For those that want God out of the White House....

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

Quote

Look at Kerry, Roman Catholic, but for abortion rights. A person's morality and belief system is individualized.

Actually, No. That is incorrect -

He said that he was against abortion, PERSONALLY, but was for it POLITICALLY.

Yeah - I thought it was an oxymoron too.

I don't. That shows respect for what the majority of the people support these days. That is a good politician doing his job, listening to the people and representing them despite his own religious views.

The statement makes me respect him more than fear his religious convictions. I can't say as much about the opponent.

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

embryonic stem cell research requires the unnecessary termination of a human life

Whoa...where the hell did you get that idea? No one is going around aborting fetuses for stem cells. There are already existing stores of stem cells that researchers are banned from using by Bush. And stem cells cannot be collected from abortions that are ocurring whether or not stem cell research exists, not to mention they are banned from collecting them from medically necessary abortions as well.

Quote

I guess that might encourage personal responsibility and accountability especially when you’re a public figure in the spotlight. Sometimes, adults need to be told to “grow up” just like kids.

When a child misbehaves do you bankrupt them for the rest of their lives? Since when did the gov't become our parent, anyway?

Quote

Of course, you’d want the money you’re spending on others to also be in your interest.

Except it's not his money, it's our money. And WE as a society have not outlawed abortion. So whose interests is he serving? His own, or the collective will of the public?

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

You don't like Bush, don't vote for him. That's why we have an electoral system and not monarchy. He was voted in (barely), so that is what a majority of the electoral college wanted, a 'tyrant'. If that isn't what the population wants now, he won't be re-elected.

Trust me, I won't be voting for him. But you're takign a simplistic view of things. Most dictators started out with the popular support of the people. That doesn't mean that their actions were right, or in our case, constitutional.

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Quote

You don't like Bush, don't vote for him. That's why we have an electoral system and not monarchy. He was voted in (barely), so that is what a majority of the electoral college wanted, a 'tyrant'. If that isn't what the population wants now, he won't be re-elected.

Trust me, I won't be voting for him. But you're takign a simplistic view of things. Most dictators started out with the popular support of the people. That doesn't mean that their actions were right, or in our case, constitutional.

And they also started out doing good in the country they were in - hence the 8 year rule - with a 1/2 way clause if we really don't like them.

It takes along time to become a "Dictator"

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Whoa...where the hell did you get that idea? No one is going around aborting fetuses for stem cells. There are already existing stores of stem cells that researchers are banned from using by Bush. And stem cells cannot be collected from abortions that are ocurring whether or not stem cell research exists, not to mention they are banned from collecting them from medically necessary abortions as well.

That’s not what I said. What I said was that some people, as is the case with me, believe that, in the absence of facts proving otherwise (as is the case today), life begins at conception.” Therefore, I don’t believe that it has to grow to the stage of a fetus before it is considered a human life. Harvesting embryonic stem cells from human embryos causes their death and, therefore, terminates a human life.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

When a child misbehaves do you bankrupt them for the rest of their lives? Since when did the gov't become our parent, anyway?

Of course not. However, it's assumed that you'll grow up after childhood. We're supposed to become more mature and take on personal responsibility. You're right. The government isn't our parent. A parent, as with a child who is hopefully still learning how to act, might cut you some slack.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Harvesting embryonic stem cells from human embryos causes their death and, therefore, terminates a human life.

Again, that's still based on a religious belief which was the point of this discussion, but I'll accept that in deference to your beliefs and stipulate that embryos shouldn't be farmed for the purpose of gathering stem cells. But why is it banned when the embryo is going to be, or has been, aborted anyway?

[Zenister 0]

Quote

That’s not what I said. What I said was that some people, as is the case with me, believe that, in the absence of facts proving otherwise (as is the case today), life begins at conception.” Therefore, I don’t believe that it has to grow to the stage of a fetus before it is considered a human life.

not at all, we've been over this before.

Until it can survive in the environment that the rest of its species occupies, it is not an independent, functional member of that species and is not granted the same rights as one.. those are facts... you might not like them, they might not align with your beliefs, but they are repeatedly, demonstratablly true. Until it can fulfill the most basic functions common to all members of a species, it only has the [I]potential[/I] to be a member of that species.

