First "Pharming" Drug Approved
Dolly the sheep was cloned because the administrator Ian Wilmut, and the team that did the deed, hoped to create a herd of genetically altered sheep through cloning and inserting human genes that would result in the sheep producing milk containing properties that could be extracted and turned into medicine--a process dubbed "pharming." That enterprise failed financially and Wilmut went onto human cloning research before quitting that--good for him--to pursue induced pluripotent stem cell (IPSC) investigations.
Where Wilmut and team failed, a different group succeeded. The first medicine derived through pharming has received FDA approval. From the story:
U.S. health officials on Friday approved the first drug made using genetically engineered animals despite lingering concerns over health and environmental implications. The drug, GTC Biotherapeutics Inc's anti-clotting therapy Atryn, is an intravenous therapy made using a human protein gathered from female goats specially bred to produce it in their milk...
GTC's goats are bred using cells injected with human DNA in a process that it says is a cost effective way to produce human antithrombin, a natural protein to prevent blood from clotting. The company has a herd of about 200 at its Massachusetts facility that it says is otherwise normal and healthy.
The FDA looked at the impact of goats as they aged and reproduced. "We have looked carefully at seven generations of these (generically engineered) goats; all of them are healthy and we haven't seen any adverse effects," said Bernadette Dunham, head of the FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine.
Some worry that the goats could get into the food supply and object on ethical grounds to genetically engineering animals. I get the concern. However, it seems to me that if efficacious medicine can be obtained in this way more efficiently and productively than is otherwise available--assuming that proper safety precautions have been taken--it is a positive achievement. It could reduce the cost of medicine and make therapies available to relatively small patient groups because drug companies would find it easier to make a profit. I know many will disagree, but that sound you hear is me applauding.Labels: Pharming. FDA Approved Drug.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 2:47 PM
34 Comments
34 Comments:
Forgive me Mr Smith if you don’t hear any applause from me cause after all I do have my grade ten in Art, Science and Math and I know what I’m talking about! :)
All kidding aside, although a lot of good might be coming out of all this science I won’t be satisfied until I get to spiritual grade one material and God only knows when that will be but in the mean time, keep UP The Good Word and by the way I’ll give you a little applause but please don’t let “IT” swell your head.
I hear ya! What’s to forgive? :(
God Bless,
Peace
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO !!!!!!!!!! This is NOT good. It is messing with things we should not mess with. It involves cross-species genetic mixing, for heaven's sake! And on top of everything else yes they COULD end up in the food supply, and this kind of Frankenstinian "progress" is not only ghoulish, not to mention unwise, but in its way along the same lines. Cross-species mixing can't be good in one form and not in another. This shows no respect for the value of life as far as the goats, for example, are concerned, and that is a step along the road to having no respect for human life, which we've got serious problems with as it is! This will make things worse, not better. Who knows what interaction there may be between the cells and genes in the two species? This is like putting non-human animal parts into humans. When we get this arrogant naturally at the same time this kind of "progress" is being made human life is being devalued. The value of human life does not justify this and the results will not be what human exceptionalism greedily and with a narcissistic sense of entitlement hopes. It cannot be because it is against the laws of nature, against morality, and should be against the law as well. This is the kind of thing, utilitarian at its core, that puts human exceptionalism on the same page with Singerism.
It's the same concept as bestiality and interbreeding humans and apes. It's WRONG, and it's stupid in its wrongness. It might seem like a good idea, but utilitarian things sometimes do. Human exceptionalism follows the Judaeo-Christian concept of man being in the image of God, and if God created man, wouldn't God also have created everything man needs in nature? This is NOT natural. And no, God having given us the ability to do this does not mean that it's right. God made us capable of stupidity and evil and capable of free will, right? God made us capable of Auschwitz and a whole lot of other things human exceptionalism abhors that were considered to "make things better" and were justified by the same philosophy of "what we are capable of makes us better" and of just plain arrogance and entitlement.
