!

[shibumi]

Amazing, isn't it? How a handful of cells can develop into a fully grown pile of detritus material.

[truthfreedom]

Also from “Rights” - page 11

“Hence some people urge that certain animals, at least, are “persons,” not property, and that they should have many of the legal rights that human beings have. Of course this does not mean that those animals can vote or run for office. Their status would be akin to that of children - a status commensurate with their capacities.” - Page 11

A good SNL sketch - fake game show, “Which is the person?”
The contestants would be Sustein, Holdren and Peter Singer from Princeton.

Show a slide of a dog. Sustein buzzes in. “Well, I’ve written that “certain animals, at least, are “persons” ... their status would be akin to that of children” so I’ll say yes, the dog is a person.” Audience boos. Big buzzer. Host - “I’m sorry, that is a dog. A dog is not a person. Have you been released recently from a mental institution?”

Sustein - “No”

Now, let’s meet our guests. What do you do?

I work for the Obama administration.

Phone rings.

I have some bad news for you Cass.

[shibumi]

The quotes you cite echo Pete Singer’s view that parents should be allowed to abort their children up to age five or six.

Fits nicely with the DeathCare premise that resources should be allocated to healthy people between 15 and 40, No?

[truthfreedom]

Singer’s the leader of em all - most famous etc. His ideas are crazy, he should be taken head on. He’s a discredit to Princeton, a discredit to the Ivy League, and a discredit to the idea that “elite” schools provide a superior education. It seems to me that Singer, Sustein and Holdren really help make the case that you learn bats**t crazy stuff in the Ivy League. Palin could say “If babies aren’t human beings and animals are persons is what they’re teaching at Harvard and Princeton, I’m glad I stayed far far away from those elite schools.”