Legislation otherwise is completely based on belief and religion, not on facts and science, poor methods of governance no matter what religion does it…

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Again, that's still based on a religious belief which was the point of this discussion, but I'll accept that in deference to your beliefs and stipulate that embryos shouldn't be farmed for the purpose of gathering stem cells.

Why must the belief that life begins at conception be completely religious in nature?

Quote

But why is it banned when the embryo is going to be, or has been, aborted anyway?

That still doesn’t make it right, hence, the medical ethical dilemma.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

not at all, we've been over this before.

Until it can survive in the environment that the rest of its species occupies, it is not an independent, functional member of that species and is not granted the same rights as one.. those are facts... you might not like them, they might not align with your beliefs, but they are repeatedly, demonstratablly true. Until it can fulfill the most basic functions common to all members of a species, it only has the [I]potential[/I] to be a member of that species.

Legislation otherwise is completely based on belief and religion, not on facts and science, poor methods of governance no matter what religion does it…

Just because we've discussed this before doesn't make your viewpoint any more valid. Also, your opinion isn't "the facts." It's just that...your opinion.

[Zenister 0]

no i can prove my 'opinion' again and again, as can anyone else that cares to test it under controlled circumstances.. that is the difference between where i draw the line and where you do, my definition can be backed up with scientific evidence. Hence it is a 'fact' until the evidence proves otherwise..

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Why must the belief that life begins at conception be completely religious in nature?

Because the debate isn't about life, it's about human life and sentience which is based on religion. The only argument that fetuses shouldn't be aborted is based on the assumption that it is a human with a soul. Otherwise you'd be trying to ban farming because it kills plants. There is no non-religious argument against abortion.

Quote

That still doesn’t make it right, hence, the medical ethical dilemma.

Doesn't make it right, why? What non-religious based argument is there that experimenting with existing stem cells is wrong?

[peregrinerose 0]

Quote

Until it can survive in the environment that the rest of its species occupies, it is not an independent, functional member of that species and is not granted the same rights as one.. those are facts... you might not like them, they might not align with your beliefs, but they are repeatedly, demonstratablly true. Until it can fulfill the most basic functions common to all members of a species, it only has the potential to be a member of that species.

Completely off topic now, but...

So explain late term abortion. Compare to a premature birth. A 6 month term baby can either survive birth and become a normal adult (especially with neonatal tech as it is now) or that same 6 month fetus can be aborted. The only difference is whether the mother wants it or not. That's not religion, that is science.

Also, no infant is an independent, functional member of our species, it is extremely dependent upon the parents. So does that mean that infanticide should also be legal?

I don't know where the line between life and non-life is. I do know that most of our senses are learned prior to birth due to pre-birth experiences (vision being the only exception since there is no in-utero visual stimuli). I know that fetuses do respond to external effects, music, etc. They can move from a very early gestational period. Some of the newer in-utero photos are truly amazing.

In a few years, when science does determine one way or another when life begins, if it is far earlier than birth, do we just say 'oops, sorry' to all those infants that were aborted?

I don't have all the answers, no one does. And that is the most important thing to understand when taking a stance on abortion, there are no absolutes from a scientific standpoint. We are making an ethical decision on limited information, so how can any decision like that truly be proved right/wrong?

Jen

Do or do not, there is no try -Yoda

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Quote

Why must the belief that life begins at conception be completely religious in nature?

Because the debate isn't about life, it's about human life and sentience which is based on religion. The only argument that fetuses shouldn't be aborted is based on the assumption that it is a human with a soul. Otherwise you'd be trying to ban farming because it kills plants. There is no non-religious argument against abortion.

Quote

That still doesn’t make it right, hence, the medical ethical dilemma.

Doesn't make it right, why? What non-religious based argument is there that experimenting with existing stem cells is wrong?

I disagree on a medical - not spiritual basis -
I am worried that viris worse than waht we have now can be and will be produced as a by product of the experiments. Here's a thought - we have more than 30000 embryos already there - nothingtha Bush has helped legislate has prevented any of those to be discarded. Why don't we use them? The ban wasn't on the reasearch - it was on the farming.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[pajarito 0]

Quote

no i can prove my 'opinion' again and again, as can anyone else that cares to test it under controlled circumstances.. that is the difference between where i draw the line and where you do, my definition can be backed up with scientific evidence. Hence it is a 'fact' until the evidence proves otherwise..

So you know and can scientifically prove when life actually begins?

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

I am worried that viris worse than waht we have now can be and will be produced as a by product of the experiments.