Now, I don't subscribe to the Judaeo-Christian doctrine and the concept of man being made in the image of God, which I think are the root of the decline, not the advancement, of civilization and progress and valuing of life. But according to human exceptionalism, that's a valid tradition, and if it justifies, according to human exceptionalism, this kind of thing, am I ever glad I've rejected it. This is not unlike animals we use as pets that end up in shelters ending up in pet food, and cattle, which are hardly carnivores, being fed feed that includes other animals, and ending up with mad cow disease.
What makes humans so special and entitled as to justify this kind of thing? Only according to ourselves, a doctrine we ourselves created. Gods say we can do it? Who says God says so? Anyone seen any Mosesean phenomena lately? The kind of arrogance that even would have thought of this is the same kind that has abandoned the Hippocratic Oath and created utilitarianism and "medical futility" and delegated "ethics" to "ethics committees" and "bioethics," which it did as an excuse to proceed with the unethical.
This is yet another example of the inconsistency and circular reasoning of "human exceptionalism." If we're so smart, and have reverence for life, we can certainly do better than THIS. It's like watching a disturbed child with an "experimental" bent play with matches or torture the family pet and saying look what a bright kid boy is s/he ever going to do great things one day. Because after all, it's one's own kid. WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG !!!!!!!!!! WRONG!!!!! RIGHT DOES NOT COME OUT OF WRONG!!!!! It's SIMPLE!!!!! How could SHS not understand it better than the marmalukes who thought this, this, there isn't even an adequate word for it, up do? Whoever thought of it and is doing it should be in JAIL!
As you can see I think it's a really, really bad idea. It's horrifying.
And just look at that adorable goat. Does he or she want our genes? Let alone need them? Does no one sense what is wrong with messing with his/her genes and using him not as what he is, but perverting any of his kind into some kind of "useful" monster for our own "good"? It's not good, it's the road to our own ruin. When we disrespect the integrity of his/her goatness, we disrespect our own. When we disrespect his/her soul, we lose our own.
What do we want to be, Pan? Yeah, well, it does seem as if taking this road reflects the concept that we're everything, which into the bargain leaves nothing left over for anyone else. Pan, half-man, half-goat, was an ugly creature, representative of less than the best of man. And this is what these "geniuses" want to create, and what SHS is qvelling over. It's going backwards, not forwards. Mark my words.
Sorry for the serial comments but I just caught something at the end of the section that I missed before: This is good because one of its benefits could be SAVING COST? What does THAT sound like? The same utilitarianism that is the basis of "futile care" theory. On which side of the death culture divide does utilitarianism reside?
Since I'm of the "animals are to be cared for and used" persuasion, I don't really care if we're respecting the goat's wishes, assuming it has one more complicated than "food!"
This is highly interesting, and I hope good comes of it-- although I'd rather they found something that would mimic the human protein without human DNA.
Foxfier: I disagree. That goat wants to be a goat, and only a goat, just as much as we want to be human, and only human. Whether or not s/he has thought processes that can analyze the issue is irrelevant, and we don't really know what goes on in the head of a goat or any other animal; we don't even know what's really going on in the head of another human. But the goat has a right to be a goat just as we have a right to be human, and just as much as the goat has a right to want food, just as we have a right to want food. What we don't have is a right to turn the goat into something that contains our own DNA. At that point the guy who wants to interbreed apes and humans has a right to do that, too. The goat doesn't deserve it, and neither, in any sense, do we.
Lanth- if you think most humans want to be human and only human, you need to get out more.....
we don't really know what goes on in the head of a goat or any other animal
Which makes your assumption that they'll want what you think they'll want more than a bit offensive, no?
What we don't have is a right to turn the goat into something that contains our own DNA
What we don't have is a right to turn the goat into some extension of our human desires. Your projection of human desires is, if we assume a goat personhood, no less offensive than the assumption of a lack of desire.
For example: the classic "sins of the father" where you prosecute someone for the wrongs done by their biological father.
Foxfier: You're all over the place here, and not being logical.
Of course humans want to be human and not some other animal, and other animals want to be what they are as well. Every creature wants to be, and to be is to be what one is.
It has nothing to do with what I think they want to be, and it's hardly offensive to state the obvious.
