Faith and Ignorance
Posted By: Anonymous
Faith and Ignorance - 07/17/06 04:16 PM
Good, now I have your attention.
Is it possible to discuss
this issue without mudslinging?
I'll go first: could somebody explain
why this bill
should be vetoed?
I promise to stick to the topic but I can only speak for myself...
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/17/06 04:17 PM
Master Shake here. I apologize but I can't see the main issue because my computer blocks it. If you could just copy and paste a portion, that would be wonderful. I have ae feeling it is on stem cell research
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/17/06 04:22 PM
Posted By: Bengals Fan
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/17/06 04:23 PM
It's quite simple really. No matter what good can come of harvesting embryonic stem cells, no matter how many lives can be saved, it still requires killing a human life. If cancer could be cured by bathing in the blood of babies, would you say we should do it? Of course not. But that is not far from what we are talking about here.
Would you agree to taking the hearts from 10 year olds to replace those of older people who have failing hearts? Of course not. But that is not far from what we are talking about here.
It is unethical, immoral, and has had no more success than using adult stem cells for research. There is no reason to allow this sick and depraved research.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/17/06 04:30 PM
Quote:
It's quite simple really. No matter what good can come of harvesting embryonic stem cells, no matter how many lives can be saved, it still requires killing a human life. If cancer could be cured by bathing in the blood of babies, would you say we should do it? Of course not. But that is not far from what we are talking about here.
Would you agree to taking the hearts from 10 year olds to replace those of older people who have failing hearts? Of course not. But that is not far from what we are talking about here.
It is unethical, immoral, and has had no more success than using adult stem cells for research. There is no reason to allow this sick and depraved research.
the link to the article must've sent you to a different article 
the article i posted talked about embryonic stem cells. i will reread but i didn't see a mention of babies or 10 year olds anywhere.
Posted By: rainman
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/17/06 04:32 PM
the mention of babies is in the term "embryonic"
Posted By: Bengals Fan
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/17/06 04:34 PM
Quote:
Quote:
It's quite simple really. No matter what good can come of harvesting embryonic stem cells, no matter how many lives can be saved, it still requires killing a human life. If cancer could be cured by bathing in the blood of babies, would you say we should do it? Of course not. But that is not far from what we are talking about here.
Would you agree to taking the hearts from 10 year olds to replace those of older people who have failing hearts? Of course not. But that is not far from what we are talking about here.
It is unethical, immoral, and has had no more success than using adult stem cells for research. There is no reason to allow this sick and depraved research.
the link to the article must've sent you to a different article
the article i posted talked about embryonic stem cells. i will reread but i didn't see a mention of babies or 10 year olds anywhere.
You see, to get those embryonic stem cells, we have to make babies. Once that cell is fertilized, it is a human life. It is bad enough that we allow women to destroy that life because they don't want to be pregnant. But in that case we are weighing the mother's life and body against the babies. In the case of harvesting embryos for research, we are going even further and DELIBERATELY creating lives to destroy. You can't get much more immoral than this.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/17/06 04:38 PM
Quote:
the mention of babies is in the term "embryonic"
oh, so it is now "billy and suzie are expecting an embryo"?
The embryos being considered were "extras" produced by couples with fertility problems. Once these couples have children, they typically authorize the destruction of the unused embryos anyway -- they are discarded as medical waste. Wouldn't it be better to allow the parents to be able to donate the embryos for stem cells than to just discard them?
If you use the argument of the taking of a human life, then the practice of destroying these unused embryos should have to be ended as well, right?
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/17/06 04:41 PM
when God took a rib from adam (
), this was not an example of Him showing how to breathe life? we take cells from a mass of cells to continue life and this is wrong? if so, then you should be outraged that our hospitals are intervening in God's decision to end people's lives at a certain point.
Posted By: Bengals Fan
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/17/06 04:42 PM
Quote:
The embryos being considered were "extras" produced by couples with fertility problems. Once these couples have children, they typically authorize the destruction of the unused embryos anyway -- they are discarded as medical waste. Wouldn't it be better to allow the parents to be able to donate the embryos for stem cells than to just discard them?
If you use the argument of the taking of a human life, then the practice of destroying these unused embryos should have to be ended as well, right?
There is a difference between embroyos that are already there and the fact that if we have a breakthrough, and find the cure for every known disease via this research, producing that cure on a global level requires producing babies to kill. Don't you find that disturbing?
Just because those embryos are going to die anyway doesn't mean the results of the research are a good thing. A man is going to die. We harvest his heart. He was going to die anyway, so this is ethical. However, making people die so that we can harvest their organs is another issue entirely.
Quote:
In the case of harvesting embryos for research, we are going even further and DELIBERATELY creating lives to destroy. You can't get much more immoral than this.
I think most people are against "stem cell farming" as you describe here. What most are advocating is the use of embryos that would otherwise be destroyed (see my last post).
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/17/06 05:02 PM
I think was TICG said was true. If you already have an embryo there and you are getting rid of it anyway, why not use it towards research? If you can save a life by using something thats going to get thrown away. . .why not!?
Posted By: MichelleDawn
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/17/06 05:03 PM
Quote:
The embryos being considered were "extras" produced by couples with fertility problems. Once these couples have children, they typically authorize the destruction of the unused embryos anyway -- they are discarded as medical waste. Wouldn't it be better to allow the parents to be able to donate the embryos for stem cells than to just discard them?
If you use the argument of the taking of a human life, then the practice of destroying these unused embryos should have to be ended as well, right?
Way too logical, TICG. 
If you are going to throw the word immoral around, then I'll have to say it's only immoral to SOME people.
Posted By: MichelleDawn
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/17/06 05:05 PM
Quote:
I think was TICG said was true. If you already have an embryo there and you are getting rid of it anyway, why not use it towards research? If you can save a life by using something thats going to get thrown away. . .why not!?
The better question is why aren't the Christians who are against stem cell research marching against the clinics when the embryos are destroyed when a couple is through with them?
Here's something to ponder...
What if a perfectly healthy person wants to commit suicide, but wants their organs to be used to save others. Would it be immoral to harvest their organs while the person is still "alive" (heart pumping). While organs may still be usable if the person was found soon enough after their suicide, there would be a better chance more organs could be used (and more peopl saved) if we let the person make this decision for him/herself.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/17/06 05:10 PM
well im a christian, and i have no problem with it. Normally I back you SP but why do you have to throw that christian term out there?
Posted By: MichelleDawn
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/17/06 05:14 PM
Quote:
well im a christian, and i have no problem with it. Normally I back you SP but why do you have to throw that christian term out there?
Who is railing against stem cell research? Ahteist groups? The PTA? The Boy Scouts? No, it's conservative Christian groups. I'm a Christian and I have no problem with stem cell research, but the arguments against have already been faith based. Don't pretend I brought it up.
Posted By: Bengals Fan
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/17/06 05:14 PM
Quote:
Quote:
In the case of harvesting embryos for research, we are going even further and DELIBERATELY creating lives to destroy. You can't get much more immoral than this.
I think most people are against "stem cell farming" as you describe here. What most are advocating is the use of embryos that would otherwise be destroyed (see my last post).
But, if any results are to come from using the embryos that would otherwise be destroyed, does it not follow that to gain any benefit from that discovery we would have to mass produce the stem cells to provide the cure? It's not just about doing the research now, it's about logically following out the benefits to be gained by that research.
PS: Sweetpeas, if you don't find killing babies immoral, I feel really sorry for your family.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/17/06 05:16 PM
Well I apologize. Your post just had the word christian in it, other threads dont really come out and say it (who i am so say who is a christian and who isnt.) ANYWAY, i agree with it and i dont understand why is it getting vetoed
Posted By: MichelleDawn
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/17/06 05:17 PM
Hold on ... looking back I specifically said:
Quote:
Christians who are against stem cell research
Not all Christians. I just find it odd that they are opposed to stem cell research on these embryos, but not opposed to their ultimate destruction. These embryos have been routinely destroyed for years.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/17/06 05:20 PM
i agree. It doesn't really make sense when someone can throw one away when its not being used but when you put it towards research its out of the question.
Posted By: MichelleDawn
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/17/06 05:23 PM
Quote:
i agree. It doesn't really make sense when someone can throw one away when its not being used but when you put it towards research its out of the question.
Exactly. Why let it go to waste?
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/17/06 05:27 PM
It may sound sick, but Stem Cell research is necessary. I think we need to continue. We should not let the definition of where life begins stop progress as a race. I cannot see how killing embreyos is similar to killing babies. Its just not the same.
Posted By: MichelleDawn
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/17/06 05:28 PM
Quote:
It may sound sick, but Stem Cell research is necessary. I think we need to continue. We should not let the definition of where life begins stop progress as a race. I cannot see how killing embreyos is similar to killing babies. Its just not the same.
I agree.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/17/06 05:30 PM
Quote:
Quote:
well im a christian, and i have no problem with it. Normally I back you SP but why do you have to throw that christian term out there?
Who is railing against stem cell research? Ahteist groups? The PTA? The Boy Scouts? No, it's conservative Christian groups. I'm a Christian and I have no problem with stem cell research, but the arguments against have already been faith based. Don't pretend I brought it up.
No, not conservative Christians, just Christians in general. Don't get your groups confused. Wait a minute, you get everything confused. Nevermind, go on being yourself.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/17/06 05:32 PM
Quote:
No, not conservative Christians, just Christians in general. Don't get your groups confused. Wait a minute, you get everything confused. Nevermind, go on being yourself.
i'm a christian (maybe not according to some) and i don't have a problem with it. (i think the "some" would also be those referred to as being "conservative christians" but i guess semantics do matter )
Posted By: MichelleDawn
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/17/06 05:33 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
well im a christian, and i have no problem with it. Normally I back you SP but why do you have to throw that christian term out there?
Who is railing against stem cell research? Ahteist groups? The PTA? The Boy Scouts? No, it's conservative Christian groups. I'm a Christian and I have no problem with stem cell research, but the arguments against have already been faith based. Don't pretend I brought it up.
No, not conservative Christians, just Christians in general. Don't get your groups confused. Wait a minute, you get everything confused. Nevermind, go on being yourself.
I'll pray for you.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/17/06 05:34 PM
Unreg- YOU don't belong here if you are going to just make this a thread about bashing SP. What she is saying is true.
Posted By: straw
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/17/06 05:36 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
In the case of harvesting embryos for research, we are going even further and DELIBERATELY creating lives to destroy. You can't get much more immoral than this.
I think most people are against "stem cell farming" as you describe here. What most are advocating is the use of embryos that would otherwise be destroyed (see my last post).
But, if any results are to come from using the embryos that would otherwise be destroyed, does it not follow that to gain any benefit from that discovery we would have to mass produce the stem cells to provide the cure? It's not just about doing the research now, it's about logically following out the benefits to be gained by that research.
PS: Sweetpeas, if you don't find killing babies immoral, I feel really sorry for your family.
You are arguing against the research taking place at all because of what might come from the research. Sounds like a slppery slope argument, which I thought you reject.
The research may prove that nothing can come of this, but it might show that these cells are useful. Even if they are useful, does it mean that embryo farming would be ok. Of course not, but the research may enable us to other cell types to perform the same function i.e. animals.
Do you think people are not capable of seeing the difference? Are you so paternaliztic that you think the government should protect us from ourselves?
I have a greater opinion of people. I think people will see the difference, if that decision needs to be arrived at. Have faith in people, not the government.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/17/06 05:44 PM
Quote:
If cancer could be cured by bathing in the blood of babies, would you say we should do it? Of course not. But that is not far from what we are talking about here.
Would you agree to taking the hearts from 10 year olds to replace those of older people who have failing hearts? Of course not. But that is not far from what we are talking about here.
On the contrary, those attempted comparisons are light years from what we're talking about here.
First, your comparisons involve those born alive, who have the legal rights of "persons" under the US Constitution. They have the right to life under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Second, your comparisons do not involve a situation where the alternative is being discarded as these embyoes currently are. The biggest problem for those that oppose this is answering the question "How can it POSSIBLY be a better alternative to simply throw these embryoes away, as is currently the case, than to allow their use for research?????"
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/17/06 05:45 PM
ok. A embryo farm (I am assuming the production of embryo's for the use of stem cell research) is not the best thing but if the researchers are using embryos that have been made and now can't be used is fine.
Posted By: Becka Marr
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/17/06 05:50 PM
"There is just no sensible, logical reason why we would not make use of stem cell research," said Specter, R-Pa.
I think this is an accurate statement. Most arguments against stem cell research seem to have more emotional basis than logical consideration.
I would be interested in an article detailing what this research has already accomplished. It would not seem logical to support something that has not proven its value.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/17/06 05:52 PM
Quote:
Most arguments against stem cell research seem to have more emotional basis than logical consideration.
wrong! '"God" said so' is very logical.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/17/06 06:02 PM
only if you are terminating a life that has already started. Embryos are in the beginning stages. It isnt like researchers are killing off babies from orphaniges (sp?) to do stem cell research. These are embryos that are getting thrown away anyway
Posted By: Jokerman
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/17/06 06:24 PM
Quote:
Are you so paternaliztic that you think the government should protect us from ourselves?
Are you so authoritarian that you would take dollars from me to conduct research that I find morally reprehensible?
Posted By: Jokerman
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/17/06 06:28 PM
Quote:
The biggest problem for those that oppose this is answering the question "How can it POSSIBLY be a better alternative to simply throw these embryoes away, as is currently the case, than to allow their use for research?????"
I agree. That is a difficult question. I'll attempt to answer it, as soon as everyone posting here who supports embryonic stem cell research tells me exactly how many days it is ok for an embryo to be alive before it is destroyed for the purposes of research.
Quote:
But, if any results are to come from using the embryos that would otherwise be destroyed, does it not follow that to gain any benefit from that discovery we would have to mass produce the stem cells to provide the cure? It's not just about doing the research now, it's about logically following out the benefits to be gained by that research.
No, it does not follow logically. You have to guess in advance what the nature of the treatment would be, and you also have to guess that adult stem cells can not be used.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/17/06 06:42 PM
Quote:
Quote:
The biggest problem for those that oppose this is answering the question "How can it POSSIBLY be a better alternative to simply throw these embryoes away, as is currently the case, than to allow their use for research?????"
I agree. That is a difficult question. I'll attempt to answer it, as soon as everyone posting here who supports embryonic stem cell research tells me exactly how many days it is ok for an embryo to be alive before it is destroyed for the purposes of research.
it cannot be after viability. that sliding scale changes with technology and science (ironically enough).
Posted By: Jokerman
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/17/06 06:48 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The biggest problem for those that oppose this is answering the question "How can it POSSIBLY be a better alternative to simply throw these embryoes away, as is currently the case, than to allow their use for research?????"
I agree. That is a difficult question. I'll attempt to answer it, as soon as everyone posting here who supports embryonic stem cell research tells me exactly how many days it is ok for an embryo to be alive before it is destroyed for the purposes of research.
it cannot be after viability. that sliding scale changes with technology and science (ironically enough).
Ok, so let's make sure I understand. A fetus is not viable before something like 23 weeks. In your opinion, then, it is morally acceptable to perform research on a 20-week fetus, correct?
Posted By: steven1950
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/17/06 06:49 PM
Quote:
Quote:
The biggest problem for those that oppose this is answering the question "How can it POSSIBLY be a better alternative to simply throw these embryoes away, as is currently the case, than to allow their use for research?????"
I agree. That is a difficult question. I'll attempt to answer it, as soon as everyone posting here who supports embryonic stem cell research tells me exactly how many days it is ok for an embryo to be alive before it is destroyed for the purposes of research.
From the National Institute of Health: "The embryos from which human embryonic stem cells are derived are typically four or five days old and are a hollow microscopic ball of cells called the blastocyst."
Now answer the question.
Posted By: MichelleDawn
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/17/06 06:51 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The biggest problem for those that oppose this is answering the question "How can it POSSIBLY be a better alternative to simply throw these embryoes away, as is currently the case, than to allow their use for research?????"
I agree. That is a difficult question. I'll attempt to answer it, as soon as everyone posting here who supports embryonic stem cell research tells me exactly how many days it is ok for an embryo to be alive before it is destroyed for the purposes of research.
From the National Institute of Health: "The embryos from which human embryonic stem cells are derived are typically four or five days old and are a hollow microscopic ball of cells called the blastocyst."
Now answer the question.
Well done, Steven. Way to avoid the strawman comment and get to the heart of the matter. 
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The biggest problem for those that oppose this is answering the question "How can it POSSIBLY be a better alternative to simply throw these embryoes away, as is currently the case, than to allow their use for research?????"
I agree. That is a difficult question. I'll attempt to answer it, as soon as everyone posting here who supports embryonic stem cell research tells me exactly how many days it is ok for an embryo to be alive before it is destroyed for the purposes of research.
it cannot be after viability. that sliding scale changes with technology and science (ironically enough).
By definition an "embryo" is not viable. The embryonic stage lasts until 8 weeks, around which point the organs / major systems of the body begin development and the embryo becomes a fetus.
An embryo is little more than a cluster of cells. A human life, yes, but a thinking, feeling person, no.
Posted By: Jokerman
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/17/06 06:53 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The biggest problem for those that oppose this is answering the question "How can it POSSIBLY be a better alternative to simply throw these embryoes away, as is currently the case, than to allow their use for research?????"
I agree. That is a difficult question. I'll attempt to answer it, as soon as everyone posting here who supports embryonic stem cell research tells me exactly how many days it is ok for an embryo to be alive before it is destroyed for the purposes of research.
From the National Institute of Health: "The embryos from which human embryonic stem cells are derived are typically four or five days old and are a hollow microscopic ball of cells called the blastocyst."
Now answer the question.
Steven, you either failed to comprehend my question, or you intentionally ignored it. Try again.
Posted By: Retired DQ
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/17/06 06:54 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The biggest problem for those that oppose this is answering the question "How can it POSSIBLY be a better alternative to simply throw these embryoes away, as is currently the case, than to allow their use for research?????"
I agree. That is a difficult question. I'll attempt to answer it, as soon as everyone posting here who supports embryonic stem cell research tells me exactly how many days it is ok for an embryo to be alive before it is destroyed for the purposes of research.
From the National Institute of Health: "The embryos from which human embryonic stem cells are derived are typically four or five days old and are a hollow microscopic ball of cells called the blastocyst."
Now answer the question.
Well, that is a gov't site, I am sure they are wrong. 
Posted By: Bengals Fan
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/17/06 07:00 PM
Quote:
Quote:
But, if any results are to come from using the embryos that would otherwise be destroyed, does it not follow that to gain any benefit from that discovery we would have to mass produce the stem cells to provide the cure? It's not just about doing the research now, it's about logically following out the benefits to be gained by that research.
No, it does not follow logically. You have to guess in advance what the nature of the treatment would be, and you also have to guess that adult stem cells can not be used.
If adult stem cells can be used, then why are we experimenting on embryonic stem cells instead of adult stem cells?
Posted By: Snowqueen
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/17/06 07:04 PM
This website page tells the basics of stem cell research. You can find the answer to many of your questions here.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/08/20010809-1.html
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/17/06 07:08 PM
Quote:
Are you so authoritarian that you would take dollars from me to conduct research that I find morally reprehensible?
I'm sure that you would be the first to attack this same "logic" if someone said that they should be able to block military research because they found war to be morally reprehensible.
The point is that this not a question of someone "taking dollars" from another person, this is the US government trying to decide on how our tax dollars will be spent.
Posted By: MichelleDawn
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/17/06 07:11 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Are you so authoritarian that you would take dollars from me to conduct research that I find morally reprehensible?
I'm sure that you would be the first to attack this same "logic" if someone said that they should be able to block military research because they found war to be morally reprehensible.
The point is that this not a question of someone "taking dollars" from another person, this is the US government trying to decide on how our tax dollars will be spent.
Very true, I find several programs morally troubling, but I don't get to choose where my money goes. It certainly wouldn't be to Iraq.
Posted By: Snowqueen
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/17/06 07:12 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
But, if any results are to come from using the embryos that would otherwise be destroyed, does it not follow that to gain any benefit from that discovery we would have to mass produce the stem cells to provide the cure? It's not just about doing the research now, it's about logically following out the benefits to be gained by that research.
No, it does not follow logically. You have to guess in advance what the nature of the treatment would be, and you also have to guess that adult stem cells can not be used.
If adult stem cells can be used, then why are we experimenting on embryonic stem cells instead of adult stem cells?
BF- with your recent diagnosis of diabetes and because diabetes is one of the diseases scientists hope the research will find a cure for, I'm surprised you haven't had an interest in this and researched it more.
Posted By: homestar
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/17/06 07:16 PM
Quote:
Who is railing against stem cell research? Ahteist groups? The PTA? The Boy Scouts? No, it's conservative Christian groups.
Maybe I'm out in left field here, but isn't the Roman Catholic Church one of the primary objectors to this type of research? I don't think the Roman Catholic Church is considered a conservative Christian group. Personally, I think categorizing this primarily as a "Christian" moral theology issue is a mistake.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/17/06 07:22 PM
Quote:
I agree. That is a difficult question. I'll attempt to answer it, as soon as everyone posting here who supports embryonic stem cell research tells me exactly how many days it is ok for an embryo to be alive before it is destroyed for the purposes of research.
The difference between the question that I posed and the one that you would like to use is that mine represents the current political choice that must be made, while the question that you pose has nothing to do with current reality.
It is irrelevant whether I think that either using or discarding the embryoes is "ok" because I am not one of the in-vitro patients that produced them! It is not my decision to make any more than it is yours.
The political choice remains - should these embryoes continue to be discarded or can they be used for research so that some good may come out of the fact that they were produced?
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/17/06 07:22 PM
Stem cells is one of those issues the media has grabbed ahold of, and as a result everyone thinks they are an expert on it, when in fact, the reality is vastly different from what most people think.
First of all, most of the stem cells used are not from aborted fetuses. They occur in every human and can be harvested in many ways. I know of a lab in Russia that harvests stem cells from teeth. Secondly, though the most useful kind of stem cells do come from embryos, no one is forcing abortions on women to harvest their embryonic stem cells. Finally, it is rarely acknowledged, but large numbers of embryonic stem cells can be cultured in labs fairly easily.
This is the gateway to the end of so many diseases. If you are truly pro-life, then you should be pro-stem cell research.
Posted By: Bengals Fan
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/17/06 07:22 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
But, if any results are to come from using the embryos that would otherwise be destroyed, does it not follow that to gain any benefit from that discovery we would have to mass produce the stem cells to provide the cure? It's not just about doing the research now, it's about logically following out the benefits to be gained by that research.
No, it does not follow logically. You have to guess in advance what the nature of the treatment would be, and you also have to guess that adult stem cells can not be used.
If adult stem cells can be used, then why are we experimenting on embryonic stem cells instead of adult stem cells?
BF- with your recent diagnosis of diabetes and because diabetes is one of the diseases scientists hope the research will find a cure for, I'm surprised you haven't had an interest in this and researched it more.
I would rather die of diabetes than have my cure derived from medical research that requires taking human lives.
Posted By: Bengals Fan
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/17/06 07:25 PM
Quote:
Secondly, though the most useful kind of stem cells do come from embryos, no one is forcing abortions on women to harvest their embryonic stem cells. Finally, it is rarely acknowledged, but large numbers of embryonic stem cells can be cultured in labs fairly easily.
This is the gateway to the end of so many diseases. If you are truly pro-life, then you should be pro-stem cell research.
You are out of your mind. First of all, you are correct. The most "useful" stem cells come from embryos. However, they are not necessary. Secondly, it is just this "growing" of embryos in a lab that many of us are railing against. What is being done is to create life to take it. That is not right. That is not just. That is not moral. How on earth you can say that a pro-life person sees it as a good thing to create life to destroy it so that others can be aided when there is NO NEED TO DO SO WHATSOEVER BECAUSE EMBRYONIC STEM CELLS ARE NOT NECESSARY, I do not understand.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/17/06 07:26 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
But, if any results are to come from using the embryos that would otherwise be destroyed, does it not follow that to gain any benefit from that discovery we would have to mass produce the stem cells to provide the cure? It's not just about doing the research now, it's about logically following out the benefits to be gained by that research.
