My Take on Father Tad Pacholczyk's Spin on Stem Cells and Cloning

[ParanoiaDestroyah]

This is great, I'm doing a report for Biology on embryonic stem cell research, which includes Father Tad's stupid opinions. I just needed one religious drongo like him, perfect.

[yahooveritas]

Get off the pot dude. Fr. Pacholczyk is brilliant and you are just nuts!

[ThisIsIdiotAmerica]

@yahooveritas Ha, I think your comment is my favorite so far. It sounds like a comment I'd make on someone's video. However, I assure you that I am not on the pot, nor was I when I made the video. And I'm not sure if he's brilliant or not, but I do know that someone can have a brilliant mind yet preach things that are stupid and/or dangerous.

[frbloom]

I am very late stumbling on this entertaining video - and I appreciate your interest in Fr. Tad's presentation on stem cells and cloning.

One question: Regarding the comparison of the embryo as a 2X4 and an adult as a completed house: Wouldn't it be more accurate to compare the embryo to a construction crew with a full blue print in hand? All the embryo needs is food and oxygen to carry out its work.

[ThisIsIdiotAmerica]

@frbloom That would have been a lot harder to illustrate that with my limited graphics skills :) My analogy explains that a baby is more valuable/important than an embryo, so I'm pretty happy with it.

[frbloom]

@ThisIsIdiotAmerica So, is an adult more valuable/important than a child?

[ThisIsIdiotAmerica]

@frbloom Yes, obviously.

[JKRubicon6Speed]

Even if we disregard the fact that Fr. Tad as an undergraduate he earned degrees in philosophy, biochemistry, molecular cell biology, and chemistry. He earned a Ph.D. in neuroscience from Yale, where he focused on cloning genes for neurotransmitter transports expressed in the brain. He also worked as a

molecular biologist at Massachusetts General Hospital. We must still acknowledge the objective truth that people are not objects. Therefore houses, animals, technology... do not equal human life.

[ThisIsIdiotAmerica]

@JKRubicon6Speed Dr. Mengela was an esteemed doctor, and that sort of fact makes it easy to disregard the fact that Fr. Tad has a bunch of degrees. And yes, people are not objects. But embryos are. The analogy is sound.

[tallymarx]

Forgive me, I meant "embry-&-adult relation".

[ThisIsIdiotAmerica]

@tallymarx I'm pleased that you are so passionate, but I feel that you have misunderstood a lot of my points. Firstly, the 2x4 represents the earliest stage of an eventual house, like the embryo being the earliest stage of an eventual person. Secondly, I don't care how much education someone has. A lot of genocidal terrorists have impressive degrees from fantastic universities, yet they still are insane and are not contributing to the well-being of humanity (and are often religious extremists).

[tallymarx]

@ThisIsIdiotAmerica I respectfully believe that you have missed MY point, for a board is not the beginning of a house (under no circumstances will it ever become a house of its own accord) and there is nothing saying it will necessarily become a house, and not a balance beam, a table, or a jungle gym. An embryo has a set end (adult) and will reach that end of its own accord, with no maniuplating its DNA or composition.

[ThisIsIdiotAmerica]

@tallymarx Well then my metaphor has been lost on you. I guess I shouldn't expect a home-schooled 16 yr old to have the intellectual capacity quite yet to soak up the overall message based on analogy. Although I half-suspect that you're one of those annoying "saved" teenagers, so you probably only acknowledge a message if it's being cited from a bible anyhow.

[tallymarx]

@ThisIsIdiotAmerica I see the goal of your analogy. You wish to prove that the embryo is unlike an adult, in the same manner as a board does not equal a house. I'm merely saying that your analogy fails to grasp the complexity of the issue and therefore fails to adequately realize your goal. My age must obviously not inhibit my undertsnading of the issue too much if, legally, I could at this very moment attainan abortion if I so wished.

[ThisIsIdiotAmerica]

@tallymarx You being allowed to get an abortion doesn't have anything to do with your understanding of embryos. Legally I'm allowed to start a gator farm, but I sure don't know anything about farming gators. Not that politicians are usually right about anything, but the U.S. government via demand from its citizens says that abortions are legal for 16 yr olds, probably because teenagers are the ones who most need abortions. Anyway, I may have been wrong about you. Kudos on your abortion.