Putting our DNA into a goat IS turning the goat into some extension of our human desires. I said nothing about a goat having personhood.
You're talking about assumptions, keep saying offensive, talking about projection, throw in a biblical reference, and you're making assumptions, perhaps offended by a position different than your own, and projecting onto me what you assume incorrectly that I'm saying, and the "sins of the father" reference just doesn't follow.
All: Just look at that adorable goat. That chain around its neck, the bars the goats' heads are between, the blue tag on the other goat, are in quite some contrast to the beauty of the animal and to its natural state, and consider how the COD is treating humans and their rights, as opposed to their rights under the laws of nature, today. The goats are putting up with it because they have no choice; why people are putting up with what the COD is doing is a question.
Lanthe-
Of course humans want to be human and not some other animal, and other animals want to be what they are as well.
Based on what? I know humans who don't want to be human, which disproves your assumption-- in addition, large portions of this very site deal with the trans-humanist movement.
Just because you happen to want to be the species you are doesn't mean you get to project that desire on everyone, let alone that you get to enforce it.
Since you seem to be enamored of logic, let's follow your argument.
You assume the goat is able to have existential desires, which means that the goat must be able to comprehend that it is a goat, which would mean it is self-conscious.
That would be personhood.
Thus, your assumption without evidence that the goats not only have the ability to desire to be goats, but that they want to be goats is projecting personhood and your own desire to be the species you are, all in one fell swoop.
There is someone making assumptions and who is all over the place logically, but it isn't me.
PS-
"look, how cute" is not a logical argument any more than "who cares, goats stink" is a logical rebuttal.
Foxfier: You are projecting your own version of what you are claiming I said onto me; I am not projecting anything onto the goat, merely describing what is part of the essence of every being, no matter what it is, which in this case happens to be a goat. (Not to mention an adorable one, and as I regard aesthetics as a primary index of what matters most, that it is adorable is hardly irrelevant. What can be evaluated in aesthetic terms does not exist for no reason.)
Existentialism does not come into this. I'm talking about the right of every creature to be what it is and not to have the parameters according to which Nature designed it as a member of a particular species tampered with. I said that every creature wants to BE, according to the natural order of things, which encompasses the desire to live, and that to be is to be what one is. A goat is a goat, and therefore a goat's desire to live encompasses its desire to be a goat, whether or not it is able to know that it is a goat in philosophical terms.
We know a that goat desires to live because, for example, as you noted, a goat wants to eat. You are talking about projecting existential conceptualization into a goat's mind. By nature, a creature's life force, energies, and desires are exercised in the direction of being, which involves being what it is. I do not think that a goat is capable of understanding that a human wants to infect it with human DNA; if, for the sake of argument, however, a goat could understand that while all other things about the goat remained in the natural, normal state of a goat, I think its own instinct would rebel against the notion, just as a human's would against being infected with the DNA of another animal.
You're being abstruse and alleging assumptions, projections, and arguments that I did not make, whether because your own conception of the proper role of animals is, in your own mind, at variance with what you perceive and assume to be mine or for whatever other reason. You've even just projected your own being all over the place, attributization of concepts not involved with my comment, assumptions, and lack of logic onto me.
I don't know any humans who don't want to be human, though, as we all do, I know plenty of humans who don't act like what common parlance calls "human beings." People do say from time to time, "oh, I wish I were a (such and such other creature) with regard to the wish to have the advantage of the benefits of being that creature (e.g. strength, speed, freedom, not being burdened by the responsibilities humans must bear, ability to fly, etc.), but I don't know anyone who, to my knowledge, actually would want to be that creature in reality and give up the attributes they have as a human, and only a human. Perhaps some people actually do, and perhaps you know some of them, but I don't know any. It would be interesting to hear about the people you have mentioned.
As for trans-speciesism, for whatever their reasons, some people apparently are interested in it, but SHS opposes the notion, as I do, in its discussion of them and their hobbyhorse. If human exceptionalism is a valid theory and humans are exceptional, as for instance in terms of having, along with free will and the ability to choose whether to do right or wrong, the capability to conceptualize about such things and desire to be other than what they are, all the more reason to leave the other creatures, who are not and cannot be willing participants, alone. Just because we have the ability to choose whether we do right or wrong does not mean that we have the right to do wrong.