No, it does not follow logically. You have to guess in advance what the nature of the treatment would be, and you also have to guess that adult stem cells can not be used.
If adult stem cells can be used, then why are we experimenting on embryonic stem cells instead of adult stem cells?
BF- with your recent diagnosis of diabetes and because diabetes is one of the diseases scientists hope the research will find a cure for, I'm surprised you haven't had an interest in this and researched it more.
I would rather die of diabetes than have my cure derived from medical research that requires taking human lives.
I find that hard to believe based on the way you carried on about being diagnosed with diabetes. My guess is that if there was a cure you would be in line like everyone else and you wouldn't give a fig where the cure came from.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/17/06 07:29 PM
I would rather die of diabetes than have my cure derived from medical research that requires taking human lives.
-------------------
I am sure you would think differently if stem cell research cured your diabetes.
Posted By: Snowqueen
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/17/06 07:35 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Secondly, though the most useful kind of stem cells do come from embryos, no one is forcing abortions on women to harvest their embryonic stem cells. Finally, it is rarely acknowledged, but large numbers of embryonic stem cells can be cultured in labs fairly easily.
This is the gateway to the end of so many diseases. If you are truly pro-life, then you should be pro-stem cell research.
You are out of your mind. First of all, you are correct. The most "useful" stem cells come from embryos. However, they are not necessary. Secondly, it is just this "growing" of embryos in a lab that many of us are railing against. What is being done is to create life to take it. That is not right. That is not just. That is not moral. How on earth you can say that a pro-life person sees it as a good thing to create life to destroy it so that others can be aided when there is NO NEED TO DO SO WHATSOEVER BECAUSE EMBRYONIC STEM CELLS ARE NOT NECESSARY, I do not understand.
But it is acceptable for an infertile person to have multiple embryos to chose from and try to become pregnant with. Once they have become pregnant they can chose to have the rest of the embroyes destroyed. (Just a question not an argument)
Posted By: straw
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/17/06 07:46 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Are you so paternaliztic that you think the government should protect us from ourselves?
Are you so authoritarian that you would take dollars from me to conduct research that I find morally reprehensible?
We'll let you keep your tax dollars out of it. Next objection please.
So, do you object to the research or the tax dollars or both? Do you object to the embryos being destroyed, since this is murder? What should we do with the embryos?
The enbryos will be destroyed anyway, so the immorality will occur, whether the research happens or not.
Posted By: tcann85
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/17/06 07:52 PM
Perhaps a much larger discussion can be held regarding the fact that these IV embryos are produced in the first place. Where does morality begin and empathy end?
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/17/06 07:56 PM
Quote:
Perhaps a much larger discussion can be held regarding the fact that these IV embryos are produced in the first place. Where does morality begin and empathy end?
doesn't that issue boil down to "playing God"? doesn't treating cancer amount to playing God since you are deciding that a person will not die when they are supposed to?
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/17/06 08:01 PM
Quote:
Unreg- YOU don't belong here if you are going to just make this a thread about bashing SP. What she is saying is true.
Yes I know because I said it. She agreed with me and I wish she would stop for two reasons 1) piling on adds nothing and 2) given her history I wish she would support some other side because she gives mine no credence.
Posted By: tcann85
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/17/06 08:01 PM
Who says they're supposed to die? If given the capability to save lives, is it not ignorant to refuse life? These medical advancements are brought about by God's creations(or whatever your beliefs maybe). I think you will have a hard time arguing that medical treatment is a moral dillema. Sure you have your arguments about artificial life support, but that is for particular families to be concerned with, not us.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/17/06 08:09 PM
Quote:
Who says they're supposed to die? If given the capability to save lives, is it not ignorant to refuse life? These medical advancements are brought about by God's creations(or whatever your beliefs maybe). I think you will have a hard time arguing that medical treatment is a moral dillema. Sure you have your arguments about artificial life support, but that is for particular families to be concerned with, not us.
:baited and hooked:
scientifically and technologically, those cells are simply building blocks. why can't we use this science to save life? somehow God's providence didn't bring us this as well?
Posted By: Bengals Fan
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/17/06 08:23 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
But, if any results are to come from using the embryos that would otherwise be destroyed, does it not follow that to gain any benefit from that discovery we would have to mass produce the stem cells to provide the cure? It's not just about doing the research now, it's about logically following out the benefits to be gained by that research.
No, it does not follow logically. You have to guess in advance what the nature of the treatment would be, and you also have to guess that adult stem cells can not be used.
If adult stem cells can be used, then why are we experimenting on embryonic stem cells instead of adult stem cells?
BF- with your recent diagnosis of diabetes and because diabetes is one of the diseases scientists hope the research will find a cure for, I'm surprised you haven't had an interest in this and researched it more.
I would rather die of diabetes than have my cure derived from medical research that requires taking human lives.
I find that hard to believe based on the way you carried on about being diagnosed with diabetes. My guess is that if there was a cure you would be in line like everyone else and you wouldn't give a fig where the cure came from.
You are so wrong it isn't even funny. First of all, my diabetes can be controlled, and as for how I "carried on" when initially diagnosed, yes, the first day it was a weight on my shoulders. Anyone who knows me here can tell you that the next day I was fine with it and ready to see it as a mixed blessing. The fact is, no cure is worth taking innocent life. I hold that these embryos are indeed life, human life, innocent human life. Perhaps you don't care if that new watch you buy is stolen or not, but I do. A cure derived from human life is stealing life.
As far as the embryos that are destroyed because someone wanted to be artificially inseminated, I am against that procedure as well. Frankly, I believe that if you can't get pregnant naturally, there are plenty of children you can call your own. Simply adopt.
I don't want ANY embryos created or destroyed unnaturally.
Posted By: steven1950
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/17/06 09:06 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
But, if any results are to come from using the embryos that would otherwise be destroyed, does it not follow that to gain any benefit from that discovery we would have to mass produce the stem cells to provide the cure? It's not just about doing the research now, it's about logically following out the benefits to be gained by that research.
No, it does not follow logically. You have to guess in advance what the nature of the treatment would be, and you also have to guess that adult stem cells can not be used.
If adult stem cells can be used, then why are we experimenting on embryonic stem cells instead of adult stem cells?
BF- with your recent diagnosis of diabetes and because diabetes is one of the diseases scientists hope the research will find a cure for, I'm surprised you haven't had an interest in this and researched it more.
I would rather die of diabetes than have my cure derived from medical research that requires taking human lives.
I find that hard to believe based on the way you carried on about being diagnosed with diabetes. My guess is that if there was a cure you would be in line like everyone else and you wouldn't give a fig where the cure came from.
You are so wrong it isn't even funny. First of all, my diabetes can be controlled, and as for how I "carried on" when initially diagnosed, yes, the first day it was a weight on my shoulders. Anyone who knows me here can tell you that the next day I was fine with it and ready to see it as a mixed blessing. The fact is, no cure is worth taking innocent life. I hold that these embryos are indeed life, human life, innocent human life. Perhaps you don't care if that new watch you buy is stolen or not, but I do. A cure derived from human life is stealing life.
As far as the embryos that are destroyed because someone wanted to be artificially inseminated, I am against that procedure as well. Frankly, I believe that if you can't get pregnant naturally, there are plenty of children you can call your own. Simply adopt.
I don't want ANY embryos created or destroyed unnaturally.
They are not destroying embryos; they use stem cells that are only a few days old. (By the way, you never did answer the question after I gave you the answer.) If you'd rather die then use a cure that was developed by stem cell research, then, by all means, don't let me stop you.
Posted By: Bengals Fan
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/17/06 09:20 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
But, if any results are to come from using the embryos that would otherwise be destroyed, does it not follow that to gain any benefit from that discovery we would have to mass produce the stem cells to provide the cure? It's not just about doing the research now, it's about logically following out the benefits to be gained by that research.
No, it does not follow logically. You have to guess in advance what the nature of the treatment would be, and you also have to guess that adult stem cells can not be used.
If adult stem cells can be used, then why are we experimenting on embryonic stem cells instead of adult stem cells?
BF- with your recent diagnosis of diabetes and because diabetes is one of the diseases scientists hope the research will find a cure for, I'm surprised you haven't had an interest in this and researched it more.
I would rather die of diabetes than have my cure derived from medical research that requires taking human lives.
I find that hard to believe based on the way you carried on about being diagnosed with diabetes. My guess is that if there was a cure you would be in line like everyone else and you wouldn't give a fig where the cure came from.
You are so wrong it isn't even funny. First of all, my diabetes can be controlled, and as for how I "carried on" when initially diagnosed, yes, the first day it was a weight on my shoulders. Anyone who knows me here can tell you that the next day I was fine with it and ready to see it as a mixed blessing. The fact is, no cure is worth taking innocent life. I hold that these embryos are indeed life, human life, innocent human life. Perhaps you don't care if that new watch you buy is stolen or not, but I do. A cure derived from human life is stealing life.
As far as the embryos that are destroyed because someone wanted to be artificially inseminated, I am against that procedure as well. Frankly, I believe that if you can't get pregnant naturally, there are plenty of children you can call your own. Simply adopt.
I don't want ANY embryos created or destroyed unnaturally.
They are not destroying embryos; they use stem cells that are only a few days old. (By the way, you never did answer the question after I gave you the answer.) If you'd rather die then use a cure that was developed by stem cell research, then, by all means, don't let me stop you.
I'm not sure what "question" I didn't answer. I think I've been quite clear. As far as not using a cure developed by stem cell research, even if this is not subject to presidential veto, there won't be any cures from stem cell research in our lifetime anyway. It's a dead end going nowhere.
Posted By: straw
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/17/06 09:24 PM
Then your "embryo farm" concern is moot isn't it.
Ok, so what if I want to start an embryo farm...
What kind of soil conditions do you need?
How deep do you plant the seeds?
How much water do they need?
Do I need to use any special pesticides?
If I have embyros left over that I can't sell, can they be turned into FlexFuel (hey, if they can do it with corn...)
Posted By: Jokerman
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/17/06 09:38 PM
Quote:
I'm sure that you would be the first to attack this same "logic" if someone said that they should be able to block military research because they found war to be morally reprehensible.
I would attack such “logic” based on the fact that the US Constitution does indicate that one of the proper uses of our tax dollars is to raise and secure armies. I see no such authorization for stem cell research.
Quote:
The point is that this not a question of someone "taking dollars" from another person, this is the US government trying to decide on how our tax dollars will be spent.
Every dollar the government spends is taken out of the private economy, from you and from me.
Quote:
The difference between the question that I posed and the one that you would like to use is that mine represents the current political choice that must be made, while the question that you pose has nothing to do with current reality.
The current political choice is whether to fund a particular type of research. The more important, long-term question, which for all intents and purposes has currently been settled in the affirmative, is, is it ethical, and should this research be allowed at all?
Quote:
It is irrelevant whether I think that either using or discarding the embryoes is "ok" because I am not one of the in-vitro patients that produced them! It is not my decision to make any more than it is yours.
So, it would not be any of our business if a pregnant individual decided to provide her 20-month old fetus for research purposes, correct?
Quote:
The political choice remains - should these embryoes continue to be discarded or can they be used for research so that some good may come out of the fact that they were produced?
No, that is an ethical question (see above). The current political choice is, should federal tax dollars be spent to fund this particular type of research?
Quote:
So, do you object to the research or the tax dollars or both? Do you object to the embryos being destroyed, since this is murder? What should we do with the embryos?
I believe it is immoral to destroy an embryo for research. One good solution for what to do with the embryos is to donate them to individuals who are in need of fertility treatment, but cannot afford a full cycle.
Quote:
The enbryos will be destroyed anyway, so the immorality will occur, whether the research happens or not.
Not necessarily. Is it as moral to BBQ grandpa as to bury him?
There are certain things which, regardless of how practical, degrade the sanctity of human life, and are, therefore, immoral.
Quote:
They are not destroying embryos
Keep telling yourself that.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/17/06 10:16 PM
Why isn't this looked at as collateral damage? It's okay in Iraq but not here?
Posted By: MichelleDawn
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/17/06 10:16 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I find that hard to believe based on the way you carried on about being diagnosed with diabetes. My guess is that if there was a cure you would be in line like everyone else and you wouldn't give a fig where the cure came from.
You are so wrong it isn't even funny. First of all, my diabetes can be controlled, and as for how I "carried on" when initially diagnosed, yes, the first day it was a weight on my shoulders. Anyone who knows me here can tell you that the next day I was fine with it and ready to see it as a mixed blessing. The fact is, no cure is worth taking innocent life. I hold that these embryos are indeed life, human life, innocent human life. Perhaps you don't care if that new watch you buy is stolen or not, but I do. A cure derived from human life is stealing life.
As far as the embryos that are destroyed because someone wanted to be artificially inseminated, I am against that procedure as well. Frankly, I believe that if you can't get pregnant naturally, there are plenty of children you can call your own. Simply adopt.
I don't want ANY embryos created or destroyed unnaturally.
They are not destroying embryos; they use stem cells that are only a few days old. (By the way, you never did answer the question after I gave you the answer.) If you'd rather die then use a cure that was developed by stem cell research, then, by all means, don't let me stop you.
There is no reasoning with some people, Steven. And FWIW, I agree with the anon quoted above.
Posted By: MichelleDawn
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/17/06 10:17 PM
Quote:
Why isn't this looked at as collateral damage? It's okay in Iraq but not here?
Excellent point!
Posted By: MichelleDawn
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/17/06 10:18 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Unreg- YOU don't belong here if you are going to just make this a thread about bashing SP. What she is saying is true.
Yes I know because I said it. She agreed with me and I wish she would stop for two reasons 1) piling on adds nothing and 2) given her history I wish she would support some other side because she gives mine no credence.
Piling on adds nothing, but personal attacks further conversation? I'll pray for you.
Posted By: Jokerman
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/17/06 10:25 PM
Quote:
Why isn't this looked at as collateral damage? It's okay in Iraq but not here?
It isn't looked at as collateral damage because it is the method, not an unfortunate possible consequence of the method.
An analogy to "collateral damage" would be to the regrettable deaths that do sometimes occur as the result of vaccinations.
Posted By: straw
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/17/06 11:08 PM
Quote:
Quote:
I'm sure that you would be the first to attack this same "logic" if someone said that they should be able to block military research because they found war to be morally reprehensible.
I would attack such “logic” based on the fact that the US Constitution does indicate that one of the proper uses of our tax dollars is to raise and secure armies. I see no such authorization for stem cell research.
Quote:
The point is that this not a question of someone "taking dollars" from another person, this is the US government trying to decide on how our tax dollars will be spent.
Every dollar the government spends is taken out of the private economy, from you and from me.
Quote:
The difference between the question that I posed and the one that you would like to use is that mine represents the current political choice that must be made, while the question that you pose has nothing to do with current reality.
The current political choice is whether to fund a particular type of research. The more important, long-term question, which for all intents and purposes has currently been settled in the affirmative, is, is it ethical, and should this research be allowed at all?
Quote:
It is irrelevant whether I think that either using or discarding the embryoes is "ok" because I am not one of the in-vitro patients that produced them! It is not my decision to make any more than it is yours.
So, it would not be any of our business if a pregnant individual decided to provide her 20-month old fetus for research purposes, correct?
Quote:
The political choice remains - should these embryoes continue to be discarded or can they be used for research so that some good may come out of the fact that they were produced?
No, that is an ethical question (see above). The current political choice is, should federal tax dollars be spent to fund this particular type of research?
Quote:
So, do you object to the research or the tax dollars or both? Do you object to the embryos being destroyed, since this is murder? What should we do with the embryos?
I believe it is immoral to destroy an embryo for research. One good solution for what to do with the embryos is to donate them to individuals who are in need of fertility treatment, but cannot afford a full cycle.
Quote:
The enbryos will be destroyed anyway, so the immorality will occur, whether the research happens or not.
Not necessarily. Is it as moral to BBQ grandpa as to bury him?
There are certain things which, regardless of how practical, degrade the sanctity of human life, and are, therefore, immoral.
Quote:
They are not destroying embryos
Keep telling yourself that.
I don't see any Constitutional authority for most of the research dollars our government spends its money on. I say we start the cause right here and now to scale back the money spent on research. We could add the money spent on drug benfits, social security, unemployment, etc. None of those are in the Constitution either. Stick to the moral argument, it is far stronger.
Can we stop anthropomorphising these embryos. Your analogy to Grandpa doesn't work because Grandpa can feel.
The embryo is dead whether it is discarded or broken up (if that is the correct term).
I think you should be attacking the fact that these embryos are destroyed at all, not how they are destroyed. It is the destruction itself that is the immorality, in your premise.
Are you advocating that the state should secure these embryos, protect them and pass them along to others, or do the individuals have the right to control the embryos?
Posted By: Jokerman
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 01:21 AM
Quote:
I don't see any Constitutional authority for most of the research dollars our government spends its money on. I say we start the cause right here and now to scale back the money spent on research. We could add the money spent on drug benfits, social security, unemployment, etc. None of those are in the Constitution either.
Now you're talking! Run for President, Straw! Wait, what's that? Oh, you weren't serious...
Quote:
Can we stop anthropomorphising these embryos.
You're denying that the embryo is human?!
Quote:
Your analogy to Grandpa doesn't work because Grandpa can feel.
Not once he's dead. (Hence, the choice to bury or BBQ.)
Quote:
The embryo is dead whether it is discarded or broken up (if that is the correct term).
Same thing was true of the Jews killed in the concentration camps. I guess that the research carried out on their bodies wasn't immoral, either.
Quote:
I think you should be attacking the fact that these embryos are destroyed at all, not how they are destroyed. It is the destruction itself that is the immorality, in your premise.
You may be right that the destruction is immoral. I don't claim to know that answer. But, I'm not being asked to pay for that. Further, I am convinced that it is absolutely wrong to profit from their destruction.
Quote:
Are you advocating that the state should secure these embryos, protect them and pass them along to others, or do the individuals have the right to control the embryos?
You and yours are the ones advocating for my money to be used for what I and others believe to be unethical research. Obviously, there is not sufficient support in our society to extend any legal protection to embryos. The only thing I ask is that you not include me in these actions. Thank you.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 01:22 AM
Quote:
I would attack such “logic” based on the fact that the US Constitution does indicate that one of the proper uses of our tax dollars is to raise and secure armies. I see no such authorization for stem cell research.
Well, you're original argument was:
"Are you so authoritarian that you would take dollars from me to conduct research that I find morally reprehensible?"
I'll take the fact that you're trying to change your argument as an indication that you no longer want to advance the first one. I have no real interest in going into whether medical research is a "necessary and proper" function of government. Maybe you could take that up with the National Institutes of Health.
Quote:
Every dollar the government spends is taken out of the private economy, from you and from me.
Of course it is. But it's what you pay for your citizenship in this society and the public services you receive. It is not being "taken" from you, it's what you owe.
Quote:
So, it would not be any of our business if a pregnant individual decided to provide her 20-month old fetus for research purposes, correct?
If she's at 20 months of gestation and hasn't delivered, the research should be done on how that happened! 
What you don't seem to want to acknowledge is that in the current situation the embryoes are being disposed of. Do you admit that this is happening? And, if so, is there any argument that this is more moral than stem cell research?
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 01:30 AM
Quote:
So, it would not be any of our business if a pregnant individual decided to provide her 20-month old fetus for research purposes, correct?
but it is more her business if she is not "farming", right?
Right?
Posted By: Jokerman
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 01:36 AM
Quote:
Quote:
I would attack such “logic” based on the fact that the US Constitution does indicate that one of the proper uses of our tax dollars is to raise and secure armies. I see no such authorization for stem cell research.
Well, you're original argument was:
"Are you so authoritarian that you would take dollars from me to conduct research that I find morally reprehensible?"
I'll take the fact that you're trying to change your argument as an indication that you no longer want to advance the first one.
Pardon? When have I stopped advancing the belief that the government should not compel me to pay for this?
Quote:
I have no real interest in going into whether medical research is a "necessary and proper" function of government.
Then don't.
Quote:
Of course it is. But it's what you pay for your citizenship in this society and the public services you receive. It is not being "taken" from you, it's what you owe.
Then I suppose no one will be allowed to object to government funding of abortion? No one may object to funding the School of the Americas? No one may object to government providing grants to church schools?
Quote:
Quote:
So, it would not be any of our business if a pregnant individual decided to provide her 20-month old fetus for research purposes, correct?
If she's at 20 months of gestation and hasn't delivered, the research should be done on how that happened!
Touché...
However, if I correct the question, I doubt you'll answer it. Let's see - should it be any of our business if a pregnant individual decided to provide her 20-week old fetus to a lab for research purposes?
Quote:
What you don't seem to want to acknowledge is that in the current situation the embryoes are being disposed of. Do you admit that this is happening? And, if so, is there any argument that this is more moral than stem cell research?
Absolutely. See above. The action of discarding the embryos may not be moral. (I know that many fertility clinics provide the opportunity for embryo adoption.) Regardless, that doesn't mean that if it is not immoral to discard the embryos, then nothing you could possibly do to them would be immoral. Does it?
Would it be moral to act on necrophillic impulses?
Posted By: Jokerman
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 01:37 AM
Quote:
Quote:
So, it would not be any of our business if a pregnant individual decided to provide her 20-month old fetus for research purposes, correct?
but it is more her business if she is not "farming", right?
Right?
She may have more of an interest, but I don't see how that precludes society from having an interest. You certainly wouldn't advocate that anything she does with a 20-week old fetus is acceptable, would you?
Would you?
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 01:46 AM
Quote:
Obviously, there is not sufficient support in our society to extend any legal protection to embryos. The only thing I ask is that you not include me in these actions.
and you are guaranteed not to be asked for research tangibles and you will not reap the benefit of tangibles, either.
well, that's not true. my politics prefer to confer benefits on the minority view-holders, too.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 01:52 AM
Your comment about disposal can be equally applied to the organs of deathrow inmates. They'll just be thrown away, so why not harvest them? In terms of embryos, I agree that they show only potential to be humans, but the same argument can be made for babies. They bring to the table only potential, nothing of present value. They only consume, they produce nothing but waste. They are really only potential humans. You can say that they feel, but so do animals. Lots of folks like a burger until they find out it is Ol' Bessie, their barnyard friend. I just wish people didn't feel the need to construct rationalizations for things thy're squeamish about. Just perform the cost- benefit analysis and move on. If you're not comfortable with this, as I am, then maybe you shouldn't be making utilitarian arguments.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 01:54 AM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
So, it would not be any of our business if a pregnant individual decided to provide her 20-month old fetus for research purposes, correct?
but it is more her business if she is not "farming", right?
Right?
She may have more of an interest, but I don't see how that precludes society from having an interest. You certainly wouldn't advocate that anything she does with a 20-week old fetus is acceptable, would you?
Would you?
( )
certainly. economic issues are the province of congress. moreover, there are 1st amendment limitations.
you are reasonable... rebel scum. 
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 01:57 AM
Quote:
Just perform the cost- benefit analysis and move on. If you're not comfortable with this, as I am, then maybe you shouldn't be making utilitarian arguments.
that's a pretty blunt way to govern, no? or is it robotically anodyne?
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 02:16 AM
Quote:
Pardon? When have I stopped advancing the belief that the government should not compel me to pay for this?
The argument that you backed away from was that you shouldn't be taxed to pay for something just because you considered it to be "morally reprehensible". That argument could apply to a great many things, and if carried out, would mean that our govenment could not function.
Quote:
Then I suppose no one will be allowed to object to government funding of abortion? No one may object to funding the School of the Americas? No one may object to government providing grants to church schools?
Now you try to change THIS argument away from whether taxes are "taken" from you to whether you can "object"? Anyone can "object" to anything, but in our system of government our elected representatives decide how much to tax and how much to spend. Your "objections" should be made to them, but may well put you in the minority.
Quote:
Touché...
However, if I correct the question, I doubt you'll answer it. Let's see - should it be any of our business if a pregnant individual decided to provide her 20-week old fetus to a lab for research purposes?