[tallymarx]

@ThisIsIdiotAmerica If 16yr olds, on a general level, were incapable of grasping the subject, abortion-on-demand would not be available to them. Therefore, you are attempting to judge me on an individual level. A truly ignorant decision, since you know me not & know my education not. You are in no position to make a viable decision. Are you much in the habit of doing such things? Talking about that which you know not, I mean? Nevermind this, however; we are straying from our original subject.

[ThisIsIdiotAmerica]

@tallymarx I usually talk not of which I know not but think not of which I believe not and presuming that I speak not while I tie knots... ok I'm bored of making fun of that. Anyway, I'm not judging you....BELIEVE me. People are always so vain that they think they're being judged. Who are you to be judged? People who think they are being judged are the ones judging everyone. I dont need to make a decision about you. We're both here to be entertained and/or try to shove our opinions on others.

[tallymarx]

@ThisIsIdiotAmerica I'm forced to re-word phrases in Old English, b/c of yt's word limit; I refuse to txt talk. :) No, I'm not vain; your comment came across as judging, and as you are so obviously judging in everything else you've said... I don't know about you, but I am here to learn.

[tallymarx]

@ThisIsIdiotAmerica We are not speaking of the moral fiber of Fr. Tad, and you are free to question that as you may. We are speaking, rather, of the reliability of his given facts; and--due to his impressive degrees--this reliability is very great. Also: assuming the embryo is fundamentally like you or I, well, you seem to treat that life flippantly. Do you simple assume that it's okay for someone to kill YOU under certain circumstances?

[ThisIsIdiotAmerica]

@tallymarx Yes, under certain circumstances it is ok to kill me. Self defense, death sentence for some terrible crime, etc etc. But that's a different conversation completely. Assuming I'm a law-abiding citizen, which I am, it is not ok to kill me, because I am currently a person. And must I really type out 50 examples of "smart" people with impressive degrees who have still been proven to be insane or idiotic throughout history? Doesn't George W. Bush have fancy degrees from Harvard and Yale?

[tallymarx]

@ThisIsIdiotAmerica No, I am not a Sola-Scriptura Protestant, thank you, as you are obviously not an unbiased and educated atheist. You would not, though, allow me to kill you if I merely wanted your kidney, as you would support the killing an embryo for stem cells? IF the embryo were fundamentally the same as you, why the difference in treatment? Why are the cases so extreme in number and circumstance (& lax in mercy) in which the embryo may be killed? Pray tell.

[tallymarx]

@ThiIsIdiotAmericaWhy do you not consider the embryo a "person" (very vague term, by the way)? What is a person? What makes a person? How do I know the embryo is not a person, but you are? A much more clearly defined, explainable term is "individual" or "being".You cannot define a person, & I suggest you try not. You will fail. If you find Fr. Tad unreliable, then YOU study his subject, get the degree yourself, & make an un-ignorant decision on the matter; since you are so objective & un-insane.

[ThisIsIdiotAmerica]

@tallymarx I never claimed to be objective. I never claimed to have or want a degree in neuroscience. All I've ever claimed is that I'm a guy with opinions, and my opinion on this particular subject is that embryos are not the same, and do not have the same value, as a living, breathing person...or even a fetus for that matter. And yes, a fetus has less value than the living/breathing person too. Also, by all counts, an athiest is a skeptic and is less biased than any person of religion.

[tallymarx]

@ThisIsIdiotAmerica You made out that Fr. Tad is not knowledgeable, however, and ridiculed him for being unable to be objective. Also: it's silly do have an opinion of something you know not. You act upon that opinion, and you are bound to fail, because your decision was made in ignorance. If your opinion is developed in ignorance, then keep it to yourself and do not challenge others and expect or ask for an intelligent argument. You won't be able to handle it when you get it.

[ThisIsIdiotAmerica]

@tallymarx I always seem to have to mention this to everyone who wants to argue... I never asked for an intelligent argument, or any argument for that matter. I posted a video because this is America and I am free to do so... people who I usually consider stupid choose to start commenting... I reply to their comments, they end up getting mad at me because I won't convert to their unreasonable way of thinking, and it goes on and on from there.