Human exceptionalism also bows to the supremacy of the laws of nature when it endorses the notion that humans should be human, not the product of trans-species antics which human exceptionalism opposes. Human exceptionalism decries those things which interfere with the right of each human being to exist, as that human being was created to exist, and opposes the trend in the direction of allowing "choice" of no matter what, with no one allowed to refuse to indulge that choice, in a society bereft of moral standards. Human exceptionalism endorses, on the grounds that they are moral, some things that I hold are not moral, of course, but nevertheless, in terms of morality as a standard, human exceptionalism and I agree about trans-speciesism, which I consider this notion of putting human DNA into goats to be, and human exceptionalism does not; my objection to human exceptionalism is that it is utilitarian in endorsing what it considers useful to human that is in an absolute sense unethical and immoral, and fails to consider that the results of doing that are not and cannot be, in the long run, beneficial to us. I don't just object to putting human DNA into a goat, which as far as I'm concerned is against the laws of nature and immoral, because the goat has a right to be as nature intended it to be; I also object to it because of the negative consequences it has for humans, in a number of ways, and in this respect I find the doctrine of human exceptionalism self-contradictory, short-sighted, and utilitarian, which concerns me because that circular dynamic is based in utilitarianism just as is the COD, is not logical, ignores the requirements of humanity in more than one sense, and weakens its ability to defeat the COD, on the same team with whom it thus puts itself, while precluding itself from having the participation and support of many who otherwise would join it, add numbers to its ranks, increase its resources, and strengthen its voice and its effectiveness in its opposition to the COD.
You have ignored the statement that "Just look at that adorable goat" introduces, and the logic conveyed in that paragraph.
"It's just a goat, who cares, goats stink anyway."
"It's just an old lady, she's had her life, we need to free up that bed and that ventilator and not use resources on her that should be used for a younger person."
"It's just a guy in a wheelchair, he can't do anything, why keep him alive, we're spending tax money on disability benefits for him, he's not going to get up and run a marathon or contribute to society, and what can he do about it anyway."
"She's just lying there, she's in a coma, she's in a pvs, she's brain dead, she doesn't know what's going on, her family is just imagining that she has any awareness because they can't be objective and they're not doctors, after all, they think that tomorrow she's just going to sit up and start talking to us, it's wishful thinking on their part that she's still alive, sure she means something to them but what can she contribute to society and why use resources on her, the husband should be able to get on with his life, the father shouldn't have to bear this expense and neither should the government, look at her, she's just a vegetable, not a person,
she can't hear anything, she can't do anything, she can't sense anything, why make her suffer like that (note the words just before this), no, she's not suffering, but what kind of quality of life is that, why keep giving her what sustains her life, that isn't life, let's make her dead."
"We're doctors and scientists, we know best."
GOD BLESS YOU ELUANA AND EVERY OTHER VICTIM.
"He's brain dead, the ethics committee has met, the family has agreed, young, healthy, time to harvest his organs." And then in the nick of time he sits up and it turns out he's heard everything the whole time. Texas, young guy had been in a motorcyle accident, not long ago, it was all over the news for a week.
Doctor declares in affidavit before the appellate court that patient is "beyond all medical certainty" brain dead, says otherwise a few hours later to a patient's chosen health care proxy that the hospital has had pushed aside by a court, a week later declares in affidavit before the appellate court that patient is not brain dead but most certainly does not have an infection, then tells patient's daughter it might be an infection and has team investigating that, eventually hospital succeeds in deliberate murder of the patient.
"It's just a goat, goats smell." "It's just a guy in a wheelchair, what good is he." "It's just an old lady, she's had her life." "The ethics committee has considered it and made a determination." "Organ harvest." "Pvs, coma." "Pvs patients often seem to be crying, but we don't know why." "No we won't try that treatment for pvs." "We know what we're doing, we're scientists and doctors, we're here to help humanity." "I wouldn't be surprised if she doesn't make it through the night, well, have to go pick up my daughter at 6:15." "I'm board certified and you're not." "It's just a goat, and this is to help humans."
