pajarito

I was Army Special Forces. Not nearly as up-tight because of the advanced level of proficiency. You learn a lot of stuff in Special Forces that doesn't fall in line with a civilian basic gun safety course or the rules on a conventional Army range firing line. Sure, you always look where your weapon is pointed when you’re about to fire (as on a firing line) or when the chance for you to have to fire is immanent (walking through a house and clearing rooms). Otherwise, when just walking around, mine is always slung around my neck and pointed downward with my thumb on the safety and my finger pointed along the trigger housing. On the range, however, it’s important to either have it pointed down or just downrange. The point is to control your weapon. Use common sense. If the range is hot, downrange is clear and as long as your weapon is pointed that way, it’s not necessary that your eye be on the sight at the end of your barrel at all times. Otherwise, how will you be aware of all of your surroundings? Tunnel vision mentality like that is what makes a person dangerous (in the hazardous sense) in my opinion. You’ve got to use your head. From the picture above and without having been there, I don’t see anything that would throw up a red flag in my mind and lead me to the conclusion that Kerry is an idiot because he doesn’t know how to use a weapon.

That would've been me!

He's obviously on a range with the barrell of the gun pointed downrange. If the range is hot, there should be nobody downrange. It doesn't mean that he's not controlling his weapon. No problem there. That really hurt to say because, politically speaking, I really don't like the guy. Gotta be fair, though.

I know you completely disagree with me on this but…yes. I don’t think they should have been put in that state in the first place unless they were in fact going to be used (put inside a host and allowed to develop). I’m going to stick to the topic and not get into passive euthanasia.

Ok…when is it? I’d like to see exactly when it is scientifically proven when the fetus becomes human. I believe if we all knew that conclusively, there would be no reason for this debate. Of course I don’t believe we survive on inorganic material. I never said that and you are now trying to put words in my mouth. We’re talking about human life here. Why must you rely on insults to support your arguments? A woman is in her 24th week of pregnancy and she experiences an abruption (placenta separates from the uterus). The fetus has the potential lung development at that point to have a good chance at surviving on its own after delivery. Of course, in this instance, a natural delivery is not going to happen and the baby is going to die unless heroic medical attention is given (cesarean section). This all has to happen in a matter of minutes or the mother will bleed to death internally and the baby will suffer brain damage. However, even in this case, the 24 week old baby will be sent to the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit and will remain there a long time. It will be given extended care until it has time to develop and grow enough. Is that fetus, before it is taken out, or the baby, in the NICU, considered human by your criteria? Would it be acceptable for the doctor to abort this baby as it is taken out at the mother’s request?

As someone said sometime before, "I like feta cheese. It tastes good on gyros." Time to eat, I'm starving, gotta go! Later...

You’re comparing inherited money with a nucleus required to sustain life? Even if you “caused” their premature death. They’re only going to “die anyway” if they are unfrozen, discarded, used in stem cell research, etc.

One problem at a time... Let’s stick to the focus of stem cell research. Right now, however, I’m just not going to participate in it. My Sister-in-law for example has a fertility problem. She asked my wife to donate eggs that would be mixed with my Brother-in-law’s sperm and inserted into her for development. We refused because we couldn’t come to an agreement as to what would be done with the excess in the case that they all developed. We would not agree to terminate some during the process. Of course, there’s a difference but how do you know when life begins on which to base your decision for termination? One’s a natural process and the other is artificial. There is no ethical dilemma with a natural process. I’m actually trying to not get into a theological argument with this subject; however, your response confuses me. I know you’ve stated in the past that you’re Christian and attend church, etc. If you truly hold Christian beliefs, I don’t see why you don’t have a biblical answer for these questions. The second statement sounds awfully pantheistic.

That’s not the point. You’re benefiting from the termination of a life whether they “feel” it or not.

Who are we to make the decision of which ones are “allowed” to live or not? Even if someone is harvesting embryos for the purpose of allowing one or two to grow and they’re going to discard the rest, who are we to profit off of that? Granted, they’re going to die anyway but it was an ethical wrong in the first place. It would be like a doctor performing experiments on people who were going to be terminated anyway in a death camp. The benefits of the research might be great but at what expense?

I think that killing them by other means is also wrong (i.e. in-vetro fertilization where by multiple embryos are implanted and then, after some development, some are selectively terminated). I'm assuming that you're referring, however, to those that might be frozen for later use but instead could be used for stem cell research? It's still killing the embryo whatever the purpose for them was before or as a byproduct of a previous process. There is still an ethical issue.

Because, like I said before, "Harvesting embryonic stem cells from human embryos causes their death and, therefore, terminates a human life" IMO. Causing death, in my opinion, does cause harm to be done. There is no conclusive proof otherwise. Edit to add: Other than that, I have no problem with it (i.e. adult stem cell research).

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

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?

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

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? Most people, religious or not, think that killing another human is wrong. 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.

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

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.

Why must the belief that life begins at conception be completely religious in nature? That still doesn’t make it right, hence, the medical ethical dilemma.

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.

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.

Without knowing the context of the situation at all, I call that a very effective air strike. There might have been some of our guys on the ground calling that in and directing the fire in order to save their own lives or others. Well done!!!

In the absence of facts proving otherwise (as is the case today), the assumption that life begins at conception isn’t necessarily a religious one. Based on this assumption, embryonic stem cell research requires the unnecessary termination of a human life and, therefore, might be considered wrong. I believe that to be the case but the basis of my belief isn’t primarily religious in nature although I also, in my heart, believe that it is wrong. Ok…but I was only referring to the statue issue that was mentioned. 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. The problem is that kind of stuff in reference to what’s appropriate or not changes over time. Anyway, like I said before, if you want to show your ass, buy some time on a cable network. Of course, you’d want the money you’re spending on others to also be in your interest.

Par for the course in Kerry's world, though. Whichever way the wind blows.

So what's the next step? They're already implanting the RFID chips into bodies. Does that then evolve into using one of those "FAR better technologies for tracking the movements of individuals" implanted in the body rather than a RFID chip?