[tallymarx]

@ThisIsIdiotAmerica ...and you can ridicule them for yelling in caps, spelling like third graders, and making arguments that no one would see as reasonable. But no, you don't want an intelligent argument. Not at all.

[ThisIsIdiotAmerica]

@tallymarx At a certain point, you must realize that nobody is going to budge on their beliefs. When that happens, I personally start to get bored. That's when I start ridiculing the whole debate. Nothing productive can come from continuing the conversation, unless it helps one or both of us look deeper into the mind of someone who believes something very different. If you think that's the case for yourself, I will be happy to continue the conversation via messaging.

[tallymarx]

@ThisIsIdiotAmerica I like to debate in the hopes that something I say might seem reasonable to someone else, and that they might adopt it if it is to their benefit. I also debate to let others understand why I think the way I do. Likewise, I do the same in regard to others; I want to learn and get something from what they say. I believe we are on the same footing in this regard. Please message me if you have the time.

[tallymarx]

@IdiotUSA I don't want to hear your opinions any more than you wish to hear mine. I talk when the talk is meaningful, & if it is mere drivel, I discard it as such. Just because someone asserts something as a fact doesn't mean it is one. Please, tell me why you hold the opinions you do. yt's word limit is annoying, so feel free to message me. I will not judge you personally, but most atheists I know claim to be skeptic while in reality the facts they pretend to be studying r swept under the rug.

[ThisIsIdiotAmerica]

@tallymarx Furthermore, and I can't seem to be able to stress this enough. Even if an embryo is technically a human (a living human, no different fundamentally than you or I), it is still ok to "kill" that embryo under certain circumstances. I don't know why this is so hard to grasp. And yes, there is a massive pattern of those who completely disagree with me also being ultra-Christian fundamentalists.

[tallymarx]

5) The fallacy of your logic is that a board is not an individual being, a house is composed of a bunch of boards not a single board that grew into a house, and furthermore a house is not an individual being. Your example doesn’t fit. For it to fit, we adults would have to be composed of a bunch of embryos, the way a house is composed of a bunch of boards. House-&-Board deals with composition. Embryo-&-Human deals with time.

[tallymarx]

4) That said, to kill the embryo is the same as killing the embryo at an older stage (be that stage birth or 5 yrs or 90 yrs), because you are killing a single human individual. If I kill you at 5 it is no different from killing you at 80.  YOU are still YOU, no matter your age. You, as an individual being, have not changed. You are not a new being because you have aged a week or even a few years. YOU are YOU and have been from the moment on your existence; fertilization.

[tallymarx]

3) If you scoff at the idea that an embryo is a human individual and the same being at the moment of fertilization as it is at the age of birth, then you must likewise scoff at the idea that you are the same being that you were at the age of five. It's all a stage of development. Its being older or younger has no bearing on whether or not it is the same being.

[tallymarx]

1) He is a knowledgeable voice; he has a Ph. D. in neuro-science from Yale University and did post-doctoral research at Harvard Medical School.

2) "screw the people who are alive now"? Do you mean to say that the embryo is NOT alive? If this is your assertion, you must work at McDonald's. The life of the unborn is indeniable to someone who passed their 8th grade science class.

[jcp801]

Before Father Tad became a priest he earned a doctorate degree on neuroscience from Yale University. No idiot on the subject has that kind of education.

By the way. Your little two by four on the groung will never, even given the right circumstances grow into a fabulous house. A human embryo will.

[britius]

Fr. Tad is a priest, but he also has a PhD from Yale in neuroscience and post-grad work at Harvard. Go read his CV. How narrow-minded to discredit someone just because of his religious affiliation. I might be able to at least tolerate your argument if it wasn't filled with so many ad hominem arguments. His argument has nothing to do with emotional reactions to destroying an embryo, but whether or not the embryo (from a biological point) is a human being or not.

[mtmcc]

Fr. Tad does not say that killing an embryo is the same as killing a born human *in all ways*. He says that it is the same as killing a born human *in that it is the killing of a whole, individual human being*.