Prior to viability it's her decision whether to terminate the pregnancy.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 02:17 AM
That is an effective way to make decisions. You can say I'd never eat fluffy, she's a member of the family! Get stuck with the Donner (sp) family, and your perspective night change. My main point is that everything is perspective. We try to make it feel better by saying 'such and such are not human', or I'm not doing anything wrong because I'm just working with meaningles blastospheres. Just deal with it and make your choices!
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 02:23 AM
Quote:
Your comment about disposal can be equally applied to the organs of deathrow inmates. They'll just be thrown away, so why not harvest them?
Because these are "persons" protected by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Quote:
In terms of embryos, I agree that they show only potential to be humans, but the same argument can be made for babies. They bring to the table only potential, nothing of present value. They only consume, they produce nothing but waste. They are really only potential humans.
No. These are also "persons" with Constitutional rights to life.
Actually, YOU seem to be the only one making utilitarian arguments. Mine are based on the Constitution.
Posted By: Jokerman
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 02:29 AM
Quote:
Quote:
Pardon? When have I stopped advancing the belief that the government should not compel me to pay for this?
The argument that you backed away from was that you shouldn't be taxed to pay for something just because you considered it to be "morally reprehensible". That argument could apply to a great many things, and if carried out, would mean that our govenment could not function.
I never made the argument that the only reason I should not be taxed to pay for embryonic stem cell research was because I find it morally objectionable. That was an argument. As you have belatedly admitted, anyone is free to advance such an argument.
Now, you have a point that such an argument cannot be won by everyone. My understanding is that somewhere around 25% of the voting public agrees with my position on this issue. If I could waive a magic wand and decree that the federal government funds could only be spent on items that more than 75% of the public agrees on, I would consider that a great victory.
Quote:
Quote:
...should it be any of our business if a pregnant individual decided to provide her 20-week old fetus to a lab for research purposes?
Prior to viability it's her decision whether to terminate the pregnancy.
So, anything she does with it at that point is acceptable?
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 02:39 AM
I'm just trying to get people to admit that we don't care that these are potential children, who are potential adults. their best and highest use is as sources of raw materials, end of discussion. Why is that so controversial?
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 02:55 AM
Quote:
We try to make it feel better by saying 'such and such are not human'
strawman
"are... human"? you chose that perspective. of course it is human. but it is also plants, monkeys, fish, etc. at that point. the dna sequences are unique - but so are humans and fish from a 'first person' perspective.
the reality is, we draw lines every day. you seem to want extrapolate past God-given scientific know-how to remove everything related to the concept of "human" (but yes, you begrudgingly plod ahead in the name of efficiency ). unless we were meant to have a predetermined outcome? but then the human hand comes in and plays God with medicine...
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 03:06 AM
Actually, you misinterpret me. I could give a rat's a$$ about "god's will". We should just stop hiding behind strawmen. If it is 50 +1% in favor, we should procede. Other consideration be
d@mned. You misunderstand me. If your leg best serves someone else, it should be taken from you and distributed accordingly. I have little patience for human whining.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 03:18 AM
Quote:
If your leg best serves someone else, it should be taken from you and distributed accordingly.
exhausted, anti-left rhetoric even though i have attempted to be objective. i have tried to include all considerations to arrive at a conclusion and you are insisting on telling me that my analyses are simply boiled down to "majority rules".
and i am happy you have decided to abandon strawmen. the debates actually arrive somewhere now or can develope issues more deeply. sometimes we are too proud to compromise or see one another's points.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 03:32 AM
wow, sometimes igorance doesn't even comprehend itself.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 03:47 AM
Quote:
I'm just trying to get people to admit that we don't care that these are potential children, who are potential adults. their best and highest use is as sources of raw materials, end of discussion. Why is that so controversial?
It's not "controversial" it's that your argument is nonsense that exists only in you own mind. If you can't respond to the arguments that are actually made by the other side, don't even bother to participate.
A person in a persistant vegetative state is human as well, but we as a society question whether that person should be kept alive by artificial means.
The stem cell debate, the Terri Schiavo case (and ones like it), abortion, and assisted suicide all have the same core questions:
1. What is the LEGAL definition of human life?
2. By whom, and under what circumstances, may someone end a human life? (Likely different parameters depending upon whether the life fits the description of LEGAL or not).
Instead of proposing silly constitutional amendments like ones prohibiting gay marriage or flag burning, how about an amendment that would define human life for legal purposes?
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 01:43 PM
Quote:
Instead of proposing silly constitutional amendments like ones prohibiting gay marriage or flag burning, how about an amendment that would define human life for legal purposes?
what is wrong with the current legal definition? other than the fact that some disagree with the decision. it is pretty clear and seems to reflect an objective rationale. an amendment would either adopt what the court has said or would never agree enough to have an amendment.
those other things are base-rallying causes to attempt to ameliorate the expected slaughter at the polls.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 01:46 PM
Instead of proposing silly constitutional amendments like ones prohibiting gay marriage or flag burning, how about an amendment that would define human life for legal purposes?
___________________________
I completely agree with this statement. Why is our legislative even discussing things like flag burning and gay marriages when there are more hard core issues out there. You are right TICG, where do we draw a line on when to end a human life, why not have the legislative discuss that
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 01:47 PM
The government will spend our money on a military and other things like roads and necessary things based on Social Contract Theory. This is the responsibility of the US gov't. But forcing J to spend his money on research would be a stretch. I must say that I agree with J on this one.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 01:53 PM
Quote:
The government will spend our money on a military and other things like roads and necessary things based on Social Contract Theory. This is the responsibility of the US gov't. But forcing J to spend his money on research would be a stretch. I must say that I agree with J on this one.
health care is not one of these things?
Posted By: Bengals Fan
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 02:03 PM
Quote:
Instead of proposing silly constitutional amendments like ones prohibiting gay marriage or flag burning, how about an amendment that would define human life for legal purposes?
___________________________
I completely agree with this statement. Why is our legislative even discussing things like flag burning and gay marriages when there are more hard core issues out there. You are right TICG, where do we draw a line on when to end a human life, why not have the legislative discuss that
Flag burning is a waste of time. However, gay marriage is not. We are talking about defining what it means to be married legally. This is a major issue, as it involves tax codes, etc. Is an ammendment needed one way or another? Probably not. However, we do need some way of making sure that marriage is defined for legal purposes. Without doing this, same sex partners are discriminated against in the legal code.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 02:08 PM
Quote:
Without doing this, same sex partners are discriminated against in the legal code.
because people like you want them to be. wouldn't the discussed amendment affirm that marriage is between a man and a woman? how would an amendment help the people you seem to care about ( )?
Posted By: Bengals Fan
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 02:57 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Without doing this, same sex partners are discriminated against in the legal code.
because people like you want them to be. wouldn't the discussed amendment affirm that marriage is between a man and a woman? how would an amendment help the people you seem to care about ( )?
You know, you really don't know me at all. Yes, my gut reaction is to protect marriage against such things as allowing anyone to marry anything. I don't like the idea of allowing gays to marry because it disturbs me to see holy union turned to something involving sin. However, I do support civil unions. I do not support the ammendment as it is written. I did when it first started, so those of you hoping to call me "inconsistent" can grow up. I have. Not allowing them to have a civil union is in fact discrimination, and solves nothing.
Posted By: straw
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 02:57 PM
Quote:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't see any Constitutional authority for most of the research dollars our government spends its money on. I say we start the cause right here and now to scale back the money spent on research. We could add the money spent on drug benfits, social security, unemployment, etc. None of those are in the Constitution either.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now you're talking! Run for President, Straw! Wait, what's that? Oh, you weren't serious...
As serious as your Constituional non-argument was.
Quote:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can we stop anthropomorphising these embryos.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You're denying that the embryo is human?!
These embryos are potential humans. Is a tadpole a frog? Is a caterpillar a butterfly?
Quote:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The embryo is dead whether it is discarded or broken up (if that is the correct term).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Same thing was true of the Jews killed in the concentration camps. I guess that the research carried out on their bodies wasn't immoral, either.
Again, your premise is flawed in that if your premise was accepted as true, these embryos could not be destroyed, as the destruction would be murder.
Quote:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you advocating that the state should secure these embryos, protect them and pass them along to others, or do the individuals have the right to control the embryos?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You and yours are the ones advocating for my money to be used for what I and others believe to be unethical research. Obviously, there is not sufficient support in our society to extend any legal protection to embryos. The only thing I ask is that you not include me in these actions. Thank you.
Well, the political process will resolve this issue and we will all have to live with the decision. My tax dollars are used in ways I deplore, find immoral and reprehensible, but that is part of the social contract.
My guess is the President will veto the bill and Congress will be unable to overide. It will look ironic in the future that the only veto this President cast was on this issue.
Posted By: Bengals Fan
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 03:07 PM
Are tadpoles frogs? Indeed they are. Tadpoles, polliwogs, whatever you want to call them, they are frogs in the early stages of development, not some separate thing without life.
Is a caterpillar a butterfly? Not necessarily. It may be a moth. However, once again, it is a living being, an early stage of development of these creatures, not some separate thing without life.
Are maggots flies? Well yes, they are. Once again, living being, not something without life.
Is a child who failed to develop all five fingers and toes not a child? Just because something doesn't look the same doesn't make it the same. In the case of an embryo, it IS human life, plain and simple.
You keep saying that because the embryos could be destroyed in other ways justifies destroying them for research. Yet who is saying it is ok to discard or destroy them? ONLY YOU. The very creation of these extra embryos is in question. Why create life 10 times when you are only going to inseminate once? Why not create life once, and if it doesn't work, start from the beginning all over again? There is no ethical reason not to.
As far as W's only veto being cast on this issue, you say it will look ironic to the future. I say it probably won't even be noticed. Can you tell me what Reagan vetoed while he was in office without googling it? If anything, if it is remembered, it will be remembered that he stood passionately on the side of respecting life. He stood and tried to get something done for Terri, and he stands against embryonic stem cell research. He has been consistent.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 03:28 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Without doing this, same sex partners are discriminated against in the legal code.
because people like you want them to be. wouldn't the discussed amendment affirm that marriage is between a man and a woman? how would an amendment help the people you seem to care about ( )?
You know, you really don't know me at all. Yes, my gut reaction is to protect marriage against such things as allowing anyone to marry anything. I don't like the idea of allowing gays to marry because it disturbs me to see holy union turned to something involving sin. However, I do support civil unions. I do not support the ammendment as it is written. I did when it first started, so those of you hoping to call me "inconsistent" can grow up. I have. Not allowing them to have a civil union is in fact discrimination, and solves nothing.
bf, if i challenge you, it is not because i don't value your opinion. i actually believe i fall the exact same way you do on this. i want a union between same sex couples to confer the same benefits as marriage does, but the concept of marriage should be defined by faith (and therefore not a roll by government unless that religion does something where the public has a compelling interest like polygamy). so even though i have a problem calling homosexuality sinful, my conclusion is the same as yours legally.
Posted By: Smilzsomuch
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 03:33 PM
Well, I'll agree to a degree on the 'problem calling homosexuality sinful' ~ it's actually worse than that.
It's an abomination.
Some would say it's the next step away from reprobation.
We're all entitled to our own opinions, right?
Posted By: MadisonCali
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 03:38 PM
Quote:
Well, I'll agree to a degree on the 'problem calling homosexuality sinful' ~ it's actually worse than that.
It's an abomination.
Some would say it's the next step away from reprobation.
We're all entitled to our own opinions, right?
We definitely are.
And I couldn't disagree more with yours.
Posted By: Smilzsomuch
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 03:45 PM
That's fine. Mine comes from the infallible word of God (the abomination part). The Word of God will stand thru the ages...
...and yours comes from where?
Posted By: MadisonCali
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 03:47 PM
My mind and my heart.
The excuse that homosexuality is 'against God' makes me physically ill.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 03:48 PM
Quote:
Well, I'll agree to a degree on the 'problem calling homosexuality sinful' ~ it's actually worse than that.
It's an abomination.
Some would say it's the next step away from reprobation.
We're all entitled to our own opinions, right?
it's also a born-with trait. your faith tells you you must conclude that it is a choice; God wouldn't create gay. right?
so while you are entitled to your opinion of it, i doubt you have looked at the issue objectively.
Posted By: Smilzsomuch
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 03:50 PM
Actually. It's not any more a 'born-with trait' than alcoholism is a born with trait.
Homosexuality is a spirit.
God created man in His own image. God is not, was not and will never be gay. Why would He be against the sin/abomination of homosexuality if He created it.
Man has a choice. What you entertain/partake in, you become.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 03:52 PM
Quote:
That's fine. Mine comes from the infallible word of God (the abomination part). The Word of God will stand thru the ages...
...and yours comes from where?
the same infallible word that said the earth was created in 7 days (or 6 leaving out the rest day)?
your post illustrates exactly what i was getting at when i titled the thread what i did. faith is a creation that, among other things, attempts to explain the unknown.
Posted By: MadisonCali
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 03:57 PM
Quote:
Actually. It's not any more a 'born-with trait' than alcoholism is a born with trait.
Actually, many studies confirm that alcoholism IS a 'born with trait'. It's called 'genetics', by the way.
Posted By: Jokerman
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 04:08 PM
Quote:
As serious as your Constituional non-argument was.
Let's see if I can capture some of that old-fashioned Straw-like sarcasm...
Right, because everyone knows there is nothing that the government is currently involving itself in that is not authorized under the Constitution...
Quote:
These embryos are potential humans. Is a tadpole a frog? Is a caterpillar a butterfly?
Like a tadpole is a frog in an early stage of development, so is an embryo a human in an early stage of development. Tell me, Straw, at what day of development will you disallow research?
Quote:
Again, your premise is flawed in that if your premise was accepted as true, these embryos could not be destroyed, as the destruction would be murder.
No, Straw. You seem to want to argue that as long as they are going to be destroyed anyway, anything you do with them after that point is moral. When the bodies of many Jews were used for research by the Nazi scientists, they were already dead. Maybe you want to argue that the research was not unethical? But the analogy is apt.
Quote:
Well, the political process will resolve this issue and we will all have to live with the decision. My tax dollars are used in ways I deplore, find immoral and reprehensible, but that is part of the social contract.
My guess is the President will veto the bill and Congress will be unable to overide. It will look ironic in the future that the only veto this President cast was on this issue.
Or, history will say, we shouldn't have let that genie out of the bottle. There is no question where this is leading.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 04:12 PM
Quote:
Tell me, Straw, at what day of development will you disallow research?
if i may, the parameters are set by roe. if there is "farming" going on, congress may disallow the practice at any step of the process. is there some other concern?
Posted By: Smilzsomuch
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 04:13 PM
Quote:
My mind and my heart.
The excuse that homosexuality is 'against God' makes me physically ill.
I don't think I said 'against God'.
Again, you're a creature of choice. You can believe what you wish.
Gods' word is true. Infallible. It will stand when all else fails/ceases.
Sorry you're ill.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 04:16 PM
Quote:
Quote:
My mind and my heart.
The excuse that homosexuality is 'against God' makes me physically ill.
I don't think I said 'against God'.
Again, you're a creature of choice. You can believe what you wish.
Gods' word is true. Infallible. It will stand when all else fails/ceases.
Sorry you're ill.
once again, the world created in 6-7 days is also "infallible". doesn't it seem possible that, at the time the bible was written, they couldn't figure out why same sex individuals were attracted to one another and they decided that it HAD to be choice and therefore it became something which was determined to be a sin?
all i am asking is for you to look at it objectively.
Posted By: Jokerman
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 04:18 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Tell me, Straw, at what day of development will you disallow research?
if i may, the parameters are set by roe.
Do you expect that our culture will accept this, today? I mean, sure, hack up a blastocyst - but a 20-week fetus?
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 04:22 PM
Homosexuality is a spirit? What does that mean, Smilz?
Suzy
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 04:25 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Tell me, Straw, at what day of development will you disallow research?
if i may, the parameters are set by roe.
Do you expect that our culture will accept this, today? I mean, sure, hack up a blastocyst - but a 20-week fetus?
doesn't the choice of religion fall upon the individual? if 'it' is not an individual with rights, it is essentially a mass of tissue and as long as there is no profiteering from the process, there are ethical considerations for other biologicals which would apply. but the idea of "desecration" is a purely religious one and we all know about government and religion.
i don't think the slippery slope you are suggesting goes very far.
Posted By: straw
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 04:27 PM
Quote:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As serious as your Constituional non-argument was.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's see if I can capture some of that old-fashioned Straw-like sarcasm...
Right, because everyone knows there is nothing that the government is currently involving itself in that is not authorized under the Constitution...
Right, and I am sure you wail against those issues as vehemently as you do on this one. At least be honest with yourself; you attack this issue as a moral/ethical issue. The Constitutionality of it is a non-starter, since your argument would close the CDC and the NIH.
I am all for it, but I don't think there are many others who would agree.
Quote:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These embryos are potential humans. Is a tadpole a frog? Is a caterpillar a butterfly?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Like a tadpole is a frog in an early stage of development, so is an embryo a human in an early stage of development. Tell me, Straw, at what day of development will you disallow research?
When it is defined as a person entitled to protection under the law. I keep coming back to that on this subject. The only way your premise works is if we define the embryo as a person entitled to full protection under the law. Any less protection would violate its rights.
If you want to talk about a pandora's box, imagine the ramifications of that.
Quote:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, your premise is flawed in that if your premise was accepted as true, these embryos could not be destroyed, as the destruction would be murder.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, Straw. You seem to want to argue that as long as they are going to be destroyed anyway, anything you do with them after that point is moral. When the bodies of many Jews were used for research by the Nazi scientists, they were already dead. Maybe you want to argue that the research was not unethical? But the analogy is apt.
THe Nazis experimented on Jews when they were alive too. The fact that you see this issue in the same light is distasteful to me. To compare these cells to a human being, with self-awareness is incredible.
I suspect you are using this analogy to get an emotional rise, but I will not go there.
It is life, of course, is it human? What defines being human?
Quote:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, the political process will resolve this issue and we will all have to live with the decision. My tax dollars are used in ways I deplore, find immoral and reprehensible, but that is part of the social contract.
My guess is the President will veto the bill and Congress will be unable to overide. It will look ironic in the future that the only veto this President cast was on this issue.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Or, history will say, we shouldn't have let that genie out of the bottle. There is no question where this is leading
Please tell me J-mac the magnificent where this is all leading.
Posted By: Smilzsomuch
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 04:37 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
My mind and my heart.
The excuse that homosexuality is 'against God' makes me physically ill.
I don't think I said 'against God'.
Again, you're a creature of choice. You can believe what you wish.
Gods' word is true. Infallible. It will stand when all else fails/ceases.
Sorry you're ill.
once again, the world created in 6-7 days is also "infallible". doesn't it seem possible that, at the time the bible was written, they couldn't figure out why same sex individuals were attracted to one another and they decided that it HAD to be choice and therefore it became something which was determined to be a sin?
all i am asking is for you to look at it objectively.
As for looking at it objectively: I have. At my age, I've dissected, examined, regrouped. I arrive at the same conclusion.
As for creation?
"a thousand years are but as one day with the Lord".
Time is nothing to God.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 04:41 PM
smilz, i am not going to force your hand or tell you what to think. your responses do help me to prove my point, however.
Posted By: Smilzsomuch
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 04:45 PM
Hope you like my brand of ammo.
You cannot force my hand.
That's what makes life great. We can both exist and believe what we will.
Quote:
My guess is the President will veto the bill and Congress will be unable to overide. It will look ironic in the future that the only veto this President cast was on this issue.
Congress will be unable to override it now. After the midterm elections it may be a different story. So why then have a vote now? My theory is that Congress is desperately looking for things to distinguish them from Bush going into the midterms to avoid being slaughtered.
Posted By: Bengals Fan
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 05:08 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Well, I'll agree to a degree on the 'problem calling homosexuality sinful' ~ it's actually worse than that.
It's an abomination.
Some would say it's the next step away from reprobation.
We're all entitled to our own opinions, right?
it's also a born-with trait. your faith tells you you must conclude that it is a choice; God wouldn't create gay. right?
so while you are entitled to your opinion of it, i doubt you have looked at the issue objectively.
So where is this gay gene? Is it made by Jordache?
There is and never will be any evidence that you are "born gay". THAT is the excuse. Certainly you may have a desire for someone of the same sex, but each and every time you act on it, you make a choice. Murder is a sin too, but there are murderers? Did God make them that way? No. But he did give them free choice in a world where we are challenged by temptation.
But this thread is not about that issue at all.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 05:10 PM
Can anyone on this board state that they choose to be straight? I certainly can't.
Suzy
Posted By: Bengals Fan
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 05:15 PM
Quote:
Can anyone on this board state that they choose to be straight? I certainly can't.
Suzy
Sure you can. You can make the choice of being celibate, straight, or homosexual. It's about the act. Each and every time you chose to act on your impulses you make that choice. Whether it is sexuality, violence, theft, or any other impulse, it is a choice based on the temptation to do something.
What those arguing that homosexuality is natural because we can't help our desires so therefore it MUST be born with forget is that this argument fails. We CAN chose who we sleep with. We CAN chose to steal or not to steal when we see the guy walking past drop his wallet with $100 in it. We CAN chose whether to scream and shout when we get angry, attack someone who makes us angry, kill the person who made us angry, or walk away.
Life is about choices. Saying you have no choice is a cheap, lazy copout.
Posted By: Miscuit
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 05:22 PM
But I don't recall "choosing" to be straight. It's just the "way I am".
So isn't the same true for someone who is homosexual?
Quote:
Quote:
Can anyone on this board state that they choose to be straight? I certainly can't.
Suzy
Sure you can. You can make the choice of being celibate, straight, or homosexual. It's about the act. Each and every time you chose to act on your impulses you make that choice. Whether it is sexuality, violence, theft, or any other impulse, it is a choice based on the temptation to do something.
What those arguing that homosexuality is natural because we can't help our desires so therefore it MUST be born with forget is that this argument fails. We CAN chose who we sleep with. We CAN chose to steal or not to steal when we see the guy walking past drop his wallet with $100 in it. We CAN chose whether to scream and shout when we get angry, attack someone who makes us angry, kill the person who made us angry, or walk away.
Life is about choices. Saying you have no choice is a cheap, lazy copout.
One may have a natural tendency to kill or steal, just as they may have a natural tendency towards homosexuality. The difference is that murder and theft must be illegal in a civil society to protect people's rights. A homosexual act does not impinge on anyone's rights (unless it is rape, which is a crime regardless of the sex of the parties).
Posted By: MichelleDawn
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 05:23 PM
I find it odd that people are so concerned about a ball of cells, but have no concern for human beings if they happen to be *gasp* gay. Some of the attitudes and ideas on this board make me physcially ill. I can only imagine God weeps when he hears how some chuckle-heads have missed the entire point of Jesus's time on earth.
Posted By: Beige
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 05:25 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Well, I'll agree to a degree on the 'problem calling homosexuality sinful' ~ it's actually worse than that.
It's an abomination.
Some would say it's the next step away from reprobation.
We're all entitled to our own opinions, right?
it's also a born-with trait. your faith tells you you must conclude that it is a choice; God wouldn't create gay. right?
so while you are entitled to your opinion of it, i doubt you have looked at the issue objectively.
So where is this gay gene? Is it made by Jordache?
There is and never will be any evidence that you are "born gay". THAT is the excuse. Certainly you may have a desire for someone of the same sex, but each and every time you act on it, you make a choice. Murder is a sin too, but there are murderers? Did God make them that way? No. But he did give them free choice in a world where we are challenged by temptation.
But this thread is not about that issue at all.
There is also no way to prove that people AREN'T born gay. I think where the two points of view are straying is the physical and the emotional aspect of homosexuality. Yes...you can choose your actions, regardless if you feel an attraction to the same sex or not. You do have the choice to act on that thoughT. However...is it the act or the desire to act that makes someone a homosexual? If what smilez and bf are saying is true, then the fact that someone has as incredible lifelong desire to be with the same sex yet doesn't act on it, that person is therefore not a homosexual.
However...if a straight person has desire and chooses not to act on it, they are celebit. So my question is, if someone believes strongly that they are homosexual, yet choose not to act on it - are they still a homosexual? If so, are they forgiven, in God's eyes, because they have not acted, although they still have the impure thoughts?