"Of course we have the right to do this. Human quality of life is the most important thingh."
(More than one doctor, talking to a a patient whose mother wants to remain alive:) "Well, my mother said she would not want to be on life support." This is how well they're capable of thinking. And we've let them get away with what they have with humans, and now we want to let them put our DNA into goats and put the hybrid product back into us? If goats didn't show more intelligence, whether or not a goat is capable of thought beyond "I want to eat," than we have, SHS wouldn't be necessary. Eluana and Terry Schiavo arsn't the only human beings I know of who have obviously "wanted to eat" and have hydration, and/or breathe, even through a tube in the stomach, i.v., a vent/trach, etc. and regardless of their state, and regardless of what "the doctors," "the hospital," courts, legislatures, ethics committees, family members, spouses, etc., said.
By the way, the famous cases (Terry Schiavo, Eluana, for example) involve young women. Cases with male children and infants. The young man in Texas was an organ harvest candidate. I know of more than one instance in which "my mother was on a vent and wanted to continue to live but they disconnected her anyway, and she didn't even have a 'living will.'" But how often do we hear about these things when the person involve is a man?
Until more recently, women, young and old, were regarded as less significant than men and useful to society only in terms of their ability to bear and raise children and care for others. (Now, of course, the utilitarian attitude toward them has extended to their being expected to bring in a salary as well. And take a look at the pharmaceutical ads in magazines in doctors' waiting rooms: "She's back on her feet again, able to function.") The attitude of human society toward women has been utilitarian and devaluing for a long, long time,and the attitude persists.
It's not long since women started to be "liberated" (how not long is evident in the way a lot of them vote based on the candidate's hair, and the example of, say, Pelosi; the evolutionary process of this advance in terms of rights is hardly complete); the women's rights, civil rights, animal rights, and now environmental rights movement belong to a spectrum, and human exceptionalism wants the line drawn and held between rights as they apply to human v. non-human, but the whole question is much more complex than that position allows, viz. the above, and "status" is not the correct criterion to include in the equation, or even the issue. We think in terms of status when it should not be the issue, or under consideration at all. Making it relevant in terms of human v. non-human animals is the same kind of thinking that considers it in terms of human right to life.
And, "Of course we have the right to do this" applies both to "We have the right to experiment on non-human animals" (the Nuremberg Code was supposed to put a stop to "we have the right to experiment on humans, but it hasn't, in fact) and to "Of course we have the right to pull the plug and withdraw life support" (bioethics, the ethics committee, the courts, the legislature, the person's own living will, the way we were taught (and not taught; no we don't have to take the Hippocratic Oath any more, that's old stuff, we're more advanced than that now, this is the 20th-21st century, what Hippocratic oath (and that's just an old person who's lived their life; ours and our interests are what count), I'm board certified and you're not; ...and I am never, ever, sick at sea; when someone goes into that chapel and prays for their loved one in surgery, who do you think they're praying to? You want to know where God was? He was in operating room number such and such; you ask if I have a God complex, let me tell you something, I AM God) -- they all confirm it).
Right. It's just a goat. A non-human animal, the kind science has used to make the "medical advances that benefit mankind" which we crave and that doctors are trained by performing vivisection on. That's the line of thinking that LED TO it's just an old lady, a guy in a wheelchair, a vegetable, a foetus, a baby whose mother is entitled by law to abort it, a useful organ donor, a useful embryo... Yes, interbreeding an ape with a human, that would be interesting, let's try that. After all, we can put the head of one dog on another, and every so often someone needs a new face, that's why we're doing it, of course, we've very excited about putting the head of a dog on a cow, no, the public wouldn't want to see what goes on in the laboratory, but we're doing it for their sake...No, the ape can't consent to the experiment, but let's give them rights anyway.