Thus, the house and 2x4 comparison is problematic. A plank is a part of a house, not a whole house, yet an embryo is a whole human organism, not a part of one. Yes, embryos are less developed than toddlers, but toddlers are less developed than adults. All have inalienable human rights.

[ThisIsIdiotAmerica]

Thanks for the comment. It's one of the few I've gotten which seem to have come from a literate person. I must disagree, of course. An embryo does not have all the same parts and pieces because those parts have not yet developed out of nothing, thus is not a entire human being. It's a few cells mashed together in the shape of something that resembles a tiny human...or a kidney bean. And, they don't all have the same rights, because I can go abort an embryo right now, but not a toddler or adult.

[mtmcc]

Glad to oblige.

Whether or not an embryo is a human being (organism) is a matter of mere science. Embryology textbooks settle it definitively. Moore, for example, writes "[The zygote], formed by the union of an oocyte and a sperm, is the beginning of a new human being." (Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology, 7th edition)

An embryo does not simply resemble a tiny human being. An embryo *is* one. Do you agree?

Whether such tiny humans deserve respect is certainly a different question.

[ThisIsIdiotAmerica]

I agree that a human embryo is an embryo of a human. It is not a baby, it is not a fetus, it's not a living person. Let's say you get hit by a bus and become a vegetable. You should be not alive, but hospital machinery and hoses and tubes keep you technically not dead. You don't feel pain and you have no cognizance. You don't know you exist. The only difference is that you WERE alive and are a grown human, and the law says we can't stop you from technically being not dead without a court order.

[ThisIsIdiotAmerica]

Also, I don't know who Moore is. But if it is indeed "...the beginning of a new human being," it still doesn't very well argue against my point. It is the beginning of a new human being, like a drop of water is the beginning of a lake (but itself isn't a lake) and a strand of thread is the beginning of a t-shirt (but itself isn't a t-shirt). Yea, usually my analogies are a little more creative, but it's been a long night and I'm kind of tired.

[mtmcc]

The lake and t-shirt analogies highlight the crucial issue. You have given me ways of thinking about the unborn and have said what they *potentially* are. I am asking you about what they *actually* are.

That said, are human embryos/fetuses not human beings yet, or are they human beings at an early stage of development? The distinction is very important; it must be settled before going into rights, personhood, et cetera.

(Props for knowing the difference between 'its' and 'its', btw.)

[ThisIsIdiotAmerica]

At this point we're probably talking semantics and stuff that would be settled by a dictionary and not reason and logic.

I believe that an embryo IS human, but is not A human. Much like if you found an ear on the ground after a knife fight or some other wacky event that would cause someone's ear to be unattached from them. That ear is human, but is not a human.

Wow, by now everyone usually resorts to calling me some horrible name and citing the bible or something because I'm disagreeable.

[mtmcc]

Haha, name-calling isn't productive to reasonable conversation.

Forgive me for insisting upon semantics -- it happens that semantics take lives now and then. They are not inconsequential. For example, women, Jews, and blacks have all been called "nonhuman" and "nonpersons" (or semi-persons) by various authorities in the past. As such, care must be given to what "humanity" includes and excludes.

As I mentioned before, the ear example confuses human parts with human individuals. Continued...

[mtmcc]

I agree, of couse, that human embryos are not adult/adolescent/infant human beings. They are, however, embryonic human beings. Recognizing essential differences between the development of organisms and the development of houses and t-shirts is very basic biology. Organisms are not put together. Given the appropriate nutrition and environment, they continuously grow into adulthood according to intrinsically-determined processes.

Opposition to abortion is founded on this basic biology.

[mtmcc]

The concept of inalienable human rights is the foundation of rational opposition to abortion.

Recognizing the humanity of the unborn does not rule out legal abortion. Peter Singer, for example, grants that the unborn are individual human beings -- and says we should kill them if we wish. He says the same about newborns because newborns lack sufficient brain development.

Under such regimes, however, inalienable human rights do not exist.

[ThisIsIdiotAmerica]

I have enjoyed debating with you. Unfortunately I don't expect either one of us really feels any different about the issue. If we're talking embryonic stem cells that are getting discarded anyway, why wouldn't we use them to help currently-living people who are going to die. If we're talking abortion, women have the right. Incest, rape, probable death of fetus or mother for whatever reason... it's a reasonable option. Killing newborns seems awfully outrageous to me though.