What then?
What is the biblical definition of "homosexuality". Is it the thought or the act??
Posted By: Smilzsomuch
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 05:29 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Can anyone on this board state that they choose to be straight? I certainly can't.
Suzy
Sure you can. You can make the choice of being celibate, straight, or homosexual. It's about the act. Each and every time you chose to act on your impulses you make that choice. Whether it is sexuality, violence, theft, or any other impulse, it is a choice based on the temptation to do something.
What those arguing that homosexuality is natural because we can't help our desires so therefore it MUST be born with forget is that this argument fails. We CAN chose who we sleep with. We CAN chose to steal or not to steal when we see the guy walking past drop his wallet with $100 in it. We CAN chose whether to scream and shout when we get angry, attack someone who makes us angry, kill the person who made us angry, or walk away.
Life is about choices. Saying you have no choice is a cheap, lazy copout.
One may have a natural tendency to kill or steal, just as they may have a natural tendency towards homosexuality. The difference is that murder and theft must be illegal in a civil society to protect people's rights. A homosexual act does not impinge on anyone's rights (unless it is rape, which is a crime regardless of the sex of the parties).
Adamic nature is to sin. Again, we make the choices hinged on the thoughts we entertain. An action resulting from some time in meditation, whether it's a minute, hour, day, week or year.
You choose to entertain thoughts and they can become actions.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 05:29 PM
If you have to make a conscious choice to be with your partner, then you should examine your relationship. If you could choose who you would fall in love with, then there wouldn't be any need to date and we can all go to arranged marriages.
Suzy
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Well, I'll agree to a degree on the 'problem calling homosexuality sinful' ~ it's actually worse than that.
It's an abomination.
Some would say it's the next step away from reprobation.
We're all entitled to our own opinions, right?
it's also a born-with trait. your faith tells you you must conclude that it is a choice; God wouldn't create gay. right?
so while you are entitled to your opinion of it, i doubt you have looked at the issue objectively.
So where is this gay gene? Is it made by Jordache?
There is and never will be any evidence that you are "born gay". THAT is the excuse. Certainly you may have a desire for someone of the same sex, but each and every time you act on it, you make a choice. Murder is a sin too, but there are murderers? Did God make them that way? No. But he did give them free choice in a world where we are challenged by temptation.
But this thread is not about that issue at all.
There is also no way to prove that people AREN'T born gay. I think where the two points of view are straying is the physical and the emotional aspect of homosexuality. Yes...you can choose your actions, regardless if you feel an attraction to the same sex or not. You do have the choice to act on that thoughT. However...is it the act or the desire to act that makes someone a homosexual? If what smilez and bf are saying is true, then the fact that someone has as incredible lifelong desire to be with the same sex yet doesn't act on it, that person is therefore not a homosexual.
However...if a straight person has desire and chooses not to act on it, they are celebit. So my question is, if someone believes strongly that they are homosexual, yet choose not to act on it - are they still a homosexual? If so, are they forgiven, in God's eyes, because they have not acted, although they still have the impure thoughts?
What then?
What is the biblical definition of "homosexuality". Is it the thought or the act??
In this regard, I've wondered how there can be gay priests. If they take a vow of celibacy, they should be neither gay nor straight
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 05:33 PM
Quote:
happen to be *gasp* gay
bf doesn't believe they "happen" to be gay. he believes it is a choice. a choice to go against the natural programming of being straight . (i'm sure that determination can't be explained by my previous description of faith to explain the unknown)
Posted By: Retired DQ
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 05:33 PM
Quote:
In this regard, I've wondered how there can be gay priests. If they take a vow of celibacy, they should be neither gay nor straight
Never mind the gay factor, what about child molestation? These types of purporters of the "Lord's word" are worse than anything.
Posted By: Smilzsomuch
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 05:34 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Well, I'll agree to a degree on the 'problem calling homosexuality sinful' ~ it's actually worse than that.
It's an abomination.
Some would say it's the next step away from reprobation.
We're all entitled to our own opinions, right?
it's also a born-with trait. your faith tells you you must conclude that it is a choice; God wouldn't create gay. right?
so while you are entitled to your opinion of it, i doubt you have looked at the issue objectively.
So where is this gay gene? Is it made by Jordache?
There is and never will be any evidence that you are "born gay". THAT is the excuse. Certainly you may have a desire for someone of the same sex, but each and every time you act on it, you make a choice. Murder is a sin too, but there are murderers? Did God make them that way? No. But he did give them free choice in a world where we are challenged by temptation.
But this thread is not about that issue at all.
There is also no way to prove that people AREN'T born gay. I think where the two points of view are straying is the physical and the emotional aspect of homosexuality. Yes...you can choose your actions, regardless if you feel an attraction to the same sex or not. You do have the choice to act on that thoughT. However...is it the act or the desire to act that makes someone a homosexual? If what smilez and bf are saying is true, then the fact that someone has as incredible lifelong desire to be with the same sex yet doesn't act on it, that person is therefore not a homosexual.
However...if a straight person has desire and chooses not to act on it, they are celebit. So my question is, if someone believes strongly that they are homosexual, yet choose not to act on it - are they still a homosexual? If so, are they forgiven, in God's eyes, because they have not acted, although they still have the impure thoughts?
What then?
What is the biblical definition of "homosexuality". Is it the thought or the act??
A person has no control over the thoughts that enter their heads. It's up to them whether they entertain them or not.
If a person has thoughts of homosexuality and does not act on them, then no, i would not think they are considered a homosexual. A continuation in that practice would certainly label them as one
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 05:35 PM
Quote:
If what smilez and bf are saying is true, then the fact that someone has as incredible lifelong desire to be with the same sex yet doesn't act on it, that person is therefore not a homosexual.
wow. nicely put.
Posted By: Smilzsomuch
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 05:36 PM
(it's Smilz. No e.)
Posted By: Beige
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 05:37 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Well, I'll agree to a degree on the 'problem calling homosexuality sinful' ~ it's actually worse than that.
It's an abomination.
Some would say it's the next step away from reprobation.
We're all entitled to our own opinions, right?
it's also a born-with trait. your faith tells you you must conclude that it is a choice; God wouldn't create gay. right?
so while you are entitled to your opinion of it, i doubt you have looked at the issue objectively.
So where is this gay gene? Is it made by Jordache?
There is and never will be any evidence that you are "born gay". THAT is the excuse. Certainly you may have a desire for someone of the same sex, but each and every time you act on it, you make a choice. Murder is a sin too, but there are murderers? Did God make them that way? No. But he did give them free choice in a world where we are challenged by temptation.
But this thread is not about that issue at all.
There is also no way to prove that people AREN'T born gay. I think where the two points of view are straying is the physical and the emotional aspect of homosexuality. Yes...you can choose your actions, regardless if you feel an attraction to the same sex or not. You do have the choice to act on that thoughT. However...is it the act or the desire to act that makes someone a homosexual? If what smilez and bf are saying is true, then the fact that someone has as incredible lifelong desire to be with the same sex yet doesn't act on it, that person is therefore not a homosexual.
However...if a straight person has desire and chooses not to act on it, they are celebit. So my question is, if someone believes strongly that they are homosexual, yet choose not to act on it - are they still a homosexual? If so, are they forgiven, in God's eyes, because they have not acted, although they still have the impure thoughts?
What then?
What is the biblical definition of "homosexuality". Is it the thought or the act??
A person has no control over the thoughts that enter their heads. It's up to them whether they entertain them or not.
If a person has thoughts of homosexuality and does not act on them, then no, i would not think they are considered a homosexual. A continuation in that practice would certainly label them as one
Following that same thought process...if a person thought that Satan was to be worshipped, yet never acted on it, only thought about it...that would also not be a sin. Right?
Posted By: Beige
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 05:38 PM
Quote:
(it's Smilz. No e.)
OOPS! Sorry!!! 
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 05:40 PM
Quote:
Quote:
The government will spend our money on a military and other things like roads and necessary things based on Social Contract Theory. This is the responsibility of the US gov't. But forcing J to spend his money on research would be a stretch. I must say that I agree with J on this one.
health care is not one of these things?
No, we don't live in the socialist country you just proposed. Under social contract theory the state is designed to allow us to do what we want and keep us protected from the outside. I do not see health care is not necessary to do that.
Health care is an added bonus that an individual is capable of paying for.
<SH>
Posted By: Smilzsomuch
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 05:40 PM
Not a problem
Posted By: Jokerman
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 05:42 PM
Quote:
your argument would close the CDC and the NIH.
I am all for it, but I don't think there are many others who would agree.
In general, I am all for shuttering those types of departments, but you could make a good argument that there are national security implications, especially today, so I don't think that it necessarily follows that if we aren't conducting stem cell research on constitutional grounds we can't possibly have a CDC.
Quote:
Quote:
Like a tadpole is a frog in an early stage of development, so is an embryo a human in an early stage of development. Tell me, Straw, at what day of development will you disallow research?
When it is defined as a person entitled to protection under the law. I keep coming back to that on this subject. The only way your premise works is if we define the embryo as a person entitled to full protection under the law. Any less protection would violate its rights.
If you want to talk about a pandora's box, imagine the ramifications of that.
The Pandora's box of granting protections to the unborn? No, Straw, this argument has absolutely nothing - nada! - nothing at all, move along please! keep moving to do with abortion! Nothing!
I'd much rather deal with the implications of granting protection to the unborn than of conducting research on them.
Quote:
Quote:
No, Straw. You seem to want to argue that as long as they are going to be destroyed anyway, anything you do with them after that point is moral. When the bodies of many Jews were used for research by the Nazi scientists, they were already dead. Maybe you want to argue that the research was not unethical? But the analogy is apt.
THe Nazis experimented on Jews when they were alive too. The fact that you see this issue in the same light is distasteful to me. To compare these cells to a human being, with self-awareness is incredible.
I suspect you are using this analogy to get an emotional rise, but I will not go there.
It is life, of course, is it human? What defines being human?
Is an infant self-aware?
By the way, does the Nazi expirementation on live Jews somehow make the expirements on dead Jews somehow less unethical?
I'm not trying to get an emotional rise. I'm asking where we draw lines. You apparently think that research on any from of human life (to which you deny the classification "human being") which is not granted protected status under the law is moral. I disagree.
I think that the destruction of a nine-month fetus for research purposes would be immoral. I think that the destruction of an eight-month fetus for research purposes would be immoral. I think that the destruction of a seven-month fetus for research purposes would be immoral. I think that the destruction of a six-month fetus for research purposes would be immoral. I think that the destruction of a five-month fetus for research purposes would be immoral. I think that the destruction of a four-month fetus for research purposes would be immoral. I think that the destruction of a three-month fetus for research purposes would be immoral. I think that the destruction of an eight-week embryo for research purposes would be immoral. I think that the destruction of four-week embryo for research purposes would be immoral. I think that the destruction of a four-day embryo for research purposes would be immoral. And I think that the destruction of a one-day embryo for research purposes would be immoral.
Quote:
Please tell me J-mac the magnificent where this is all leading.
There is no need to be snide. This is leading surely and not slowly to the cloning of human beings specifically to be destroyed for research. Even the pro-ESRC scientists will tell you that. The numbers needed are simply impractical to obtain, otherwise.
Quote:
Quote:
If what smilez and bf are saying is true, then the fact that someone has as incredible lifelong desire to be with the same sex yet doesn't act on it, that person is therefore not a homosexual.
wow. nicely put.
I don't know if it's that simple. Didn't Jesus say that if someone hates they commit murder in their heart? And if they look lustfully at someone they commit adultery in their heart?
It's true that you cannot control the initial thought that come into your head, but a sin can be committed without a physical act. The question is at what point you entertain the thought long enough for it to become a sin. In the example given, you may be attracted to someone of the same sex, even so much that it is hard to take your eyes off someone you find attractive. If you resist and look away and fill your mind with other thoughts, it's possible to not sin. If you let yourself fantasize about the person, it would still be a sin even though you commit no physical act.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 05:48 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The government will spend our money on a military and other things like roads and necessary things based on Social Contract Theory. This is the responsibility of the US gov't. But forcing J to spend his money on research would be a stretch. I must say that I agree with J on this one.
health care is not one of these things?
No, we don't live in the socialist country you just proposed. Under social contract theory the state is designed to allow us to do what we want and keep us protected from the outside. I do not see health care is not necessary to do that.
Health care is an added bonus that an individual is capable of paying for.
<SH>
my bad, i forgot that the government doesn't make grants for research related to health care.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 05:57 PM
BTW Ron SH is Shemp. The reason I stopped putting Shemp here was because you can still do a search. But I was getting lumped in with the angry anons too often.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 06:00 PM
Quote:
But what J is arguing is why should his money go to something he does not agree with. Someone pointed out that they don't agree with the military effort but their taxes go there. I say that that argument is not valide becuase they must pay for military under social contract theory. But J does not have to pay for his thing under social contract theory.
steve, i try not to mix issues and no my statement was not for gov't-supported healthcare.
however, under the contract theory, like with the military, the spending on certain things for the greater good of society is what is allowed. it is unfortunate that he is not on board but he will not be denied the benefits resulting from the research.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 06:00 PM
Quote:
BTW Ron SH is Shemp. The reason I stopped putting Shemp here was because you can still do a search. But I was getting lumped in with the angry anons too often.
oh, cheers! i thought SH was steve hoogerhyde.
Posted By: straw
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 06:05 PM
Quote:
Quote:
your argument would close the CDC and the NIH.
I am all for it, but I don't think there are many others who would agree.
In general, I am all for shuttering those types of departments, but you could make a good argument that there are national security implications, especially today, so I don't think that it necessarily follows that if we aren't conducting stem cell research on constitutional grounds we can't possibly have a CDC.
Quote:
Quote:
Like a tadpole is a frog in an early stage of development, so is an embryo a human in an early stage of development. Tell me, Straw, at what day of development will you disallow research?
When it is defined as a person entitled to protection under the law. I keep coming back to that on this subject. The only way your premise works is if we define the embryo as a person entitled to full protection under the law. Any less protection would violate its rights.
If you want to talk about a pandora's box, imagine the ramifications of that.
The Pandora's box of granting protections to the unborn? No, Straw, this argument has absolutely nothing - nada! - nothing at all, move along please! keep moving to do with abortion! Nothing!
I'd much rather deal with the implications of granting protection to the unborn than of conducting research on them.
Quote:
Quote:
No, Straw. You seem to want to argue that as long as they are going to be destroyed anyway, anything you do with them after that point is moral. When the bodies of many Jews were used for research by the Nazi scientists, they were already dead. Maybe you want to argue that the research was not unethical? But the analogy is apt.
THe Nazis experimented on Jews when they were alive too. The fact that you see this issue in the same light is distasteful to me. To compare these cells to a human being, with self-awareness is incredible.
I suspect you are using this analogy to get an emotional rise, but I will not go there.
It is life, of course, is it human? What defines being human?
Is an infant self-aware?
By the way, does the Nazi expirementation on live Jews somehow make the expirements on dead Jews somehow less unethical?
I'm not trying to get an emotional rise. I'm asking where we draw lines. You apparently think that research on any from of human life (to which you deny the classification "human being") which is not granted protected status under the law is moral. I disagree.
I think that the destruction of a nine-month fetus for research purposes would be immoral. I think that the destruction of an eight-month fetus for research purposes would be immoral. I think that the destruction of a seven-month fetus for research purposes would be immoral. I think that the destruction of a six-month fetus for research purposes would be immoral. I think that the destruction of a five-month fetus for research purposes would be immoral. I think that the destruction of a four-month fetus for research purposes would be immoral. I think that the destruction of a three-month fetus for research purposes would be immoral. I think that the destruction of an eight-week embryo for research purposes would be immoral. I think that the destruction of four-week embryo for research purposes would be immoral. I think that the destruction of a four-day embryo for research purposes would be immoral. And I think that the destruction of a one-day embryo for research purposes would be immoral.
Quote:
Please tell me J-mac the magnificent where this is all leading.
There is no need to be snide. This is leading surely and not slowly to the cloning of human beings specifically to be destroyed for research. Even the pro-ESRC scientists will tell you that. The numbers needed are simply impractical to obtain, otherwise.
And we would draw the lines differently. I agree with you on the fetus, not on the embryo. That is my line.
And I find it ironic that you dismiss slippery slope arguments in other contexts, but conclude that the inescapable course we are on is cloning.
The research may lead absoultely no where, which would make that moot. And again, I believe most people would have a problem with a farm built to clone these cells.
My guess is if we are able to derive anything from the research, we would also be able to derive a way to create the cells too. But unlike you, I don't see either of these as inevitable. I don't know where this will lead.
And I wasn't be snide, I was being sarcastic. Guess you didn't find it funny.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 06:08 PM
Quote:
Quote:
BTW Ron SH is Shemp. The reason I stopped putting Shemp here was because you can still do a search. But I was getting lumped in with the angry anons too often.
oh, cheers! i thought SH was steve hoogerhyde.
lol The S is for my login name and the H is for the Here. Now hopefully this thread will die so it cannot be searched.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 06:11 PM
<SH> However the way I was taught Social Contract theory is that it was not what was for the greatest good of society. I was taught that the Gov't must provide those things that one cannot provide without a country, like defense. That was my justification for J's argument. Because when I looked at whoever posted against him I thought, that it made sense that he should have to support stem cell research if someone else had to support the military. But then I thought of Social Contract and how stem cell research is not needed by everyone and could probably be funded privatly much easier then the military.
So I am not for a ban on stem cell research. I just want no Gov't interaction what so ever with it.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 06:15 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
BTW Ron SH is Shemp. The reason I stopped putting Shemp here was because you can still do a search. But I was getting lumped in with the angry anons too often.
oh, cheers! i thought SH was steve hoogerhyde.
lol The S is for my login name and the H is for the Here. Now hopefully this thread will die so it cannot be searched.
why are you worried about being searched? is your tinfoil hat getting tattered j/k
Posted By: Bengals Fan
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 06:16 PM
Quote:
So I am not for a ban on stem cell research. I just want no Gov't interaction what so ever with it.
There is no ban on stem cell research. There is a ban on spending tax dollars to fund it. Personally, I want to see the ban on spending tax dollars on totally useless research next.
Posted By: Bengals Fan
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 06:17 PM
Quote:
So I am not for a ban on stem cell research. I just want no Gov't interaction what so ever with it.
You see, there's the kicker. There is no ban on embryonic stem cell research, there is no proposal to ban embryonic stem cell research. This isn't about putting a stop to the practice, but of spending tax dollars to support the practice.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 06:21 PM
Quote:
<SH> However the way I was taught Social Contract theory is that it was not what was for the greatest good of society. I was taught that the Gov't must provide those things that one cannot provide without a country, like defense. That was my justification for J's argument. Because when I looked at whoever posted against him I thought, that it made sense that he should have to support stem cell research if someone else had to support the military. But then I thought of Social Contract and how stem cell research is not needed by everyone and could probably be funded privatly much easier then the military.
So I am not for a ban on stem cell research. I just want no Gov't interaction what so ever with it.
the theory simply relates a way of quantifying or deciding what to do or what should be done. it is not law. it is simply informative. our gov't spends for lots of things that can be provided without a country.
practically, it is difficult to give funds to organizations and say that they may not do something -especially when the power to spend is vested in the congress and the people through congress say they want this type of research.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 06:24 PM
Quote:
Quote:
So I am not for a ban on stem cell research. I just want no Gov't interaction what so ever with it.
You see, there's the kicker. There is no ban on embryonic stem cell research, there is no proposal to ban embryonic stem cell research. This isn't about putting a stop to the practice, but of spending tax dollars to support the practice.
but spending is majoritarian and if it is not affecting the rights of the minority, you are pretty much stuck with it.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 06:25 PM
Quote:
I find it odd that people are so concerned about a ball of cells, but have no concern for human beings if they happen to be *gasp* gay.
That is untrue. Disagreeing with a lifestyle and having concern for a human being are two completely different things. I disagree with many lifestyles of loved ones who I am deeply concerned with as human beings. There is a tiny, fringe group of radicals who don't agree with the lifestyle and are not concerned with the human being either. You would not equate radical Islam that has millions of followers to all of Islam. You seem to be equating the acts of a few radicals who HATE gays to the all Christians who merely believe the lifestyle is sinful, but do not in any way hate the persons involved.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 06:26 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
BTW Ron SH is Shemp. The reason I stopped putting Shemp here was because you can still do a search. But I was getting lumped in with the angry anons too often.
oh, cheers! i thought SH was steve hoogerhyde.
lol The S is for my login name and the H is for the Here. Now hopefully this thread will die so it cannot be searched.
why are you worried about being searched? is your tinfoil hat getting tattered j/k
nah more like so many of the topics in the WC are unproductive.... I just don't want to be associated with them.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 06:26 PM
Quote:
I can only imagine God weeps when he hears how some chuckle-heads have missed the entire point of Jesus's time on earth.
How is it that no one can KNOW anything about religion, but you?
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 06:29 PM
Quote:
Quote:
<SH> However the way I was taught Social Contract theory is that it was not what was for the greatest good of society. I was taught that the Gov't must provide those things that one cannot provide without a country, like defense. That was my justification for J's argument. Because when I looked at whoever posted against him I thought, that it made sense that he should have to support stem cell research if someone else had to support the military. But then I thought of Social Contract and how stem cell research is not needed by everyone and could probably be funded privatly much easier then the military.
So I am not for a ban on stem cell research. I just want no Gov't interaction what so ever with it.
the theory simply relates a way of quantifying or deciding what to do or what should be done. it is not law. it is simply informative. our gov't spends for lots of things that can be provided without a country.
practically, it is difficult to give funds to organizations and say that they may not do something -especially when the power to spend is vested in the congress and the people through congress say they want this type of research.
<SH> I never said it was law. What I was doing was providing support on why you fund the military weather you agree or disagree. And why you should not have to fund other, seemingly controversial interests. I like the idea of stem cell research and if I had more money I would help fund it.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 06:30 PM
WARNING--THIS IS NOT FOR THE SQUEAMISH:
Quote:
An embryo is little more than a cluster of cells. A human life, yes, but a thinking, feeling person, no.
But once it becomes a fetus, in this country we are still able to abort it under the theory of "my body, my right." Tell me this, if it is the woman's body and her right, then would you mind if instead of aborting the fetus, she just had some of its limbs cut off and its face disfigured? If killing the fetus is acceptable, then that's certainly acceptable isn't it?
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 06:34 PM
Quote:
<SH> I never said it was law. What I was doing was providing support on why you fund the military weather you agree or disagree. And why you should not have to fund other, seemingly controversial interests. I like the idea of stem cell research and if I had more money I would help fund it.
i was just trying to describe the relationship between the theory and the reality of our system.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 06:34 PM
Quote:
the theory simply relates a way of quantifying or deciding what to do or what should be done. it is not law. it is simply informative. our gov't spends for lots of things that can be provided without a country.
SH, you are slightly mixing Social Contract with utilitarian ethics. Social contract is meant to provide what cannot be provided by one, and can by many in order to do the work of one.
There have been many different versions of SC theory used but the one our forefathers followed when the continental congress was forming a nation was what must be provided.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 06:37 PM
Quote:
WARNING--THIS IS NOT FOR THE SQUEAMISH:
Quote:
An embryo is little more than a cluster of cells. A human life, yes, but a thinking, feeling person, no.
But once it becomes a fetus, in this country we are still able to abort it under the theory of "my body, my right." Tell me this, if it is the woman's body and her right, then would you mind if instead of aborting the fetus, she just had some of its limbs cut off and its face disfigured? If killing the fetus is acceptable, then that's certainly acceptable isn't it?
um, before you get too far, she is choosing what she is doing with her body (not touching the merits. don't need to) not having society decide what is done with her body. if she wanted to have her arm removed, i'm pretty sure she could.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 06:40 PM
Quote:
Quote:
the theory simply relates a way of quantifying or deciding what to do or what should be done. it is not law. it is simply informative. our gov't spends for lots of things that can be provided without a country.
SH, you are slightly mixing Social Contract with utilitarian ethics. Social contract is meant to provide what cannot be provided by one, and can by many in order to do the work of one.