And that is based on your extensive medical knowledge? Are there ANY experts that have expressed that opinion?

Quote

nothingtha Bush has helped legislate has prevented any of those to be discarded. Why don't we use them?

Right, he didn't order that they be discarded. But he did order that they not be used. That's why they are not being used. Why did he order that?

[turtlespeed 226]

NO - but - neither is it of yours that it won't/can't happen.

Every advancement in medical history affects life as we know it.

I won't spell this correctly - "Achems Razor" I read some material about this effect - it makes perfect sense.

Quote

Right, he didn't order that they be discarded. But he did order that they not be used. That's why they are not being used. Why did he order that?

That is not how I understood it to be.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Because the debate isn't about life, it's about human life and sentience which is based on religion. The only argument that fetuses shouldn't be aborted is based on the assumption that it is a human with a soul. Otherwise you'd be trying to ban farming because it kills plants. There is no non-religious argument against abortion.

Surely there is a point in time when you consider the beginning of human life even if you’re not religious? Zenister believes “Until it can survive in the environment that the rest of its species occupies, it is not an independent, functional member of that species and is not granted the same rights as one..” Therefore, it would be wrong to kill it after that point. Correct, Zenister? That’s not based on religion, I don’t think. If I believe that it begins earlier (much earlier), why must that be based on religion?

Doesn't make it right, why? What non-religious based argument is there that experimenting with existing stem cells is wrong?

[pajarito 0]

I think this should be directed at Zenister. That was his quote.

• Quote

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Some non religious people, I dare say, also believe that life begins prior to the time defined by Zenister and might also believe that experimenting with existing stem cells is wrong.

Find one.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

NO - but - neither is it of yours that it won't/can't happen.

No, mines based on the statements made by the people who know what they are talking about. If you can find a report showing that stem cell research can create mutated viruses, I'll give it consideration. Good luck in that search.

[peregrinerose 0]

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Some non religious people, I dare say, also believe that life begins prior to the time defined by Zenister and might also believe that experimenting with existing stem cells is wrong.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Find one.

Can you believe it? I'm with Paj on this one!!

I am very non-religous, but definitely believe that life begins before birth. Can I give you a date/time as to when it begins? Hell no, but I do believe it is at least 6 mos gestation, probably well before that. Based on science. See my post above.

Jen

Do or do not, there is no try -Yoda

[PhillyKev 0]

We're talking about two different "lives" here. Sperm is alive. The debate is when is it a sentient human life?

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Quote

Some non religious people, I dare say, also believe that life begins prior to the time defined by Zenister and might also believe that experimenting with existing stem cells is wrong.

Find one.

So do you adhere to Zenister's definition of when life begins? Do you believe that it only becomes human at the moment the umbilical cord is cut and it starts breathing on its own? Or how about earlier at 24 weeks when the lungs are developed enough to sustain life? How about much earlier when it grows fingers and toes and a brain? I don't think you've got to base the decision on religion. It seems very logical to me that, if you don't know for sure otherwise, you might be doing the wrong thing by killing the life at any stage. What scientific proof is there that life does not begin at conception?

[pajarito 0]

Just thought this was interesting...

Ron Reagan Pushes Stem Cells at DNC Convention

Though he didn't use the "C" word, Ron Reagan, Jr. perfectly described the human cloning process in his speech to the DNC Convention last night, touting it as a way to produce embryonic stem cells and have "your own personal biological repair kit". Promising potential cures with embryonic stem cells for a wide range of diseases, what Ron completely forgot to mention was that these same diseases have already been successfully treated with adult stem cells. Hundreds of patients have already benefited from adult stem cell treatments - spinal cord injury patients who have gotten out of their wheelchairs, multiple sclerosis patients whose symptoms were stopped, a Parkinson's patient whose symptoms went away and then went on an African safari, cancer patients in remission - all with their own "built-in repair kit", adult stem cells.

Ron also neglected to mention that harvesting embryonic stem cells from human embryos causes their death, and that cloning creates new human beings who are destroyed to harvest their cells like a crop. Cloning also requires a tremendous number of human eggs (at least 850 million to make clones for the diabetes patients in the U.S.); a tremendous health hazard for women who undergo the procedure. If we are really interested in treating diseases, adult stem cells are the ones that promise real treatments for real patients, without harvesting young humans.

--- Tony Perkins - Washington Update Article
Family Research Council