Like it's hard to blow that kind out utilitarianism out of the water on sheer logic, and like human exceptionalism needs to talk about relative status, which isn't even the salient issue, and regard non-human animals, plants, and the environment as if they were some sort of threat deliberately storming the barricades of civilization. The focus belongs on where human exceptionalism misses the points most crucial to achieving its most important end, defeating the death culture, because it's easier to defeat the COD when one has those who also value life on one's own team, rather than regarding them as threats which they are not, and it's not as difficult to defeat those who really are a threat via logic when all the energy is devoted to that, rather than to what is unnecessary and counterproductive.
Utilitarianism, as just noted, wants to be able to claim basically, that no one has rights except in the terms and within the framework it chooses itself, and when it suits itself. These guys (and Lord have mercy, some of course are women as well) are all getting paid, salaries, honoraria, publishing advances and residuals, lecture fees, grants, etc. SHS OPPOSES utilitarianism and the COD of which utilitarianism is part, doesn't it? The marmalukes that thought up this goat thing are getting paid, TOO, and if they don't keep thinking up new forms of "advances" to "develop," however obscene, they STOP getting paid. CUI BONO? No, it's not us, and of course it's not the goat, and surely "human exceptionalism" and SHS can perceive to whom it REALLY is intended to be "as a good." What kind of people do you think really are willing to spend their time in laboratories with rodents, all the attendant unpleasantness of a laboratory environment, even smelly goats? THEY CAN'T MAKE A LIVING DOING ANYTHING ELSE!!! AND WE FALL FOR IT. Some of us do, anyway. Too many, or Eluana wouldn't be about to die a horrible death involving suffering that these "dedicated servants of humanity" vaunt themselves on "toiling" to create "medical advances" in order "to end human suffering." There's a bridge for sale in Brooklyn, too. And a whole lot of people have bought it. But it hasn't moved from where it was, and there are plenty of people who can read the whole thing with their eyes closed.
And yes, it is an adorable goat. Those who deserve applause are those who understand that when our eyes and our hearts instantly tell us that, and when we see the difference between using that goat for food, cheese, mohair, a zodiacal symbol, etc., and put its head between bars and a chain on it and a blue tag on it, and it puts up with it, but it doesn't feel right, and it doesn't seem like a good idea to put our DNA into it and then put the product back into ourselves, that's enough to tell us that if we ignore the sensory information Nature gave us for good reason just as Nature created both the goat and us, we're on the wrong track, which is confirmed by our being able to read on the same day about Eluana's plight, and our ability to draw an apt logical conclusion from both those things occurring simultaneously. There's no need to get all fancy about it; the most important things are very simple.
(Above, I was not referring to the goat, but to us, when I said, "but it doesn't feel right." It may not, and probably doesn't, feel right to the goat, either, but that's another aspect of the scenario; I was talking about humans there.)
And I'm sure Eluana is smelly sometimes, too. Gee, why respect her right to be, in whatever state she is, and gee, why not use her for experimentation. And if goats are smelly, while we may be able to overlook that when we use them for meat, milk, cheese, mohair, a zodiacal symbol, keeping our lawns grazed down, even pets, why do we want to put our DNA into them, and put a product that's partly them into ourselves? Likewise with pigs. The laboratories are smelly, too. The smelliness of the goat, just its adorableness tells us something, does also tell us something: In a nutshell, the whole thing stinks.
Victor: "I hear ya!" about spiritual grade one material.
Foxfier: I'm not in disagreement with you about animals we use for for food being, obviously, to be cared for and used. But I believe their integrity as the species they are is to be respected. In this society, we don't do cannibalism, and the prevailing trend in nature is that other species tend to eat species other than themselves, as well. When we go down this road, not only do we risk damage to our own DNA and bodies, human DNA ending up in the food supply, etc. but we open the door to taking more liberties with experimentation on humans. Once we fail to respect the integrity of the other species, we end up failing to respect the integrity of another, just as science and medicine now treat humans more callously, with ethics abandoned via delegation to "ethics committees" designed to facilitate and obscure that abandonment, and human life with less respect, as a result of the tradition of experimentation on non-human animals which was supposed to "help" us and undertaken and justified because, as it is claimed, "what works on them may work on us." There is already experimentation in eugenics in "designing" a baby; down this road is also "Well, I want it to have Mary's eye color and Joe's hair color, let's see what we can do with a little genetic material from each of them." Stepford wives, Stepford goats, Stepford babies...I don't care for the concept, and neither do most people. But when we want the benefits, we don't think about the potential costs, when we allow our own greed, a sense of entitlement, a sense of superiority, lack of honesty and logic, and being in a state of denial, all of which are among the hallmarks of narcissism, to determine our actions, and narcissism has a way of leading to downfall.