There have been many different versions of SC theory used but the one our forefathers followed when the continental congress was forming a nation was what must be provided.
and the power to spend deals with the "may". examples of "may" spending are rampant. and these examples are full of cases where people disagree with them being funded.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 06:43 PM
Quote:
Quote:
WARNING--THIS IS NOT FOR THE SQUEAMISH:
Quote:
An embryo is little more than a cluster of cells. A human life, yes, but a thinking, feeling person, no.
But once it becomes a fetus, in this country we are still able to abort it under the theory of "my body, my right." Tell me this, if it is the woman's body and her right, then would you mind if instead of aborting the fetus, she just had some of its limbs cut off and its face disfigured? If killing the fetus is acceptable, then that's certainly acceptable isn't it?
um, before you get too far, she is choosing what she is doing with her body (not touching the merits. don't need to) not having society decide what is done with her body. if she wanted to have her arm removed, i'm pretty sure she could.
i apologize, i misread.
to answer your hypo, is this a scenario likely to happen?
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 06:52 PM
WARNING: SOMEWHAT GRAPHIC DESCRIPTION OF VIOLENCE TO A FETUS
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
WARNING--THIS IS NOT FOR THE SQUEAMISH:
Quote:
An embryo is little more than a cluster of cells. A human life, yes, but a thinking, feeling person, no.
But once it becomes a fetus, in this country we are still able to abort it under the theory of "my body, my right." Tell me this, if it is the woman's body and her right, then would you mind if instead of aborting the fetus, she just had some of its limbs cut off and its face disfigured? If killing the fetus is acceptable, then that's certainly acceptable isn't it?
um, before you get too far, she is choosing what she is doing with her body (not touching the merits. don't need to) not having society decide what is done with her body. if she wanted to have her arm removed, i'm pretty sure she could.
i apologize, i misread.
to answer your hypo, is this a scenario likely to happen?
You are missing the point. If society says that aborting a fetus is ok until it is viable outside the womb, why would society have a problem with someone hiring a doctor to mutilate, but not kill, the fetus in the womb before it is viable? It is her body, right?
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 06:58 PM
Quote:
You are missing the point. If society says that aborting a fetus is ok until it is viable outside the womb, why would society have a problem with someone hiring a doctor to mutilate, but not kill, the fetus in the womb before it is viable? It is her body, right?
i am not missing your point. i am trying deal to in reality. i didn't realize that fetal mutilation was on the brink. possibility and likelihood are different things.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 07:11 PM
Quote:
Quote:
You are missing the point. If society says that aborting a fetus is ok until it is viable outside the womb, why would society have a problem with someone hiring a doctor to mutilate, but not kill, the fetus in the womb before it is viable? It is her body, right?
i am not missing your point. i am trying deal to in reality. i didn't realize that fetal mutilation was on the brink.
possibility and likelihood are different things.
No, you are avoiding the ethical question. If physical harm to a human is a lesser offense than killing, then intentional physical harm to a fetus by a doctor, with the woman's consent, certainly would be more acceptable than abortion by that same doctor, right?
You know what I am getting at, but you are avoiding the ethical delimma of the correct answer by saying that it would not happen in real life.
The point it how can it be acceptable for a woman to end her fetus' existence with an abortion, if it is not equally as acceptable to hire a doctor to merely mutilate that same fetus. It is certainly less than ending the fetus' existence. If mutilation is not acceptable, I don't know how ending the fetus' existence could be acceptable.
I realize it is not about to happen. It is a question of ethics. You don't have to answer the question, but you can't escape the delimma the question presents for those who support abortion.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 07:22 PM
Quote:
You know what I am getting at, but you are avoiding the ethical delimma of the correct answer by saying that it would not happen in real life.
we could also elect charles manson as president.
perhaps if what you proposed was realistic, there would be an actual ethical dilemma. as it stands, abortion is legal for the reasons discussed in roe.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 07:40 PM
Quote:
Quote:
You know what I am getting at, but you are avoiding the ethical delimma of the correct answer by saying that it would not happen in real life.
we could also elect charles manson as president.
perhaps if what you proposed was realistic, there would be an actual ethical dilemma. as it stands, abortion is legal for the reasons discussed in roe.
Complete avoidance of the issue. and a completely unrelated comparison to Charles Manson for good measure. You are an attorney. These types of hypotheticals are the lifeblood of law school. You are avoiding the question because it is a trap for abortion supporters, with or without Roe.
I mean, if you'd allow a woman to have an abortion, how could you justify a law protecting that same fetus from non-lethal mutilation at the election of the mother.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 07:46 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
You know what I am getting at, but you are avoiding the ethical delimma of the correct answer by saying that it would not happen in real life.
we could also elect charles manson as president.
perhaps if what you proposed was realistic, there would be an actual ethical dilemma. as it stands, abortion is legal for the reasons discussed in roe.
Complete avoidance of the issue. and a completely unrelated comparison to Charles Manson for good measure. You are an attorney. These types of hypotheticals are the lifeblood of law school. You are avoiding the question because it is a trap for abortion supporters, with or without Roe.
I mean, if you'd allow a woman to have an abortion, how could you justify a law protecting that same fetus from non-lethal mutilation at the election of the mother.
ever hear of the doctrine known as "ripeness", counselor? and the comparison to manson was dead on: i don't think that we will need to worry about either of those issues. how about this: do we need a law about stealing the moon?
it is only a trap because you believe it to be relevant. i am saying it is not. once again, i defer to the abortion rationale in roe.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 07:59 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
You know what I am getting at, but you are avoiding the ethical delimma of the correct answer by saying that it would not happen in real life.
we could also elect charles manson as president.
perhaps if what you proposed was realistic, there would be an actual ethical dilemma. as it stands, abortion is legal for the reasons discussed in roe.
Complete avoidance of the issue. and a completely unrelated comparison to Charles Manson for good measure. You are an attorney. These types of hypotheticals are the lifeblood of law school. You are avoiding the question because it is a trap for abortion supporters, with or without Roe.
I mean, if you'd allow a woman to have an abortion, how could you justify a law protecting that same fetus from non-lethal mutilation at the election of the mother.
ever hear of the doctrine known as "ripeness", counselor? and the comparison to manson was dead on: i don't think that we will need to worry about either of those issues. how about this: do we need a law about stealing the moon?
it is only a trap because you believe it to be relevant. i am saying it is not. once again, i defer to the abortion rationale in roe.
Cop out counselor. You can't defend it so you won't answer it. There is no ripeness requirement to discussions in the cooler. You'd gladly discuss it if it weren't a trap. If you want to defer to Roe, fine. Then apply Roe's logic to the example of someone merely wanting a doctor to mutilate their fetus, not abort it.
You are very carefully avoiding the issue because it is a trap that you can't escape easily. That's fine. The logic breaks down when you look at it as I presented it. I'd avoid it too if I still agreed with Roe.
Quote:
...we could also elect charles manson as president.
But we already have a crazed murderer as president...
Posted By: MichelleDawn
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 08:06 PM
Quote:
Quote:
...we could also elect charles manson as president.
But we already have a crazed murderer as president...
Excellent point.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 08:07 PM
TICG, that's over the top.
Posted By: TB 12
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 08:08 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
...we could also elect charles manson as president.
But we already have a crazed murderer as president...
Excellent point.
Disagree with his policies all you want, but calling him a crazed murderer is out of line-you wonder why you get dumped on? I will pray for you.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 08:09 PM
If he will not address it, I will. Roe merely struck down a statute banning abortion. If the legislature enacted a law banning the mutilation you describe, the court would surely uphold the law even against strict scrutiny. Remember, laws can restrict even fundamental rights if there is a necessary government purpose and no less restrictive means. I defy you to find a need to mutilate a fetus.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 08:11 PM
z, i know it is a trap. but at the same time, you wish to minimize the fact that it is a hypo with essentially zero bearing on reality.
to answer your hypo: what doctor would mutilate a baby for the sake of mutilating it? the same kind of doctor who would abort a fetus? actually, i think abortionists continue their practice because of the logic in roe which we don't need to rehash. that doesn't mean that the same doctors would mutilate because they want to buy into your hypo.
the (seemingly perverse) reality is that the doctor who considers the object of the abortion to be a bundle of cells, does not do so lightly. i also don't think they would do anything to mess with the potential fpr the sake of proving your hypo to be true. yet more evidence that your hypo sounds poignant but is really a red herring.
Posted By: Smilzsomuch
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 08:12 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
...we could also elect charles manson as president.
But we already have a crazed murderer as president...
Excellent point.
Disagree with his policies all you want, but calling him a crazed murderer is out of line-you wonder why you get dumped on? I will pray for you.
Yeah, that's overdoing it a bit
Posted By: MB Guy
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 08:13 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
...we could also elect charles manson as president.
But we already have a crazed murderer as president...
Excellent point.
Sheesh. And you wonder why people have issues with you.
Posted By: MB Guy
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 08:17 PM
Regarding the mutilation argument.
Don't we have laws against mutilating a corpse? If it's against the law to mutilate a human after it's dead, what is the difference between that and after it's been conceived?
Just a point to ponder.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 08:17 PM
Quote:
If he will not address it, I will. Roe merely struck down a statute banning abortion. If the legislature enacted a law banning the mutilation you describe, the court would surely uphold the law even against strict scrutiny. Remember, laws can restrict even fundamental rights if there is a necessary government purpose and no less restrictive means. I defy you to find a need to mutilate a fetus.
thanks. but z already acknowledged that certain constitutional constraints do not apply here in BOLland.
i feel dumb for not saying it this way in the first place even though they arrive at the same place.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 08:18 PM
Quote:
If he will not address it, I will. Roe merely struck down a statute banning abortion. If the legislature enacted a law banning the mutilation you describe, the court would surely uphold the law even against strict scrutiny. Remember, laws can restrict even fundamental rights if there is a necessary government purpose and no less restrictive means. I defy you to find a need to mutilate a fetus.
"Need" isn't the issue. It's a woman's right to privacy that's the issue. She gets to control what's going on in her body - period. If she chooses to mutilate rather than abort, she gets to.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 08:23 PM
Quote:
"Need" isn't the issue.
fine, then why can't "likelihood" be relevant if anon's argument is wrong?
Posted By: MichelleDawn
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 08:24 PM
Gee, where are the contemptuous lectures for TICG? He made the statement, I just said he made an excellent point. I'll pray for you all to be less hypocritical.
Posted By: MB Guy
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 08:26 PM
Not hypocritical at all, and you're right, that was over the edge for him as well, agreed.
But thanks, I need all the prayers I can get!!!
Posted By: TB 12
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 08:30 PM
Quote:
Gee, where are the contemptuous lectures for TICG? He made the statement, I just said he made an excellent point. I'll pray for you all to be less hypocritical.
My comment related to both posts, as shown by capturing both quotes, not just yours.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 08:33 PM
Quote:
Quote:
If he will not address it, I will. Roe merely struck down a statute banning abortion. If the legislature enacted a law banning the mutilation you describe, the court would surely uphold the law even against strict scrutiny. Remember, laws can restrict even fundamental rights if there is a necessary government purpose and no less restrictive means. I defy you to find a need to mutilate a fetus.
"Need" isn't the issue. It's a woman's right to privacy that's the issue. She gets to control what's going on in her body - period. If she chooses to mutilate rather than abort, she gets to.
The conundrum well stated.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 08:34 PM
Quote:
The conundrum well stated.
reality, yet again, well-ignored.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 08:35 PM
OK, for those keeping score at home, allow me to recap:
Mocking God = Acceptable
Calling the President a crazed murderer = Acceptable
Joking about the death of a liberal poster = Unacceptable
Joking about Mexicans who cross the border = Unacceptable
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 08:38 PM
Quote:
Quote:
The conundrum well stated.
reality, yet again, well-ignored.
OK, then forget mutilation, let me ask you this: If due to a right to privacy, it is ok for a woman to abort a non-viable fetus, why isn't it ok for the woman to do whatever else she wants to it?
Posted By: MichelleDawn
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 08:38 PM
Could you show me where these two posts address TICG?
Quote:
Sheesh. And you wonder why people have issues with you.
Quote:
you wonder why you get dumped on?
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 08:41 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The conundrum well stated.
reality, yet again, well-ignored.
OK, then forget mutilation, let me ask you this: If due to a right to privacy, it is ok for a woman to abort a non-viable fetus, why isn't it ok for the woman to do whatever else she wants to it?
like remove her arm from the example i gave before when i misread it? she may. do drugs? nope. we are ALL subject to those laws and she has no fundamental right that is being abridged. what other hypos do you have in mind?
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 08:41 PM
Maybe because TICG never wonders in writing why he gets dumped on?
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 08:43 PM
Quote:
Maybe because TICG never wonders in writing why he gets dumped on?
you can lead a horse to water...
Posted By: Jokerman
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 08:44 PM
Quote:
And we would draw the lines differently. I agree with you on the fetus, not on the embryo. That is my line.
And how do you justify it? An eight-week embryo is ok to destroy for research, but a nine-week fetus is not? Please.
Quote:
And I find it ironic that you dismiss slippery slope arguments in other contexts, but conclude that the inescapable course we are on is cloning.
It's liberals who generally say that the slippery slope is a fallacy, not conservatives. The most I've done is point out when a liberal uses it.
Quote:
And again, I believe most people would have a problem with a farm built to clone these cells.
Why, if it's ok to destroy them, would it be immoral to clone them before you do so?
Quote:
My guess is if we are able to derive anything from the research, we would also be able to derive a way to create the cells too. But unlike you, I don't see either of these as inevitable. I don't know where this will lead.
Then I question your ability for realistic debate on the topic.
Quote:
And I wasn't be snide, I was being sarcastic. Guess you didn't find it funny.
I guess it's a matter of interpretation. No harm done.
Posted By: MB Guy
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 08:45 PM
Quote:
Could you show me where these two posts address TICG?
Quote:
Sheesh. And you wonder why people have issues with you.
Quote:
you wonder why you get dumped on?
I agreed above that TICG went beyond as well, didn't I?
Posted By: TB 12
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 08:48 PM
Quote:
Could you show me where these two posts address TICG?
Quote:
Sheesh. And you wonder why people have issues with you.
Quote:
you wonder why you get dumped on?
Here is my original quote:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...we could also elect charles manson as president.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But we already have a crazed murderer as president...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excellent point.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disagree with his policies all you want, but calling him a crazed murderer is out of line-you wonder why you get dumped on? I will pray for you.
As I said earlier, my response (which you partially quoted) was in response to TICG's initial statement and your agreement. If it wasn't clear that I thought both statements were disgraceful, my apologies. Let me clarify-both were out of line.
Posted By: MichelleDawn
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 08:48 PM
Quote:
Maybe because TICG never wonders in writing why he gets dumped on?
If you only dumped on my arguments you would never hear me complain. I complain about being PERSONALLY dumped on. If you can't see the difference then I'll just pray for you because there is a very big difference between "I don't like your argument" and "you are mentally ill."
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 08:55 PM
OK, then forget mutilation, let me ask you this: If due to a right to privacy, it is ok for a woman to abort a non-viable fetus, why isn't it ok for the woman to do whatever else she wants to it?
Easy, because there are limits to all fundamental rights (i.e. yelling fire in a crowded theatre). If you want the answer to your question as answered by the Supreme Court, read the opinion banning partial birth abortions.
Posted By: TB 12
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 08:55 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Maybe because TICG never wonders in writing why he gets dumped on?
If you only dumped on my arguments you would never hear me complain. I complain about being PERSONALLY dumped on. If you can't see the difference then I'll just pray for you because there is a very big difference between "I don't like your argument" and "you are mentally ill."
Neither MB or myself called you mentally ill-BF did that and he was way out of line. Go take it up with him-don't take his comment and attribute it to someone else. And I must say-you offering to pray for everyone comes accross as quite condescending, IMHO...
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 08:55 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Maybe because TICG never wonders in writing why he gets dumped on?
If you only dumped on my arguments you would never hear me complain. I complain about being PERSONALLY dumped on. If you can't see the difference then I'll just pray for you because there is a very big difference between "I don't like your argument" and "you are mentally ill."
Wusn't me. I's jus pointin owt that TICG getz dumped on, butt dusn't complane about it. I dun't no whi he doesn't komplane, butt hee dusn't
Posted By: Smilzsomuch
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 08:57 PM
So, hey, guys? When IS the prayer meeting?
I see a lot of people mention prayer.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 08:59 PM
Quote:
OK, then forget mutilation, let me ask you this: If due to a right to privacy, it is ok for a woman to abort a non-viable fetus, why isn't it ok for the woman to do whatever else she wants to it?
Easy, because there are limits to all fundamental rights (i.e. yelling fire in a crowded theatre). If you want the answer to your question as answered by the Supreme Court, read the opinion banning partial birth abortions.
Limits? Anything else done to a fetus would be less harmful to the fetus than abortion, which is the ultimate harm--death. How can something less harmful be prohibited as a limitation?
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 09:05 PM
Quote:
How can something less harmful be prohibited as a limitation?
why are you still living in "unlikely hypo world"?
if a law is needed because fetal mutilation becomes a problem, i suppose we can address it then.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 09:10 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Maybe because TICG never wonders in writing why he gets dumped on?
If you only dumped on my arguments you would never hear me complain. I complain about being PERSONALLY dumped on. If you can't see the difference then I'll just pray for you because there is a very big difference between "I don't like your argument" and "you are mentally ill."
SH, we don't dump on your arguments we dump on your poorly formed assumptions and your piling on. It is sad that we have come to debate how we treat you in a thread when you treat others so poorly. Mabye GWB should punch you and TICG in the face for calling him a murderer.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 09:13 PM
Quote:
Quote:
How can something less harmful be prohibited as a limitation?
why are you still living in "unlikely hypo world"?
if a law is needed because fetal mutilation becomes a problem, i suppose we can address it then.
Speaking of fantasy worlds, I didn't even mention mutilation in my post. 
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 09:18 PM
SP, things have escalated and you are under greater scrutiny. Also, you are often unfairly dumped on. This probably would not happen if you'd talk nicer to people. They don't mind you disagreeing; they do mind you disagreeing in a disagreeable manner. They also care when you say something hateful toward something they care about. You know a lot of people here respect our president, so why would you not expect to get "dumped on" when you agree with a hateful statement about him.
Lastly, if you'd just apologize to people every once in a while when you've offended them, regardless of whether you think you need to, it'd go a long way toward healing.
And, yes, I'll try to take my own advice.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 09:40 PM
I've been on here for quite a while and I have to say that you people never give SP any kind of chance and then you lecture her if she doesn't take it lying down. Where were you when BF called her mentally ill? Where are you when people continually call her an idiot or a moron? You are all upset because she said something about Bush, someone you "care about" but where we you when she was offended by a blantantly inappropriate joke about Mexicans? Plenty of people "pile on" SP, but if she says anything in response she's lectured about piling on. If anyone dares stand up to people being inappropriate they are shouted down and then accused of SP being logged off. Where are you people when one poster continually says that EVERYONE hates her and wants her banned? It's very convenient that every issue is her fault, but I don't buy it, I see plenty of blame to go around. Now go ahead and flame me, but I'm so sick of you people I had to finally stand up and say something. I'm ashamed it took me this long.
Posted By: MadisonCali
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 09:45 PM
Quote:
I've been on here for quite a while and I have to say that you people never give SP any kind of chance and then you lecture her if she doesn't take it lying down. Where were you when BF called her mentally ill? Where are you when people continually call her an idiot or a moron? You are all upset because she said something about Bush, someone you "care about" but where we you when she was offended by a blantantly inappropriate joke about Mexicans? Plenty of people "pile on" SP, but if she says anything in response she's lectured about piling on. If anyone dares stand up to people being inappropriate they are shouted down and then accused of SP being logged off. Where are you people when one poster continually says that EVERYONE hates her and wants her banned? It's very convenient that every issue is her fault, but I don't buy it, I see plenty of blame to go around. Now go ahead and flame me, but I'm so sick of you people I had to finally stand up and say something. I'm ashamed it took me this long.
I'm not going to flame you, I'm going to personally thank you from saying what I have wanted to, but never have.
I know I've only been coming on BOL for a couple of months, but I don't see yet why she is picked on so much. She isn't half as condescending and nasty as most of the people in this cooler, yet she is treated more horribly than any of them.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 09:48 PM
Quote:
I've been on here for quite a while and I have to say that you people never give SP any kind of chance and then you lecture her if she doesn't take it lying down. Where were you when BF called her mentally ill? Where are you when people continually call her an idiot or a moron? You are all upset because she said something about Bush, someone you "care about" but where we you when she was offended by a blantantly inappropriate joke about Mexicans? Plenty of people "pile on" SP, but if she says anything in response she's lectured about piling on. If anyone dares stand up to people being inappropriate they are shouted down and then accused of SP being logged off. Where are you people when one poster continually says that EVERYONE hates her and wants her banned? It's very convenient that every issue is her fault, but I don't buy it, I see plenty of blame to go around. Now go ahead and flame me, but I'm so sick of you people I had to finally stand up and say something. I'm ashamed it took me this long.
I agree that much of what she gets, she does not deserve, but much of it she does deserve.
I did not see BF's statement, but if he said she was mentally ill, he was out of line.
Give me a break about the Mexican joke. It is right out of the Jay Leno/David Letterman joke book and is not inappropriate in the least.
BTW: Sorry you're sick of everyone. We're going to miss you.
Posted By: straw
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 10:10 PM
Quote:
Quote:
My guess is if we are able to derive anything from the research, we would also be able to derive a way to create the cells too. But unlike you, I don't see either of these as inevitable. I don't know where this will lead.
Then I question your ability for realistic debate on the topic.
Wow. My inability to read the tea leaves into the future and know with certainty where this will lead means and I cannot debate the topic.
I have found that those who see everything as black and white and have simple solutions usually do so because they examine things in a simple way.
I guess we don't need to debate it further, since you already know the outcome of the issue.
Is this true for other issues or just this one?
Posted By: Jokerman
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 11:31 PM
Quote:
I guess we don't need to debate it further, since you already know the outcome of the issue.
Is this true for other issues or just this one?
Sure, it's true that the outcome is obvious and I know it for other issues. For example - appeasing terror creates more terror. Lower tax rates spur economic activity. Destroying embryos to obtain stem cells will lead to creating embryos to destroy to obtain stem cells. They are as obvious as the nose on your face to anyone willing to put aside their preferred outcomes and see the implications.
Posted By: straw
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/18/06 11:47 PM
You are right, you see the implications but no one else. You can be so pompous sometimes. Simple minds, simple solutions.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/19/06 01:54 AM
straw: Ideologues are always sure they are right.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/19/06 02:06 AM
Quote:
Destroying embryos to obtain stem cells will lead to creating embryos to destroy to obtain stem cells.
have you ever read crichton's prey?
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/19/06 02:27 AM
How about this, many states have on their books a crime called fetecide, as a member of the homocide family. I would argue that if I assaulted a pregnant woman and the fetus died< I would be liable for no more than assault (or at best animal cruelty), because what I killed was in no way a "human", it was just a mass of cells. Kind of like a cancer really. How is that for "ripeness".
Posted By: straw
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/19/06 02:40 AM
And you don't see the difference between a mass of cells and a fetus?
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/19/06 02:42 AM
the crime would be disallowed if it wasn't a "legal" fetus. i know that's harsh but that's the truth.
also, did you intend to kill only the fetus? otherwise, the state doesn't really have to prove the other crime and therefore the definition test is "moot". unless, ironically, you want to pursue the death penalty.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/19/06 02:54 AM
Usually it is an aggravating factor to reach first degree, but how can it be aggravating that i snuffed this little ball of goo? We don't have double standards do we? one woman's goo is another woman's baby. We need to be consisent.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/19/06 03:25 AM
Quote:
the crime would be disallowed if it wasn't a "legal" fetus. i know that's harsh but that's the truth.
Actually, it's not true. Abortion can't be made a crime because the privacy rights of the woman supercede the potential life of the fetus. A third party who causes the loss of a fetus has no comparable privacy right.