[mtmcc]

"...why wouldn't we use them to help currently-living people who are going to die" - Given the discussion we had, you ought to know the answer: Because biologically, embryos are currently living human beings as well--to say otherwise would be like saying the world is flat--and it's always wrong to kill innocent human beings.

"If we're talking abortion, women have the right." - They don't. If they do, then you must explain when one has the right to kill human beings.

[quigonjinnnn]

your a fucking retard. clone fucker

[ThisIsIdiotAmerica]

I appreciate your point of view, but I still tend to disagree with you.

Also, I love when people misspell words and write like a second grader would, while calling ME a retard. Do humanity a favor and abort yourself. It's not too late.

[quigonjinnnn]

excuse me for my misgivings. please for the love of raptor jesus forgive me. i seek your approval .

[quigonjinnnn]

"Do humanity a favor and abort yourself. It's not too late. " there is supposed to be a comma between those two sentences. HURHURR IM SMART. WHY, I'M AN INTERNET GRAMMAR TEACHER HURRHURR

[ThisIsIdiotAmerica]

Wrong again. The way I wrote it is grammatically correct.

I try not to make it a habit to be one of those silly "internet grammar teachers," but when I'm being called a retard by someone who is less smart than me, I just can't help but say something.

[quigonjinnnn]

also, i'm bit confused about the title of your little "segment"(i use this term VERY loosely). Do you mean to say "this is America idiot"? or "this is an America chock full of idiots" please clarify this for me.

[ThisIsIdiotAmerica]

I apparently have nothing better to do with my life, so I will respond to this also. The "chock full of idiots" version is pretty much spot on. If I have time I'll do some more, but my goal was to make a video that points out the idiotic things said or done by someone (in this case Fr. Tad), but more so I like to point out idiotic things that a frighteningly large number of Americans actually believe or could be convinced of. Those are really the idiots I'm referring to.

[quigonjinnnn]

i understand that christian "fundies" and rednecks give America a bad rap.

[2006s2r1000]

It is clear you are not without intelligence, but what is not clear is the motivation behind your attempt to slander a man who clearly speaks the truth. You may disagree with his point of view, but to compare a pre-born human life to a 2x4 is idiotic even in the eyes of those who would stand with you on this subject. Life has a soulwood doesnt. Think about it. You will roll your eyes, but what you need is prayer. I will pray for you, and you can bet that Fr. Tad will also be praying for you.

[ThisIsIdiotAmerica]

Pray for yourself. I hate when people say they will pray for me. That's the same as me saying to you, "I'll stare at a piece of toast for you." Why on Earth would I stare at a piece of toast for your sake? Sounds pretty stupid, eh? Well, it is stupid. Additionally, Father Tad is too busy figuring out how to rape Americans' civil rights to spend time praying for me.

[ThisIsIdiotAmerica]

And I might as well reply to the other part of your comment. It's not "slander" if I state that it is my opinion, which it is. I'm not asserting that anything I say about him personally is a fact.

[ThisIsIdiotAmerica]

However I do assert that he clearly does NOT speak the truth. I suppose you believe it is truth, but you also believe the world was created in 7 days, everyone in the world is an inbred child of Adam & Eve, and that children get cancer because "god works in mysterious ways." I envy your blind stupidity, because life would be a lot easier for me if I thought I knew everything about the universe. But alas, I know that I don't know much, and that makes it impossible to deal with people like you.

[Deadlift750]

His PhD is in neuroscience from Yale. His postdoctoral work is from Harvard. He is a very well published scientist. What are your scientific credentials?

[GonzoTheGreat3000]

Science is not philosophy, he has an entirely different philosophy of life than the vast majority of scientists do. He just happens to be wrong there because "God" is an illogical improbability.

[ThisIsIdiotAmerica]

If a lawyer with 30 years experience told you "Molesting orphans is perfectly legal." would you believe him too? Because he is obviously more of an expert on the law than you are. Screw your common sense, the lawyer said it's ok! Enjoy your orphans.