Brevity: the soul of wit.
Oops, I left out arrogance, selfishness, lack of respect, lack of self-respect, refusal to acknowledge that rules apply, and the kind of stupidity that accompanies being "talented," "bright" and often even "genius," among other things, when I mentioned narcissism just now. These things...these things...we gotta consider 'em.... Because they have consequences...
*takes Lanthe's mirror and unsubscribes*
Foxfier: You can snipe all you wish, but you haven't proven able to do more than that, and you still haven't said anything substantial, or been able to address the logic of that paragraph that began with the "adorable goat, or for that matter told us about those you know who want to be other than human. They say, of course, that one can judged by the company one keeps... Me, I'd rather spend time with humans who are happy to be humans and good at it, or with non-human animals who are what they are and express no desire to be other than what they are, and do just fine as what they are, than with people who would rather not be human. But as I said, it would be interesting to hear, and relevant to SHS in some way, I'm sure, to hear about the people you were talking about. In the meantime, I see a quote, I see brevity, but I don't see any original wit there.
Foxfier: It's Ianthe, by the way. And please tell us about these people you know who prefer not to be humans. I'll check back tomorrow to read about them.
Nor is "wit" the objective of SHS and its blogs, as far as I know; far too important things are at stake.
Ianthe and Foxfier: Let's back off on the heat a little. Thank you.
Go Figure! The Lord does work in mysterious ways and I was just thinking about you.
As a matter of fact I was thinking of visiting your blog and commenting there but you've been keeping me busy over here. The thing to remember is not to get some of these alien cells UPSET because it just burnt their insides when they start thinking that we are right and I think that Wesley is only trying to remind us
of that on occasions.
With God's Help I cool myself down by visiting some deep good Christian Blog and go figure God just materialized a few of them now for me so here they are.
Saint Paul please pray for me sinner vic as we are all ONE BODY IN CHRIST.
God Bless,
Peace
Saint Jerome, please pray for me, sinner vic.
Let's never forget that hatred breaths hatred but other than that well I guess "IT's" all free from there.
I could go on and on but not as electrifying as you. Nevertheless, I'll leave it at this for now and try visiting your blog soon.
You do have one, I hope?
This I forget to mention your name
"Ianthe" :)
Wesley: Gladly. My request to hear about the people who would prefer not to be human is sincere; I am genuinely curious.
Victor: That is so nice of you. I wouldn't even know how to make a blog. I am glad that SHS exists, and grateful that the opportunity to comment here exists. I hope that more and more people do comment here; more and more certainly are visiting SHS, about a thousand more a day just in the last week, it looks like, but perhaps many do not even click on to the comments section. Yet.
For the record, I was not being sarcastic cause I really did not know that you didn't have a blog.
When and if you ever decide to get one, please let me know cause I'll definitely want to read it.
God Bless,
Peace
Wesley and Foxfier: I had a typo/botched change/correction in there, above, as often; I didn't mean "projecting your own being," it was supposed to be "projecting your own assumptions, (etc.)"
Victor: I know you weren't being sarcastic and I really do mean that that is so nice of you. If I did, I wouldn't be taking up all this space here. I don't think there could be a better forum for discussion by those concerned with the issues it presents for consideration than SHS is for the subject matter at hand. I hope a lot of other people comment here and that their comments swamp mine. The topics and issues presented for consideration and discussion by SHS are of life-and-death importance and deserve paramount attention, and I hope that more and more people find those who share SHS's concerns find and learn from one another here and are able to figure out a way to speak up loud and clear with a huge unified voice so that the culture of death can be stopped in its tracks. It's my impression that that's part of what Wesley had in mind when he created this wonderful site.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home