State legislatures are free to define homicide however they want in the absence of Constitutional rights, so if they decide that a third party ending the life of a fetus should be considered homicide in that state they are free to do so. Some have and the convictions have been upheld.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/19/06 04:28 AM
Quote:
Usually it is an aggravating factor to reach first degree, but how can it be aggravating that i snuffed this little ball of goo? We don't have double standards do we? one woman's goo is another woman's baby. We need to be consisent.
Before it is viable, it becomes something that is much more than a "ball of goo."
Quote:
Maybe because TICG never wonders in writing why he gets dumped on?
When I say things like this, I fully expect to get dumped on -- that's the fun in it.
It's a smarta$$ joke, but in truth, I do believe he's a murderer on many levels -- no need to get into all the details, as you all would say, they're the typical liberal opinions...
While I don't mind getting dumped on for stupid stuff like this, I expect healthy debate when I (or anyone else) makes well-thought-out points. Even if people disagree, they can do so without name-calling. Usually the name calling comes from anons, so I ignore those. If the whole thread degrades into name calling, I stop posting there.
Posted By: TB 12
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/19/06 11:15 AM
Quote:
I've been on here for quite a while and I have to say that you people never give SP any kind of chance and then you lecture her if she doesn't take it lying down. Where were you when BF called her mentally ill? Where are you when people continually call her an idiot or a moron? You are all upset because she said something about Bush, someone you "care about" but where we you when she was offended by a blantantly inappropriate joke about Mexicans? Plenty of people "pile on" SP, but if she says anything in response she's lectured about piling on. If anyone dares stand up to people being inappropriate they are shouted down and then accused of SP being logged off. Where are you people when one poster continually says that EVERYONE hates her and wants her banned? It's very convenient that every issue is her fault, but I don't buy it, I see plenty of blame to go around. Now go ahead and flame me, but I'm so sick of you people I had to finally stand up and say something. I'm ashamed it took me this long.
1) I never called her mentally ill. As I stated in my post, I said it was out of line for BF to say that. Way out of line. But she brought that into the post insinuating MB or I was using it..BF was nowhere near this thread;
2) I didn't "defend" her on her stance on the Mexican joke because I don't agree with her position. Why would I defend something I don't believe in? I didn't find it racist, she does. No problem. We disagree.
3) I have never called her an idiot or a moron. We don't agree on too much, but hey, that is what makes this fun.
I still think TICG's post, and SP's agreeing to the statement, is way out of line. If a president is a murderer due to military action, then every one of them is. Disagree with why we are there, but don't call him a murderer. Remember, he had overwhelming support of the Senate and Congress. By that logic, all of them are too.
Posted By: Jokerman
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/19/06 11:55 AM
Quote:
You are right, you see the implications but no one else. You can be so pompous sometimes. Simple minds, simple solutions.
There's that good ole Straw style.
Look, Straw, I'm not being pompous. But it is quite obvious that this is where it's going - you can fool yourself arguing that maybe in this particular situation, or that one, cloning won't be necessary. But if the research provides ANY cures, then cloning undoubtedly will be necessary in order to provide them to any realistic number of people. If cloning is an unacceptable outcome, how can you logically support the research? Frankly, I don't see why the prospect of cloning bothers you. If the embryo doesn't matter, if its destruction is meaningless, why would it matter if you destroyed one, or millions of its clones? Maybe you recognize the public relations issue that it currently represents, but I'm sure that it will be overcome the same way it has as we've crossed all the lines prior to this. It is, after all, a brave new world.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/19/06 12:23 PM
Quote:
Quote:
I've been on here for quite a while and I have to say that you people never give SP any kind of chance and then you lecture her if she doesn't take it lying down. Where were you when BF called her mentally ill? Where are you when people continually call her an idiot or a moron? You are all upset because she said something about Bush, someone you "care about" but where we you when she was offended by a blantantly inappropriate joke about Mexicans? Plenty of people "pile on" SP, but if she says anything in response she's lectured about piling on. If anyone dares stand up to people being inappropriate they are shouted down and then accused of SP being logged off. Where are you people when one poster continually says that EVERYONE hates her and wants her banned? It's very convenient that every issue is her fault, but I don't buy it, I see plenty of blame to go around. Now go ahead and flame me, but I'm so sick of you people I had to finally stand up and say something. I'm ashamed it took me this long.
1) I never called her mentally ill. As I stated in my post, I said it was out of line for BF to say that. Way out of line. But she brought that into the post insinuating MB or I was using it..BF was nowhere near this thread;
2) I didn't "defend" her on her stance on the Mexican joke because I don't agree with her position. Why would I defend something I don't believe in? I didn't find it racist, she does. No problem. We disagree.
3) I have never called her an idiot or a moron. We don't agree on too much, but hey, that is what makes this fun.
I still think TICG's post, and SP's agreeing to the statement, is way out of line. If a president is a murderer due to military action, then every one of them is. Disagree with why we are there, but don't call him a murderer. Remember, he had overwhelming support of the Senate and Congress. By that logic, all of them are too.
Please point out where she said you or MB called her mentally ill. You are really stretching. As for the rest of your post, you miss the point almost entirely. Whatever.
Posted By: TB 12
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/19/06 12:29 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I've been on here for quite a while and I have to say that you people never give SP any kind of chance and then you lecture her if she doesn't take it lying down. Where were you when BF called her mentally ill? Where are you when people continually call her an idiot or a moron? You are all upset because she said something about Bush, someone you "care about" but where we you when she was offended by a blantantly inappropriate joke about Mexicans? Plenty of people "pile on" SP, but if she says anything in response she's lectured about piling on. If anyone dares stand up to people being inappropriate they are shouted down and then accused of SP being logged off. Where are you people when one poster continually says that EVERYONE hates her and wants her banned? It's very convenient that every issue is her fault, but I don't buy it, I see plenty of blame to go around. Now go ahead and flame me, but I'm so sick of you people I had to finally stand up and say something. I'm ashamed it took me this long.
1) I never called her mentally ill. As I stated in my post, I said it was out of line for BF to say that. Way out of line. But she brought that into the post insinuating MB or I was using it..BF was nowhere near this thread;
2) I didn't "defend" her on her stance on the Mexican joke because I don't agree with her position. Why would I defend something I don't believe in? I didn't find it racist, she does. No problem. We disagree.
3) I have never called her an idiot or a moron. We don't agree on too much, but hey, that is what makes this fun.
I still think TICG's post, and SP's agreeing to the statement, is way out of line. If a president is a murderer due to military action, then every one of them is. Disagree with why we are there, but don't call him a murderer. Remember, he had overwhelming support of the Senate and Congress. By that logic, all of them are too.
Please point out where she said you or MB called her mentally ill. You are really stretching. As for the rest of your post, you miss the point almost entirely. Whatever.
I didn't say she said we did, i said she insinuated it based on my reading of her post. As for the rest of it, I don't think I missed the point. I don't personally attack her-others do and it is unacceptable. I was defending my position-not the anons who come in and stir the pot. I don't condone personal attacks.
Enjoy your day.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/19/06 12:42 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I've been on here for quite a while and I have to say that you people never give SP any kind of chance and then you lecture her if she doesn't take it lying down. Where were you when BF called her mentally ill? Where are you when people continually call her an idiot or a moron? You are all upset because she said something about Bush, someone you "care about" but where we you when she was offended by a blantantly inappropriate joke about Mexicans? Plenty of people "pile on" SP, but if she says anything in response she's lectured about piling on. If anyone dares stand up to people being inappropriate they are shouted down and then accused of SP being logged off. Where are you people when one poster continually says that EVERYONE hates her and wants her banned? It's very convenient that every issue is her fault, but I don't buy it, I see plenty of blame to go around. Now go ahead and flame me, but I'm so sick of you people I had to finally stand up and say something. I'm ashamed it took me this long.
1) I never called her mentally ill. As I stated in my post, I said it was out of line for BF to say that. Way out of line. But she brought that into the post insinuating MB or I was using it..BF was nowhere near this thread;
2) I didn't "defend" her on her stance on the Mexican joke because I don't agree with her position. Why would I defend something I don't believe in? I didn't find it racist, she does. No problem. We disagree.
3) I have never called her an idiot or a moron. We don't agree on too much, but hey, that is what makes this fun.
I still think TICG's post, and SP's agreeing to the statement, is way out of line. If a president is a murderer due to military action, then every one of them is. Disagree with why we are there, but don't call him a murderer. Remember, he had overwhelming support of the Senate and Congress. By that logic, all of them are too.
Please point out where she said you or MB called her mentally ill. You are really stretching. As for the rest of your post, you miss the point almost entirely. Whatever.
I didn't say she said we did, i said she insinuated it based on my reading of her post. As for the rest of it, I don't think I missed the point. I don't personally attack her-others do and it is unacceptable. I was defending my position-not the anons who come in and stir the pot. I don't condone personal attacks.
Enjoy your day.
Whatever.
At the risk of dragging this soi disant discussion off-track; would the use of placental stem cells excite the same objections as the use of embryonic stem cells?
Posted By: Jokerman
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/19/06 12:49 PM
Quote:
At the risk of dragging this soi disant discussion off-track; would the use of placental stem cells excite the same objections as the use of embryonic stem cells?
Not from me.
Posted By: MichelleDawn
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/19/06 12:51 PM
Let me get this straight. Even if you believe the war is unjust and you feel the death of every non-combatant Iraqi constitutes murder, it's out of line to call that murder. But's it's logical and acceptable to call abortion (and by extension stem cell research) murder even if it's legal. I see a bit of a double standard here. Just me.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/19/06 12:53 PM
Quote:
Usually it is an aggravating factor to reach first degree, but how can it be aggravating that i snuffed this little ball of goo? We don't have double standards do we? one woman's goo is another woman's baby. We need to be consisent.
remember i said:
Quote:
also, did you intend to kill only the fetus? otherwise, the state doesn't really have to prove the other crime and therefore the definition test is "moot". unless, ironically, you want to pursue the death penalty.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/19/06 12:54 PM
Quote:
Quote:
the crime would be disallowed if it wasn't a "legal" fetus. i know that's harsh but that's the truth.
Actually, it's not true. Abortion can't be made a crime because the privacy rights of the woman supercede the potential life of the fetus. A third party who causes the loss of a fetus has no comparable privacy right.
State legislatures are free to define homicide however they want in the absence of Constitutional rights, so if they decide that a third party ending the life of a fetus should be considered homicide in that state they are free to do so. Some have and the convictions have been upheld.
non me, remember that we don't play by legal rules in the cooler. i was trying to play the game by his rules.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/19/06 12:57 PM
Quote:
But if the research provides ANY cures, then cloning undoubtedly will be necessary in order to provide them to any realistic number of people.
once again, have you ever read crichton's prey?
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/19/06 01:00 PM
Quote:
At the risk of dragging this soi disant discussion off-track; would the use of placental stem cells excite the same objections as the use of embryonic stem cells?
do placental cells offer the same promise for universal use as embryonic cells? there is nothing with compromise even though, politically, everyone MUST hold their ground.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/19/06 01:03 PM
Quote:
But if the research provides ANY cures, then cloning undoubtedly will be necessary in order to provide them to any realistic number of people
This shows a lack of understanding of the process. Stem cell lines are used, not just individual stem cells.
A stem cell is placed in a dish and provided with nutrients and growth factors that stimulate it to divide. The resulting cell line will continue to divide as long as it is kept in a controlled environment and provided with appropriate growth factors. In this way one stem cell can produce many others.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/19/06 01:26 PM
Quote:
Quote:
I've been on here for quite a while and I have to say that you people never give SP any kind of chance and then you lecture her if she doesn't take it lying down. Where were you when BF called her mentally ill? Where are you when people continually call her an idiot or a moron? You are all upset because she said something about Bush, someone you "care about" but where we you when she was offended by a blantantly inappropriate joke about Mexicans? Plenty of people "pile on" SP, but if she says anything in response she's lectured about piling on. If anyone dares stand up to people being inappropriate they are shouted down and then accused of SP being logged off. Where are you people when one poster continually says that EVERYONE hates her and wants her banned? It's very convenient that every issue is her fault, but I don't buy it, I see plenty of blame to go around. Now go ahead and flame me, but I'm so sick of you people I had to finally stand up and say something. I'm ashamed it took me this long.
1) I never called her mentally ill. As I stated in my post, I said it was out of line for BF to say that. Way out of line. But she brought that into the post insinuating MB or I was using it..BF was nowhere near this thread;
2) I didn't "defend" her on her stance on the Mexican joke because I don't agree with her position. Why would I defend something I don't believe in? I didn't find it racist, she does. No problem. We disagree.
3) I have never called her an idiot or a moron. We don't agree on too much, but hey, that is what makes this fun.
I still think TICG's post, and SP's agreeing to the statement, is way out of line. If a president is a murderer due to military action, then every one of them is. Disagree with why we are there, but don't call him a murderer. Remember, he had overwhelming support of the Senate and Congress. By that logic, all of them are too.
Now, is SP and TICG's standard for murdering presidents just that they have to disagree with the war or a sizeable percentage of the population has to disagree with the war? What's the standard. If it is that a sizeable percentage of the population of the US has to disagree, then we've got quite a few murdering presidents. Here are a few:
1.A majority of the population disagreed with the Revolutionary War. Chalk up one president who is a murderer by this standard and actually fought in the war.
2.A large number of Americans disagreed with Lincoln and the subsequent war between the states; they disagreed enough to secede. Chalk up another murdering president. Look at the way he did not just defeat the south, but had his generals burn their businesses and homes.
3.There was a large percentage of the population that disagreed with us getting into WWI. It was a European war and we had no business going there. Chalk up another murdering president.
4. and 5.A large percentage of the population disagreed with getting into WWII. Chalk up two more murdering presidents.
6., 7., and 8.A large percentage of the population disagreed with what we did in Vietnam. Chalk up 3 more murdering presidents.
9.A large percentage of the population disagrees with the Iraq War. Chalk up one more murdering president.
Posted By: Bengals Fan
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/19/06 01:30 PM
Quote:
And you don't see the difference between a mass of cells and a fetus?
You know straw, when it comes down to it, you are only a mass of cells. The form is different, but the building blocks the same.
Posted By: Bengals Fan
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/19/06 01:32 PM
Quote:
Let me get this straight. Even if you believe the war is unjust and you feel the death of every non-combatant Iraqi constitutes murder, it's out of line to call that murder. But's it's logical and acceptable to call abortion (and by extension stem cell research) murder even if it's legal. I see a bit of a double standard here. Just me.
No double standard here at all. Both combatants in a war have a choice. The men who risk their life and die for their countries VOLUNTEER to do so. The baby is innocent, and has no chance. But I am not surprised you can't see a difference.
Posted By: MichelleDawn
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/19/06 01:33 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Let me get this straight. Even if you believe the war is unjust and you feel the death of every non-combatant Iraqi constitutes murder, it's out of line to call that murder. But's it's logical and acceptable to call abortion (and by extension stem cell research) murder even if it's legal. I see a bit of a double standard here. Just me.
No double standard here at all. Both combatants in a war have a choice. The men who risk their life and die for their countries VOLUNTEER to do so. The baby is innocent, and has no chance. But I am not surprised you can't see a difference.
Do you understand the word non-combatant or do you just want to keep making personal attacks?
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/19/06 01:36 PM
If I had to guess he's just interested in making personal attacks. That seems to be his bread and butter in these threads.
Posted By: Bengals Fan
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/19/06 01:38 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Let me get this straight. Even if you believe the war is unjust and you feel the death of every non-combatant Iraqi constitutes murder, it's out of line to call that murder. But's it's logical and acceptable to call abortion (and by extension stem cell research) murder even if it's legal. I see a bit of a double standard here. Just me.
No double standard here at all. Both combatants in a war have a choice. The men who risk their life and die for their countries VOLUNTEER to do so. The baby is innocent, and has no chance. But I am not surprised you can't see a difference.
Do you understand the word non-combatant or do you just want to keep making personal attacks?
Ahhh, my apologies, I missed that. HOWEVER, non-combatants die not because they are the targets, thus at most we are talking manslaughter. No intentional kill. Abortion and stem cell harvesting is an entirely different matter. It is intentional murder.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/19/06 01:38 PM
Quote:
Do you understand the word non-combatant or do you just want to keep making personal attacks?
you need to stop causing problems, michelle. the world doesn't revolve around you. if you can't handle it, please do not post here. if he actually attacked you i might feel differently.
Posted By: MichelleDawn
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/19/06 01:40 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Do you understand the word non-combatant or do you just want to keep making personal attacks?
you need to stop causing problems, michelle. the world doesn't revolve around you. if you can't handle it, please do not post here. if he actually attacked you i might feel differently.
I could care less what you think. I didn't do anything to start trouble. Grow up.
Posted By: MichelleDawn
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/19/06 01:42 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Let me get this straight. Even if you believe the war is unjust and you feel the death of every non-combatant Iraqi constitutes murder, it's out of line to call that murder. But's it's logical and acceptable to call abortion (and by extension stem cell research) murder even if it's legal. I see a bit of a double standard here. Just me.
No double standard here at all. Both combatants in a war have a choice. The men who risk their life and die for their countries VOLUNTEER to do so. The baby is innocent, and has no chance. But I am not surprised you can't see a difference.
Do you understand the word non-combatant or do you just want to keep making personal attacks?
Ahhh, my apologies, I missed that. HOWEVER, non-combatants die not because they are the targets, thus at most we are talking manslaughter. No intentional kill. Abortion and stem cell harvesting is an entirely different matter. It is intentional murder.
People die in drive by shooting who weren't targets. Doesn't make them any less dead and the shooters are prosecuted for murder.
Posted By: Bengals Fan
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/19/06 01:44 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Let me get this straight. Even if you believe the war is unjust and you feel the death of every non-combatant Iraqi constitutes murder, it's out of line to call that murder. But's it's logical and acceptable to call abortion (and by extension stem cell research) murder even if it's legal. I see a bit of a double standard here. Just me.
No double standard here at all. Both combatants in a war have a choice. The men who risk their life and die for their countries VOLUNTEER to do so. The baby is innocent, and has no chance. But I am not surprised you can't see a difference.
Do you understand the word non-combatant or do you just want to keep making personal attacks?
Ahhh, my apologies, I missed that. HOWEVER, non-combatants die not because they are the targets, thus at most we are talking manslaughter. No intentional kill. Abortion and stem cell harvesting is an entirely different matter. It is intentional murder.
People die in drive by shooting who weren't targets. Doesn't make them any less dead and the shooters are prosecuted for murder.
Yes, but the intention was to kill someone who was not an enemy combatant illegally, now wasn't it? This is a legal war, the intention is to kill enemy combatants.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/19/06 01:46 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Do you understand the word non-combatant or do you just want to keep making personal attacks?
you need to stop causing problems, michelle. the world doesn't revolve around you. if you can't handle it, please do not post here. if he actually attacked you i might feel differently.
I could care less what you think. I didn't do anything to start trouble. Grow up.
hey! you forgot to mention that you would pray for them--or is praying a double standard for you now?
Posted By: Jokerman
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/19/06 01:47 PM
Quote:
Quote:
But if the research provides ANY cures, then cloning undoubtedly will be necessary in order to provide them to any realistic number of people
This shows a lack of understanding of the process. Stem cell lines are used, not just individual stem cells.
A stem cell is placed in a dish and provided with nutrients and growth factors that stimulate it to divide. The resulting cell line will continue to divide as long as it is kept in a controlled environment and provided with appropriate growth factors. In this way one stem cell can produce many others.
Hmm, I wonder why scientists are pushing to guarantee that somatic cell nuclear transfer (aka, cloning a human being) remains legal?
"In Massachusetts, one of the nation's leading health care and biotechnology hubs, much attention has been focused on the bill's endorsement of a technique for harvesting stem cells known as therapeutic cloning -- or somatic cell nuclear transfer -- in which the nucleus of an adult cell is transferred into an unfertilized egg cell whose own DNA has been removed, causing it to divide."
"Researchers say it allows them to better focus studies on certain diseases and to create stores of cells for treating particular patients."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13970-2005Mar30.html
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/19/06 01:49 PM
Quote:
hey! you forgot to mention that you would pray for them--or is praying a double standard for you now?
you are more to blame than she is! i am just trying to tell her that she creates a LOT of her own issues here.
I have to say, aside from the attacks on SP for anything she says and the occasional sidetracks re: Bush (sorry, I'm guilty there too), there is actually a good civil debate going on in this thread. It's refreshing to see conservatives actually disagree with one another and discuss issues.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/19/06 02:06 PM
Quote:
in which the nucleus of an adult cell is transferred into an unfertilized egg cell whose own DNA has been removed, causing it to divide.
but that's like going to a AA baseball game to see professional baseball players. sure, they are technically professional but they really aren't worth seeing play if given the choice between them and the major leaguers.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/19/06 02:07 PM
Quote:
create stores of cells for treating particular patients.
but NOT embryoes.
ever read crichton's prey?
Posted By: Jokerman
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/19/06 02:17 PM
Quote:
Quote:
create stores of cells for treating particular patients.
but NOT embryoes.
Wrong. "A genetically complete human embryo is brought into being."
Quote:
ever read crichton's prey?
No.
Posted By: straw
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/19/06 02:57 PM
Quote:
Quote:
At the risk of dragging this soi disant discussion off-track; would the use of placental stem cells excite the same objections as the use of embryonic stem cells?
Not from me.
What if we need to do the embryonic stem cell research to understand how other stem cells can be put to use because the embryonic stem cells are basic forms of these other stem cells.
I know your answer, but I just wanted to point out what I may be thinking.
The cloning part bothers me because I may be wrong regarding what these embryos are (a concept you might not be familiar with, but I find it very helpful to question myself every once and a while). Since we have all these embryos that will be destroyed anyway, maybe some good can come of it and maybe we won't need to clone or create other embryos later.
Genetic sequencing is medicine's future and it will be as revolutionary as anti-biotics and sulfur drugs were last century. It is indeed a brave new world and our ethics must evolve with it.
Posted By: straw
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/19/06 03:02 PM
Quote:
Quote:
And you don't see the difference between a mass of cells and a fetus?
You know straw, when it comes down to it, you are only a mass of cells. The form is different, but the building blocks the same.
Do you eat food? You are killing a living thing to survive. Reduce your argument to its most basic level and we all "murder".
The difference is what we are "murdering". We have no problem with destroying bacteria, virus, bugs, insects, animals. These are all just a bundle of cells.
And chimpanzees share over 99% of human genes. Are they human? They are a bunch of cells that are nearly genetically human.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/19/06 03:09 PM
Quote:
Do you eat food? You are killing a living thing to survive. Reduce your argument to its most basic level and we all "murder".
The difference is what we are "murdering". We have no problem with destroying bacteria, virus, bugs, insects, animals. These are all just a bundle of cells.
And chimpanzees share over 99% of human genes. Are they human? They are a bunch of cells that are nearly genetically human.
If you equate animals with humans, then this is true. I do not agree with this premise and hence, there can never be a murder of an animal. The 1% argument is a red herring bought up by evolutionists. Do you realize that even the slightest change in the gene structure and you have a completely different species and never the twain shall meet? It is irrelevant.
Posted By: Jokerman
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/19/06 03:13 PM
Quote:
What if we need to do the embryonic stem cell research to understand how other stem cells can be put to use because the embryonic stem cells are basic forms of these other stem cells.
I suppose that you are trying to answer the question of how you can support the research if you aren't willing to support cloning. That's a pretty thin reed. But, again:
"Frankly, I don't see why the prospect of cloning bothers you. If the embryo doesn't matter, if its destruction is meaningless, why would it matter if you destroyed one, or millions of its clones?"
Quote:
The cloning part bothers me because I may be wrong regarding what these embryos are.
Then why would you not want to err on the side of caution?
Quote:
Since we have all these embryos that will be destroyed anyway, maybe some good can come of it and maybe we won't need to clone or create other embryos later.
Again, thin reeds. Anyway, we're all going to die anyway, why not have a lottery to send 1 in 100 of us off to be researched on? Think of what could be learned!
Quote:
Genetic sequencing is medicine's future and it will be as revolutionary as anti-biotics and sulfur drugs were last century.
Gene sequencing in no way requires embryo destruction.
Quote:
It is indeed a brave new world and our ethics must evolve with it.
Situational ethics - at least you're being honest.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/19/06 03:15 PM
Quote:
It is indeed a brave new world and our ethics must evolve with it.
That is a scary comment. Very scary!
Posted By: Jokerman
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/19/06 03:16 PM
Quote:
And chimpanzees share over 99% of human genes. Are they human? They are a bunch of cells that are nearly genetically human.
Straw, are you eating chimps? And no, they're not human, regardless of this silly statement about genes. Forget genes - talk about the organs they share! But none of that makes them unique in the animal kingdom, and none of that makes them human. An embryo, though - what is their genetic makeup?
Posted By: Bengals Fan
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/19/06 03:18 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
At the risk of dragging this soi disant discussion off-track; would the use of placental stem cells excite the same objections as the use of embryonic stem cells?
Not from me.
What if we need to do the embryonic stem cell research to understand how other stem cells can be put to use because the embryonic stem cells are basic forms of these other stem cells.
I know your answer, but I just wanted to point out what I may be thinking.
The cloning part bothers me because I may be wrong regarding what these embryos are (a concept you might not be familiar with, but I find it very helpful to question myself every once and a while). Since we have all these embryos that will be destroyed anyway, maybe some good can come of it and maybe we won't need to clone or create other embryos later.
Genetic sequencing is medicine's future and it will be as revolutionary as anti-biotics and sulfur drugs were last century. It is indeed a brave new world and our ethics must evolve with it.
Ethics don't evolve, they are applied. The same ethical truths have existed since the creation of man, and always will exist. Killing babies whether they are at the embryonic stage or ready to burst out into the world in a heap of pain for mommy is wrong.
There is no evidence that embryonic stem cell research is needed. I could just as easily ask what if we need to cut drain all the blood from straw's body in order to determine if it is needed? You'd say no, right?
No good can come of sacrificing human life.
Posted By: straw
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/19/06 03:18 PM
Society used to deem it unethical to cut open the human flesh. Belief held that the flesh was sacred and an incision would allow the body's spirit to escape.
Do we believe this today? Of course not. But religious decrees then held this to be true. Were they right?
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/19/06 03:19 PM
Quote:
Then why would you not want to err on the side of caution?
what caution? eternal damnation?
can't genetic technology also be viewed as a gift from God?
Posted By: straw
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/19/06 03:22 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
At the risk of dragging this soi disant discussion off-track; would the use of placental stem cells excite the same objections as the use of embryonic stem cells?
Not from me.
What if we need to do the embryonic stem cell research to understand how other stem cells can be put to use because the embryonic stem cells are basic forms of these other stem cells.
I know your answer, but I just wanted to point out what I may be thinking.
The cloning part bothers me because I may be wrong regarding what these embryos are (a concept you might not be familiar with, but I find it very helpful to question myself every once and a while). Since we have all these embryos that will be destroyed anyway, maybe some good can come of it and maybe we won't need to clone or create other embryos later.
Genetic sequencing is medicine's future and it will be as revolutionary as anti-biotics and sulfur drugs were last century. It is indeed a brave new world and our ethics must evolve with it.
Ethics don't evolve, they are applied. The same ethical truths have existed since the creation of man, and always will exist. Killing babies whether they are at the embryonic stage or ready to burst out into the world in a heap of pain for mommy is wrong.
There is no evidence that embryonic stem cell research is needed. I could just as easily ask what if we need to cut drain all the blood from straw's body in order to determine if it is needed? You'd say no, right?
No good can come of sacrificing human life.
What about slavery? The Bible condoned it, but we do not today.
Quote:
Quote:
Ethics don't evolve, they are applied. The same ethical truths have existed since the creation of man, and always will exist. ...
What about slavery? The Bible condoned it, but we do not today.
Wait, I know his answer for this!! "That's different."
Posted By: Jokerman
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/19/06 03:27 PM
Quote:
what caution? eternal damnation?
The caution of not destroying something that Straw has admitted he might be wrong about.
Quote:
can't genetic technology also be viewed as a gift from God?
Ron, when have I opposed genetic technology?
Posted By: Bengals Fan
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/19/06 03:28 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
At the risk of dragging this soi disant discussion off-track; would the use of placental stem cells excite the same objections as the use of embryonic stem cells?
Not from me.
What if we need to do the embryonic stem cell research to understand how other stem cells can be put to use because the embryonic stem cells are basic forms of these other stem cells.
I know your answer, but I just wanted to point out what I may be thinking.
The cloning part bothers me because I may be wrong regarding what these embryos are (a concept you might not be familiar with, but I find it very helpful to question myself every once and a while). Since we have all these embryos that will be destroyed anyway, maybe some good can come of it and maybe we won't need to clone or create other embryos later.
Genetic sequencing is medicine's future and it will be as revolutionary as anti-biotics and sulfur drugs were last century. It is indeed a brave new world and our ethics must evolve with it.
Ethics don't evolve, they are applied. The same ethical truths have existed since the creation of man, and always will exist. Killing babies whether they are at the embryonic stage or ready to burst out into the world in a heap of pain for mommy is wrong.
There is no evidence that embryonic stem cell research is needed. I could just as easily ask what if we need to cut drain all the blood from straw's body in order to determine if it is needed? You'd say no, right?
No good can come of sacrificing human life.
What about slavery? The Bible condoned it, but we do not today.
Show me where the bible CONDONES slavery, particularly in the New Testament. Sorry, wrong answer. Slavery was a part of life, accepted but not condoned.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/19/06 03:30 PM
That's not the answer, and I think you know it.
The bible observed the existence of slavery; it did not condone slavery.
Quote:
Society used to deem it unethical to cut open the human flesh. Belief held that the flesh was sacred and an incision would allow the body's spirit to escape.
Do we believe this today? Of course not. But religious decrees then held this to be true. Were they right?
Good point. Ethics do (& should evolve) based on knowledge. This does not mean that morals evolve. In the example above, the moral position is that the human spirit is sacred -- that position doesn't have to change to concede that medical ethics changed based on advances in knowledge.
In the stem cell debate, the historical Christian view is that all human life is sacred from the time of conception. As far as I know, this position is based on the interpretation of a scant few Bible verses, none of which are clear enough to prohibit the destruction of embryos.
One can just as easily interpret that a person does not become sacred in God's eyes until he or she posesses a soul, and that for a soul to be housed in a body, that body must have a functioning brain. This is just another interpretation and does not contradict the Bible.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/19/06 03:37 PM
Quote:
Ron, when have I opposed genetic technology?
this thread
Posted By: Bengals Fan
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/19/06 03:39 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Society used to deem it unethical to cut open the human flesh. Belief held that the flesh was sacred and an incision would allow the body's spirit to escape.
Do we believe this today? Of course not. But religious decrees then held this to be true. Were they right?
Good point. Ethics do (& should evolve) based on knowledge. This does not mean that morals evolve. In the example above, the moral position is that the human spirit is sacred -- that position doesn't have to change to concede that medical ethics changed based on advances in knowledge.
In the stem cell debate, the historical Christian view is that all human life is sacred from the time of conception. As far as I know, this position is based on the interpretation of a scant few Bible verses, none of which are clear enough to prohibit the destruction of embryos.
One can just as easily interpret that a person does not become sacred in God's eyes until he or she posesses a soul, and that for a soul to be housed in a body, that body must have a functioning brain. This is just another interpretation and does not contradict the Bible.
We do not know when those cells become sacred in God's eyes. Only He does. We do, however, know that human life begins with conception.
Posted By: straw
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/19/06 03:39 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
At the risk of dragging this soi disant discussion off-track; would the use of placental stem cells excite the same objections as the use of embryonic stem cells?
Not from me.
What if we need to do the embryonic stem cell research to understand how other stem cells can be put to use because the embryonic stem cells are basic forms of these other stem cells.
I know your answer, but I just wanted to point out what I may be thinking.
The cloning part bothers me because I may be wrong regarding what these embryos are (a concept you might not be familiar with, but I find it very helpful to question myself every once and a while). Since we have all these embryos that will be destroyed anyway, maybe some good can come of it and maybe we won't need to clone or create other embryos later.
Genetic sequencing is medicine's future and it will be as revolutionary as anti-biotics and sulfur drugs were last century. It is indeed a brave new world and our ethics must evolve with it.
Ethics don't evolve, they are applied. The same ethical truths have existed since the creation of man, and always will exist. Killing babies whether they are at the embryonic stage or ready to burst out into the world in a heap of pain for mommy is wrong.
There is no evidence that embryonic stem cell research is needed. I could just as easily ask what if we need to cut drain all the blood from straw's body in order to determine if it is needed? You'd say no, right?
No good can come of sacrificing human life.
What about slavery? The Bible condoned it, but we do not today.
Show me where the bible CONDONES slavery, particularly in the New Testament. Sorry, wrong answer. Slavery was a part of life, accepted but not condoned.
Websters defines condone as, to overlook, forgive, or disregard (an offense) without protest or censure. See Synonyms at forgive.
Websters defines accept as follows:
To receive (something offered), especially with gladness or approval: accepted a glass of water; accepted their contract.
To admit to a group, organization, or place: accepted me as a new member of the club.
To regard as proper, usual, or right: Such customs are widely accepted.
To regard as true; believe in: Scientists have accepted the new theory.
To understand as having a specific meaning.
To endure resignedly or patiently: accept one's fate.
To answer affirmatively: accept an invitation.
To agree to take (a duty or responsibility).
To be able to hold (something applied or inserted): This wood will not accept oil paints.
To receive officially: accept the committee's report.
To consent to pay, as by a signed agreement.
Medicine. To receive (a transplanted organ or tissue) without immunological rejection
Semantics really won't cut it. Your better response to my question would be that God always knew that slavery was wrong, but He allowed us to discover it for ourselves, rather than decree it.
But your answer really doesn't cut it, and I think you know it.
We could say that human life begins in sperm and egg cells. They are alive, and they are human, and have the potential to become a person. I know you'll say that they cannot on their own, but neither can an embryo.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/19/06 03:43 PM
Quote:
We do not know when those cells become sacred in God's eyes. Only He does. We do, however, know that human life begins with conception.
so should the laws regarding this issue have a religious basis?
doesn't life end when He chooses it to? why are we using all of this pagan medicine to prevent Him from choosing!
Posted By: MadisonCali
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/19/06 03:47 PM
Quote:
doesn't life end when He chooses it to? why are we using all of this pagan medicine to prevent Him from choosing!
Gee, why do we have hospitals or doctors at all, then?
When someone gets sick or injured, let them die. That must be His choosing...
Please.
Bad argument.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/19/06 03:49 PM
Quote:
Quote:
doesn't life end when He chooses it to? why are we using all of this pagan medicine to prevent Him from choosing!
Gee, why do we have hospitals or doctors at all, then?
When someone gets sick or injured, let them die. That must be His choosing...
Please.
Bad argument.
madi, i was being facetious. but obviously you got my point.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/19/06 03:52 PM
Quote:
so should the laws regarding this issue have a religious basis?
This is something that comes up a lot, and my answer would definitely be no. Last I checked, this country is supposed to have freedom of religion, but the second you make laws based on beleifs of just one religion then that is all gone. Last I checked, its not just Christians who have to follow the laws in the U.S. This is very true of the gay marriage issue as well, if that is banned because of Christian beleifs (controversial ones at that) then non-Christians are forced to abide by this as well and their religious freedom goes right out the window.
-=ThePaul=-
Posted By: MadisonCali
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/19/06 03:52 PM
BengalsFan wrote:
Quote:
Show me where the bible CONDONES slavery, particularly in the New Testament. Sorry, wrong answer. Slavery was a part of life, accepted but not condoned.
It would be that form of 'accepted' where Deuteronomy, Exodus and Leviticus describe in detail which people can be owned as slaves, how they can be treated, how they can be inherited from one generation to the next, how they may be punished for various crimes, and what actions against a slave actually constitute a crime. Basically the Hebrew slave owner's manual, as delivered from on high.
Oh, those pesky New Testament references:
Colossians 3:22-4:1
Ephesians 6:5-9
Titus 2:9-10
1 Peter 2:18-21
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/19/06 03:57 PM
Quote:
BengalsFan wrote:
Quote:
Show me where the bible CONDONES slavery, particularly in the New Testament. Sorry, wrong answer. Slavery was a part of life, accepted but not condoned.
It would be that form of 'accepted' where Deuteronomy, Exodus and Leviticus describe in detail which people can be owned as slaves, how they can be treated, how they can be inherited from one generation to the next, how they may be punished for various crimes, and what actions against a slave actually constitute a crime. Basically the Hebrew slave owner's manual, as delivered from on high.
Oh, those pesky New Testament references:
Colossians 3:22-4:1
Ephesians 6:5-9
Titus 2:9-10
1 Peter 2:18-21
Not pesky at all. Taken out of context anything can seem pesky. Study it in context and come back and talk to us.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/19/06 04:01 PM
Quote:
BengalsFan wrote:
Quote:
Show me where the bible CONDONES slavery, particularly in the New Testament. Sorry, wrong answer. Slavery was a part of life, accepted but not condoned.
It would be that form of 'accepted' where Deuteronomy, Exodus and Leviticus describe in detail which people can be owned as slaves, how they can be treated, how they can be inherited from one generation to the next, how they may be punished for various crimes, and what actions against a slave actually constitute a crime. Basically the Hebrew slave owner's manual, as delivered from on high.
Oh, those pesky New Testament references:
Colossians 3:22-4:1
Ephesians 6:5-9
Titus 2:9-10
1 Peter 2:18-21
AML, you are such an idiot. the old testament is important for death penalty issues and the new testment is for abortion-related issues.
Posted By: Jokerman
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/19/06 04:06 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Ron, when have I opposed genetic technology?
this thread
Wrong again.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/19/06 04:07 PM
Quote:
Quote:
BengalsFan wrote:
Quote:
Show me where the bible CONDONES slavery, particularly in the New Testament. Sorry, wrong answer. Slavery was a part of life, accepted but not condoned.
It would be that form of 'accepted' where Deuteronomy, Exodus and Leviticus describe in detail which people can be owned as slaves, how they can be treated, how they can be inherited from one generation to the next, how they may be punished for various crimes, and what actions against a slave actually constitute a crime. Basically the Hebrew slave owner's manual, as delivered from on high.
Oh, those pesky New Testament references:
Colossians 3:22-4:1
Ephesians 6:5-9
Titus 2:9-10
1 Peter 2:18-21
AML, you are such an idiot. the old testament is important for death penalty issues and the new testment is for abortion-related issues.
sorry. that was unfair. the "answer" to different issues is more a la carte than anything; whatever works best to arrive at the conclusion you want.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/19/06 04:08 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Ron, when have I opposed genetic technology?
this thread
Wrong again.
really? you haven't been questioning the use of stem cell research?
Posted By: Jokerman
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/19/06 04:10 PM
I've been questioning the morality of the destruction of embryos to obtain stem cells for research. Obtain them other ways and research them to your heart's content. I've also opposed human cloning, which I'm sure qualifies me as a luddite in your opinion, also.
Posted By: RVFlyboy
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/19/06 04:10 PM
Quote:
AML, you are such an idiot. the old testament is important for death penalty issues and the new testment is for abortion-related issues.
Sadly, this does seem to be the view sometimes portrayed. I truly wish more people who would seek to use the Bible to support or refute a position were more scholarly in their reading and understanding of the entirety of the Bible, but that just doesn't always happen. This is true both for professed Christians, and even for those who openly acknowledge a disbelief in God and Christianity, yet still point to the Bible in support or refute of a position.
I think the Biblical position of slavery is one of "if someone is a slave of someone else, their care and treatment should be such that they would not even consider themselves to be a slave". I also think the Bible encourages us all to become slaves to the will of God and to Christ Jesus. So in that sense, I would definitely say that the Bible endorses and even encourages slavery.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/19/06 04:14 PM
Slavery was an accepted practice in Roman culture. Everybody who was anybody had slaves. Rome's population (just the city of Rome) has been estimated at well over one million people during the time that this book was written. One-half of the people in the city were slaves! And they were not, in most cases, just menial workers; slavery extended into the professions. In those days, doctors were often slaves, as were schoolteachers. Slavery extended into every area of society.
Were the apostles social crusaders? No, they were not. They did not try to change society. Their job was to work on changing individuals, especially those within the church. God permitted slavery to exist, and through Paul, He told Christians to operate within it. Not to overthrow it, but to work within it. Nobody is saying that the Bible says slavery is good. The Bible does not say such a thing. God wants everyone to be free. In this case, though, slavery was a part of the culture, and God nowhere instructs His people to overthrow it.
Posted By: straw
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/19/06 04:29 PM
Quote:
Slavery was an accepted practice in Roman culture. Everybody who was anybody had slaves. Rome's population (just the city of Rome) has been estimated at well over one million people during the time that this book was written. One-half of the people in the city were slaves! And they were not, in most cases, just menial workers; slavery extended into the professions. In those days, doctors were often slaves, as were schoolteachers. Slavery extended into every area of society.
Were the apostles social crusaders? No, they were not. They did not try to change society. Their job was to work on changing individuals, especially those within the church. God permitted slavery to exist, and through Paul, He told Christians to operate within it. Not to overthrow it, but to work within it. Nobody is saying that the Bible says slavery is good. The Bible does not say such a thing. God wants everyone to be free. In this case, though, slavery was a part of the culture, and God nowhere instructs His people to overthrow it.
Since the Bible pre-dates Roman civilization, can't look to Rome for the answer.
Not to change the subject but to cite another example along the same lines, how many wives did Solomon have?
Posted By: Creditcop
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/19/06 04:30 PM
Quote:
Quote:
BengalsFan wrote:
Quote:
Show me where the bible CONDONES slavery, particularly in the New Testament. Sorry, wrong answer. Slavery was a part of life, accepted but not condoned.
It would be that form of 'accepted' where Deuteronomy, Exodus and Leviticus describe in detail which people can be owned as slaves, how they can be treated, how they can be inherited from one generation to the next, how they may be punished for various crimes, and what actions against a slave actually constitute a crime. Basically the Hebrew slave owner's manual, as delivered from on high.
Oh, those pesky New Testament references:
Colossians 3:22-4:1
Ephesians 6:5-9
Titus 2:9-10
1 Peter 2:18-21
Not pesky at all. Taken out of context anything can seem pesky. Study it in context and come back and talk to us.
Here is a link that might help.
Why is slavery permitted in the Bible?
Posted By: MB Guy
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/19/06 04:53 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
so should the laws regarding this issue have a religious basis?
This is something that comes up a lot, and my answer would definitely be no. Last I checked, this country is supposed to have freedom of religion, but the second you make laws based on beleifs of just one religion then that is all gone. Last I checked, its not just Christians who have to follow the laws in the U.S. This is very true of the gay marriage issue as well, if that is banned because of Christian beleifs (controversial ones at that) then non-Christians are forced to abide by this as well and their religious freedom goes right out the window.
-=ThePaul=-
good, GOOD, my young apprentice
Sorry, but the laws of the US ARE based on the ten commandments. Which are Christian-based just in case you were wondering.
And it says freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.
Sorry girls.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/19/06 05:02 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Slavery was an accepted practice in Roman culture. Everybody who was anybody had slaves. Rome's population (just the city of Rome) has been estimated at well over one million people during the time that this book was written. One-half of the people in the city were slaves! And they were not, in most cases, just menial workers; slavery extended into the professions. In those days, doctors were often slaves, as were schoolteachers. Slavery extended into every area of society.
Were the apostles social crusaders? No, they were not. They did not try to change society. Their job was to work on changing individuals, especially those within the church. God permitted slavery to exist, and through Paul, He told Christians to operate within it. Not to overthrow it, but to work within it. Nobody is saying that the Bible says slavery is good. The Bible does not say such a thing. God wants everyone to be free. In this case, though, slavery was a part of the culture, and God nowhere instructs His people to overthrow it.
Since the Bible pre-dates Roman civilization, can't look to Rome for the answer.
Not to change the subject but to cite another example along the same lines, how many wives did Solomon have?
He cited New Testament verses, so yes, I can look to Roman civilization for the answer to New Testament verses he says support slavery. Post some Old Testament verses and I'll see what I can do.
What difference does it make how many wives Solomon had? Find me a verse where God told Solomon or anyone else that it was ok to have many wives and then we'll have something discussion. King David killed a man and stole his wife--does that prove God approves of that behavior?
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/19/06 05:11 PM
Quote:
Sorry, but the laws of the US ARE based on the ten commandments. Which are Christian-based just in case you were wondering.
And it says freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.
wow! moving right along...
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/19/06 05:11 PM
It seems to me that the reason this is such a hot topic is because not everyone has the same beliefs, ideas, intelligence, morality and idea of life. In fact isn't that what God intended for us to have "free will", to make our own choices and decisions and to accept the consequences that come from those? I've read through this thread and it seems to me that there are a lot of people out there who think that those who do not think the way they do are wrong or idiots? I think it is very smug of some of you to insist that your beliefs are any more right than someone elses. The reason there are so many religions is because not everyone believes the same and why should they? Yes the constitution was founded on a religious basis because the people who created it had strong religious beliefs at that time and did not see a problem with intertwining those but then you start bringing in people from other religious backgrounds and the world begins to evolve and now it is to hard to include religion into the laws of the land without offending someone somewhere. The US is a melting pot for so many people who is to say that the one religion should win out over all, isn't that in a way what Hitler tried to do? I think that we all need to step back and realize that everyone is not always going to agree with the government so if you don't then get out there and vote and find someone for who you beleive it but remember that you may not be in the majority!
So please enough with the endless debate on what a life is and who can legally marry because there will never be a cut and dry answer. I think we all need to stop calling each other names and understand that WE ALL have our own beleifs and what is right and makes sense for us may not to our neighbor but that does not mean that we are not all good people!
Posted By: MB Guy
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/19/06 05:12 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Sorry, but the laws of the US ARE based on the ten commandments. Which are Christian-based just in case you were wondering.
And it says freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.
wow! moving right along...
care to expound?
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/19/06 05:13 PM
Quote:
Find me a verse where God told Solomon or anyone else that it was ok to have many wives and then we'll have something discussion.
find me a verse where stem cell research is outlawed, dr selective interpretations.
Posted By: Jokerman
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/19/06 05:17 PM
Quote:
It seems to me that the reason this is such a hot topic is because not everyone has the same beliefs, ideas, intelligence, morality and idea of life. In fact isn't that what God intended for us to have "free will", to make our own choices and decisions and to accept the consequences that come from those? I've read through this thread and it seems to me that there are a lot of people out there who think that those who do not think the way they do are wrong or idiots? I think it is very smug of some of you to insist that your beliefs are any more right than someone elses. The reason there are so many religions is because not everyone believes the same and why should they? Yes the constitution was founded on a religious basis because the people who created it had strong religious beliefs at that time and did not see a problem with intertwining those but then you start bringing in people from other religious backgrounds and the world begins to evolve and now it is to hard to include religion into the laws of the land without offending someone somewhere. The US is a melting pot for so many people who is to say that the one religion should win out over all, isn't that in a way what Hitler tried to do? I think that we all need to step back and realize that everyone is not always going to agree with the government so if you don't then get out there and vote and find someone for who you beleive it but remember that you may not be in the majority!
So please enough with the endless debate on what a life is and who can legally marry because there will never be a cut and dry answer. I think we all need to stop calling each other names and understand that WE ALL have our own beleifs and what is right and makes sense for us may not to our neighbor but that does not mean that we are not all good people!
So, to sum up, everybody can't agree on everything, so nothing should be prohibited. Also, those who want federal funding for embryonic stem cell harvesting should advocate and attempt to elect politicians who share their views. Others should shut up, because I don't like to hear it.
PS - One doesn't need to cite religion to argue that embryos should not be destroyed for a stem cell harvest.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/19/06 05:20 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Sorry, but the laws of the US ARE based on the ten commandments. Which are Christian-based just in case you were wondering.
And it says freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.
wow! moving right along...
care to expound?
no. i don't want to insult. i will leave you to view our legal system and the constitution however you wish to. (you tried to bite the apple and instead you bit the whole tree)
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/19/06 05:24 PM
I don't recall saying anything about nothing being prohibited, what I was refering to was the fact that people were posting that others were idiots or wrong because they did not agree with their beliefs.
Case in point the fact that you don't beleive in stem cell for reasons other than religion and others do not believe for reasons of religion, while others partially agree with it..........see a pattern different beliefs but what will happen soley rests on the men and women that we put into office and how much we communicate with them!
Posted By: Smilzsomuch
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/19/06 05:25 PM
Hey! Whaddaya say we all go to church this Sunday?
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/19/06 05:26 PM
Sorry, my Sundays are reserved for Devil worshipping and baby-killing!
Posted By: Smilzsomuch
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/19/06 05:27 PM
Whoaaaaaaaaaaaaaa....... talk about a pasttime!
Posted By: MB Guy
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/19/06 05:31 PM
Quote:
no. i don't want to insult. i will leave you to view our legal system and the constitution however you wish to. (you tried to bite the apple and instead you bit the whole tree)
feel free to insult away.
just please speak in clear terms without so many innuendos, although that does seem to be your favorite method of communication.
maybe a switch from innuendos to clear, concise, and properly expressed thoughts is in order?
Posted By: Smilzsomuch
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/19/06 05:33 PM
Have you noticed the post from "Jim" on another forum?? It's pretty good. Think the forum is "Sweetpeas".
Feel free to check it out.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/19/06 05:34 PM
Quote:
the laws of the US ARE based on the ten commandments. Which are Christian-based just in case you were wondering.
What nonsense! Read the Ten Commandments. The only ones that represent laws are the proscriptions against killing and stealing, which are a part of the laws of virtually every society, Judeo/Christian or not. You might get part credit for "false witness", although that's only against the law in special circumstances like being under oath. Our laws are based upon public policy, not religion.
Quote:
And it says freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.
No, what "it" says is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Two clauses, one protecting us from government establishment of religion, the other from government infringing on our free exercise. So it gives us BOTH the freedom of religion AND freedom from religion being pushed upon us by government.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Sorry, but the laws of the US ARE based on the ten commandments. Which are Christian-based just in case you were wondering.
And it says freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.
wow! moving right along...
care to expound?
At a guess, I'd say the open questions are:
The 10 Commandments come from the Old Testament, what makes them "Christian-based"?
Here are the 10 commandments:
1. "I am the LORD your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of slavery. Thou shalt have no other gods before Me... .."
2. "Do not make a sculpted image or any likeness of what is in the heavens above..."
3. "Thou shalt not swear falsely by the name of the LORD..."
4. "Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy"
5. "Thou shalt honour your father and your mother..."
6. "Thou shalt not murder"
7. "Thou shalt not commit adultery."
8. "Thou shalt not steal."
9. "Thou shalt not bear false witness against your neighbor"
10. "Thou shalt not covet your neighbor's house.
How would you suggest that 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 are enshrined in US law?
Who said anything about 'freedom from religion'?
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/19/06 05:35 PM
Quote:
Quote:
no. i don't want to insult. i will leave you to view our legal system and the constitution however you wish to. (you tried to bite the apple and instead you bit the whole tree)
feel free to insult away.
just please speak in clear terms without so many innuendos, although that does seem to be your favorite method of communication.
maybe a switch from innuendos to clear, concise, and properly expressed thoughts is in order?
that's not my style marky. i am just saying that if you believe our nation was founded as a christian sanctuary and our laws are derived from the commandments, i can't stop you. SCOTUS, that pagan institution, disagrees with you but perception is reality they say.
Posted By: straw
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/19/06 05:37 PM
Quote:
It seems to me that the reason this is such a hot topic is because not everyone has the same beliefs, ideas, intelligence, morality and idea of life. In fact isn't that what God intended for us to have "free will", to make our own choices and decisions and to accept the consequences that come from those? I've read through this thread and it seems to me that there are a lot of people out there who think that those who do not think the way they do are wrong or idiots? I think it is very smug of some of you to insist that your beliefs are any more right than someone elses. The reason there are so many religions is because not everyone believes the same and why should they? Yes the constitution was founded on a religious basis because the people who created it had strong religious beliefs at that time and did not see a problem with intertwining those but then you start bringing in people from other religious backgrounds and the world begins to evolve and now it is to hard to include religion into the laws of the land without offending someone somewhere. The US is a melting pot for so many people who is to say that the one religion should win out over all, isn't that in a way what Hitler tried to do? I think that we all need to step back and realize that everyone is not always going to agree with the government so if you don't then get out there and vote and find someone for who you beleive it but remember that you may not be in the majority!
So please enough with the endless debate on what a life is and who can legally marry because there will never be a cut and dry answer. I think we all need to stop calling each other names and understand that WE ALL have our own beleifs and what is right and makes sense for us may not to our neighbor but that does not mean that we are not all good people!
Both sides feel the other is shoving their beliefs onto the other side, so there will always be disagreement on these issues.
Posted By: straw
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/19/06 05:39 PM
Quote:
I don't recall saying anything about nothing being prohibited, what I was refering to was the fact that people were posting that others were idiots or wrong because they did not agree with their beliefs.
Case in point the fact that you don't beleive in stem cell for reasons other than religion and others do not believe for reasons of religion, while others partially agree with it..........see a pattern different beliefs but what will happen soley rests on the men and women that we put into office and how much we communicate with them!
I have been involved in the debate but do not recall either side calling the other names. I actually thought the debate was going along rather civilly (my calling J pompous aside)
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/19/06 05:43 PM
Quote:
Who said anything about 'freedom from religion'?
those pagans from SCOTUS have decided that to have freedom OF religion, we couldn't have endorsement of religion by the government. endorsement for the religious-right MUST mean literal endorsement.
Posted By: MB Guy
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/19/06 06:04 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Sorry, but the laws of the US ARE based on the ten commandments. Which are Christian-based just in case you were wondering.
And it says freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.
wow! moving right along...
care to expound?
At a guess, I'd say the open questions are:
The 10 Commandments come from the Old Testament, what makes them "Christian-based"?
Here are the 10 commandments:
1. "I am the LORD your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of slavery. Thou shalt have no other gods before Me... .."
2. "Do not make a sculpted image or any likeness of what is in the heavens above..."
3. "Thou shalt not swear falsely by the name of the LORD..."
4. "Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy"
5. "Thou shalt honour your father and your mother..."
6. "Thou shalt not murder"
7. "Thou shalt not commit adultery."
8. "Thou shalt not steal."
9. "Thou shalt not bear false witness against your neighbor"
10. "Thou shalt not covet your neighbor's house.
How would you suggest that 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 are enshrined in US law?
Who said anything about 'freedom from religion'?
OK, let's go:
1. Well, I guess this is where the founding fathers didn't want to mandate one religion over another one so I concede this one. I believe because of their experiences and they wanted to establish a nation where you didn't have to follow one specific religion.
2. Graven images - you have me on that one, I concede.
3. Swearing - Isn't this the basis for FCC and general decency of language laws that radio and TV have to follow?
4. The old "Blue Laws" that restricted stores from being open on Sundays. Even today, most stores close early on Sundays or generally have shorter hours.
5. Hmmmmm....another tough one, but I believe that the constitutional rules they established regarding respecting people in general and not causing harm to ANYONE, regardless of who they are supersede and made this rule moot.
And regarding freedom from religion, I have heard it espoused NUMEROUS times in this forum that freedom from religion is just as important as freedom of religion. I am sure I can find some examples if you want me to.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/19/06 06:10 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Find me a verse where God told Solomon or anyone else that it was ok to have many wives and then we'll have something discussion.
find me a verse where stem cell research is outlawed, dr selective interpretations.
Ron, you logic lacks cohesiveness. You don't have to respond because you'll just say that it does and then some supernatural force will insist that we get into the usual boring discussion of whether someone's post was logical.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/19/06 06:14 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Sorry, but the laws of the US ARE based on the ten commandments. Which are Christian-based just in case you were wondering.
And it says freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.
wow! moving right along...
care to expound?
At a guess, I'd say the open questions are:
The 10 Commandments come from the Old Testament, what makes them "Christian-based"?
Here are the 10 commandments:
1. "I am the LORD your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of slavery. Thou shalt have no other gods before Me... .."
2. "Do not make a sculpted image or any likeness of what is in the heavens above..."
3. "Thou shalt not swear falsely by the name of the LORD..."
4. "Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy"
5. "Thou shalt honour your father and your mother..."
6. "Thou shalt not murder"
7. "Thou shalt not commit adultery."
8. "Thou shalt not steal."
9. "Thou shalt not bear false witness against your neighbor"
10. "Thou shalt not covet your neighbor's house.
How would you suggest that 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 are enshrined in US law?
Who said anything about 'freedom from religion'?
OK, let's go:
1. Well, I guess this is where the founding fathers didn't want to mandate one religion over another one so I concede this one. I believe because of their experiences and they wanted to establish a nation where you didn't have to follow one specific religion.
2. Graven images - you have me on that one, I concede.
3. Swearing - Isn't this the basis for FCC and general decency of language laws that radio and TV have to follow?
4. The old "Blue Laws" that restricted stores from being open on Sundays. Even today, most stores close early on Sundays or generally have shorter hours.
5. Hmmmmm....another tough one, but I believe that the constitutional rules they established regarding respecting people in general and not causing harm to ANYONE, regardless of who they are supersede and made this rule moot.
And regarding freedom from religion, I have heard it espoused NUMEROUS times in this forum that freedom from religion is just as important as freedom of religion. I am sure I can find some examples if you want me to.
The laws of the U.S. are not based on the Ten Commandments as much as they are based on the Judeo Christian laws of the Bible. (Before someone starts posting obscure Old Testament laws of God that don't apply today, some Old Testament laws were meant for just that period in time to serve a specific purpose and others were not. Study the Bible to figure out which are which before you start posting obscure, out-of-context, Old Testament laws of God as examples of laws of God Christians and Jews don't follow.)
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/19/06 06:22 PM
Quote:
And regarding freedom from religion, I have heard it espoused NUMEROUS times in this forum that freedom from religion is just as important as freedom of religion. I am sure I can find some examples if you want me to.
mark, i doubt there are many people who have opined on this area that really know what they are talking about. wanting something to be a certain way and the reality of what something is are 2 different things.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/19/06 06:26 PM
Quote:
Quote:
And regarding freedom from religion, I have heard it espoused NUMEROUS times in this forum that freedom from religion is just as important as freedom of religion. I am sure I can find some examples if you want me to.
mark, i doubt there are many people who have opined on this area that really know what they are talking about. wanting something to be a certain way and the reality of what something is are 2 different things.
I know what I am talking about and through the years, with liberal judges, the Supreme Court changed the original intent and meaning of the amendment. The writings of Jefferson prove that. You are right about the current interpretation of the amendment, which more closely resembles the wholly secular anti-religion Soviet Russian style of governing, than the early America. I can't wait for the tide to turn on your favored interpretation. I think it already is.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/19/06 06:29 PM
Well that's funny because I read some personal attacks on people, others being called idiots and a lot of smug responses. So for me I don't think the debate is going along smoothly.
Posted By: straw
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/19/06 06:36 PM
Well just ignore the anon trolls who flame away; most of the other posts seem to actually discuss the issue.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/19/06 06:37 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Find me a verse where God told Solomon or anyone else that it was ok to have many wives and then we'll have something discussion.
find me a verse where stem cell research is outlawed, dr selective interpretations.
Ron, you logic lacks cohesiveness. You don't have to respond because you'll just say that it does and then some supernatural force will insist that we get into the usual boring discussion of whether someone's post was logical.
i will respond because you left me no choice. i think my point was pretty clear. i cannot argue scripture with people here. and i don't want to. i want to argue the premise of this thread: faith and ignorance. you keep forgetting that this is not a christian theocracy as much as you would like it to be. the premise of the thread is that the scripture that forms the belief system of some people needs to be questioned. this is not 3000 years ago! this is today. a lot of what was not known then is now clear. what i have learned from my faith requires a look to the big picture. i want to care about my fellow man. medicine is a way to do this and we are going to take a huge hit to progress based on one particular interpretation of God's word. literalism was for 3000 years ago when stuff wasn't known.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/19/06 06:42 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
And regarding freedom from religion, I have heard it espoused NUMEROUS times in this forum that freedom from religion is just as important as freedom of religion. I am sure I can find some examples if you want me to.
mark, i doubt there are many people who have opined on this area that really know what they are talking about. wanting something to be a certain way and the reality of what something is are 2 different things.
I know what I am talking about and through the years, with liberal judges, the Supreme Court changed the original intent and meaning of the amendment. The writings of Jefferson prove that. You are right about the current interpretation of the amendment, which more closely resembles the wholly secular anti-religion Soviet Russian style of governing, than the early America. I can't wait for the tide to turn on your favored interpretation. I think it already is.
the "writings" of jefferson are now law? and they said that christianity NEEDS a role in our government? and why are SCOTUS and i anti-religion? because i favor stem cell research? because SCOTUS wants to abolish religion?
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/19/06 08:50 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
And regarding freedom from religion, I have heard it espoused NUMEROUS times in this forum that freedom from religion is just as important as freedom of religion. I am sure I can find some examples if you want me to.
mark, i doubt there are many people who have opined on this area that really know what they are talking about. wanting something to be a certain way and the reality of what something is are 2 different things.
I know what I am talking about and through the years, with liberal judges, the Supreme Court changed the original intent and meaning of the amendment. The writings of Jefferson prove that. You are right about the current interpretation of the amendment, which more closely resembles the wholly secular anti-religion Soviet Russian style of governing, than the early America. I can't wait for the tide to turn on your favored interpretation. I think it already is.
the "writings" of jefferson are now law? and they said that christianity NEEDS a role in our government? and why are SCOTUS and i anti-religion? because i favor stem cell research? because SCOTUS wants to abolish religion?
Ron, you need to get some reading glasses. I did not say jefferson's letter are law. Refer to my post as to what I actually said. I did not Christianity NEEDS a role in our government. Refer to my post as to what I actually said. I did not say the SCOTUS wants to abolish religion. Refer to my post as to what I actually said. And none of my posts here have anything to do with stem cell research. I am enjoying the tangential issues too much to even read those posts.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/19/06 08:53 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Find me a verse where God told Solomon or anyone else that it was ok to have many wives and then we'll have something discussion.
find me a verse where stem cell research is outlawed, dr selective interpretations.
Ron, you logic lacks cohesiveness. You don't have to respond because you'll just say that it does and then some supernatural force will insist that we get into the usual boring discussion of whether someone's post was logical.
i will respond because you left me no choice. i think my point was pretty clear. i cannot argue scripture with people here. and i don't want to. i want to argue the premise of this thread: faith and ignorance. you keep forgetting that this is not a christian theocracy as much as you would like it to be. the premise of the thread is that the scripture that forms the belief system of some people needs to be questioned. this is not 3000 years ago! this is today. a lot of what was not known then is now clear. what i have learned from my faith requires a look to the big picture. i want to care about my fellow man. medicine is a way to do this and we are going to take a huge hit to progress based on one particular interpretation of God's word. literalism was for 3000 years ago when stuff wasn't known.
I want a Christian theocracy? You need reading glasses. Someone asked about Solomon's multiple wives, as if they were, like slavery, approved by God in the Bible. My ONLY point is that I did not see anywhere in the Bible that God blessed Solomon having multiple wives.
Anyway, on a more serious note: Do think Solomon's wives took turns nagging poor Solomon about watching too many chariot races or did they gang up on him and do it all at once?
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/19/06 08:57 PM
but the thread did. i actually didn't expect this thread to last as long as it did.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/19/06 08:59 PM
Quote:
My ONLY point is that I did not see anywhere in the Bible that God blessed Solomon having multiple wives.
wouldn't that have been a good topic for another thread? the inclusion in this thread seemed like it was trying to prove something else...
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/19/06 09:12 PM
Quote:
Quote:
My ONLY point is that I did not see anywhere in the Bible that God blessed Solomon having multiple wives.
wouldn't that have been a good topic for another thread? the inclusion in this thread seemed like it was trying to prove something else...
I didn't bring it up chucklehead.
Posted By: straw
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/19/06 09:41 PM
I brought it up because some were arguing that ethics are absolutes handed time from the dawn of time and I was trying to show that these things have evolved over time i.e. slavery and polygamy were once considered ethical/moral, surgery was considered immoral.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/19/06 09:53 PM
Quote:
I brought it up because some were arguing that ethics are absolutes handed time from the dawn of time and I was trying to show that these things have evolved over time i.e. slavery and polygamy were once considered ethical/moral, surgery was considered immoral.
Polygamy is more like the case of divorce, which God tolerated for a while under certain conditions because of the hardness of their hearts, but was not the way it was intended from the beginning (Matt. 19:8). But whenever the Mosaic law had provisions for polygamy, it was always the conditional "If he takes another wife to himself" (Ex.21:10), never an encouragement. God put a number of obligations of the husband towards the additional wives which would discourage polygamy. It is no wonder that polygamy was unknown among the Jews after the Babylonian exile, and monogamy was the rule even among the Greeks and Romans by New Testament times.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/19/06 09:54 PM
Wasn't the change related to surgery not so much a change of ethics related to the practice, but rather a change of the understanding of surgery.
Posted By: Jokerman
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/19/06 10:52 PM
Quote:
I brought it up because some were arguing that ethics are absolutes handed time from the dawn of time and I was trying to show that these things have evolved over time i.e. slavery and polygamy were once considered ethical/moral, surgery was considered immoral.
So, Straw, you think that, while slavery is immoral today, those in the past who enslaved others were acting morally?
Posted By: Retired DQ
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/20/06 12:00 PM
Well, I guess the discussion can die, our illustrious prez vetoed the proposal.
Posted By: Jokerman
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/20/06 12:05 PM
Quote:
Well, I guess the discussion can die, our illustrious prez vetoed the proposal.
Don't worry DQ, I'm doubtful that our next President will be similarly concerned about the destruction of innocent human life.
Posted By: Retired DQ
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/20/06 12:23 PM
Sometimes I feel like BOL is a Charlie Brown movie...
wah wah wa wa wah wah wah wa wwa...
Posted By: Jokerman
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/20/06 12:43 PM
You do kind of remind me of Peppermint Patty.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/20/06 12:54 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Well, I guess the discussion can die, our illustrious prez vetoed the proposal.
Don't worry DQ, I'm doubtful that our next President will be similarly concerned about the destruction of innocent human life.
however, i DO think that our next president will care about the health and well-being of our citizens and NOT choose to ascribe to an ultra-conservative view about the realities of science and the inapplicability of biblical "science" to the modern day.
where is his outcry and push to get rid of in vitro fertilization? stupid couples trying to play God...
Posted By: straw
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/20/06 12:57 PM
Quote:
Wasn't the change related to surgery not so much a change of ethics related to the practice, but rather a change of the understanding of surgery.
Could that be true with the understanding of stem cells or an embryo today? Is is possible?
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/20/06 12:59 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Wasn't the change related to surgery not so much a change of ethics related to the practice, but rather a change of the understanding of surgery.
Could that be true with the understanding of stem cells or an embryo today? Is is possible?
no! i said 7 minute abs!
Posted By: straw
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/20/06 01:00 PM
Quote:
Quote:
I brought it up because some were arguing that ethics are absolutes handed time from the dawn of time and I was trying to show that these things have evolved over time i.e. slavery and polygamy were once considered ethical/moral, surgery was considered immoral.
So, Straw, you think that, while slavery is immoral today, those in the past who enslaved others were acting morally?
They thought they were. Is the reverse possible? That things we deem immoral today will be moral tomorrow?
As we become more enlightened, our morality/ethics, etc adjust to that enlightenment. That enlightenment can come from science, religion, whatever the source, but according to you, these things have always been immoral.
Were slave owners like Wash. and Jefferson immoral?
Posted By: straw
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/20/06 01:02 PM
So J, do you support the President's Solomonic decision a few years ago that allowed federal funds to be spent on research on existing stem cells.
If destroying those embryos is akin to murder, why did he split hairs. Doesn't that weaken his argument? Did you oppose it?
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/20/06 01:04 PM
Quote:
So J, do you support the President's Solomonic decision a few years ago that allowed federal funds to be spent on research on existing stem cells.
If destroying those embryos is akin to murder, why did he split hairs. Doesn't that weaken his argument? Did you oppose it?
once again, i said 7 minute abs!
Posted By: Retired DQ
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/20/06 01:04 PM
Quote:
You do kind of remind me of Peppermint Patty.
Actually, I am nicknamed "Lucy".
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/20/06 01:41 PM
"I think a lot of people are going to vote on this issue," Danforth said. He bristled at the suggestion that it could motivate conservatives and help the party.
"I served in elected office as a Republican for 26 years," he said. "Is somebody telling me I don't count? My brother doesn't count? What counts is that religious theory that says what takes place in a lab dish takes precedent over my brother?"
- Former Senator John Danforth, MO
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/20/06 01:49 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I brought it up because some were arguing that ethics are absolutes handed time from the dawn of time and I was trying to show that these things have evolved over time i.e. slavery and polygamy were once considered ethical/moral, surgery was considered immoral.
So, Straw, you think that, while slavery is immoral today, those in the past who enslaved others were acting morally?
They thought they were. Is the reverse possible? That things we deem immoral today will be moral tomorrow?
As we become more enlightened, our morality/ethics, etc adjust to that enlightenment. That enlightenment can come from science, religion, whatever the source, but according to you, these things have always been immoral.
Were slave owners like Wash. and Jefferson immoral?
So does what is moral change as opinions on morality change?
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/20/06 02:08 PM
Quote:
So does what is moral change as opinions on morality change?
not at all. you want to view it as people changing their opinions about the need for morality when, really, what is moral is what is being redefined. it only seems like what you suggested in your question because you are unwilling to change your point of view.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/20/06 02:29 PM
Quote:
Quote:
So does what is moral change as opinions on morality change?
not at all. you want to view it as people changing their opinions about the need for morality when, really, what is moral is what is being redefined. it only seems like what you suggested in your question because you are unwilling to change your point of view.
Thanks for telling me what I want, I've been wondering that for years now.
Also, cudos for letting me know what I am suggesting.
You mentioned my "point of view" but you neglected to tell me what it is. I'd be interested to know what my point of view is?
________________________________________________
Ron, you are not very good at reading between the lines and you have the odd habit of being so defensive that you allow what you are reading between the lines to cloud most your posts.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/20/06 02:31 PM
Quote:
Quote:
So does what is moral change as opinions on morality change?
not at all. you want to view it as people changing their opinions about the need for morality when, really, what is moral is what is being redefined. it only seems like what you suggested in your question because you are unwilling to change your point of view.
So, there are moral absolutes?
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/20/06 02:39 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
So does what is moral change as opinions on morality change?
not at all. you want to view it as people changing their opinions about the need for morality when, really, what is moral is what is being redefined. it only seems like what you suggested in your question because you are unwilling to change your point of view.
Thanks for telling me what I want, I've been wondering that for years now.
Also, cudos for letting me know what I am suggesting.
You mentioned my "point of view" but you neglected to tell me what it is. I'd be interested to know what my point of view is?
________________________________________________
Ron, you are not very good at reading between the lines and you have the odd habit of being so defensive that you allow what you are reading between the lines to cloud most your posts.
tell me what your post suggested then. i thought your rhetoric gave it away. i guess you are just a clumsy, haphazard type of writer.
and "cudos" to you, too.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/20/06 02:59 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
So does what is moral change as opinions on morality change?
not at all. you want to view it as people changing their opinions about the need for morality when, really, what is moral is what is being redefined. it only seems like what you suggested in your question because you are unwilling to change your point of view.
Thanks for telling me what I want, I've been wondering that for years now.
Also, cudos for letting me know what I am suggesting.
You mentioned my "point of view" but you neglected to tell me what it is. I'd be interested to know what my point of view is?
________________________________________________
Ron, you are not very good at reading between the lines and you have the odd habit of being so defensive that you allow what you are reading between the lines to cloud most your posts.
tell me what your post suggested then. i thought your rhetoric gave it away. i guess you are just a clumsy, haphazard type of writer.
and "cudos" to you, too.
Chucklehead, it was not a suggestion at all. It was a question I asked of straw, not you; about a comment he made, not you. And maybe I do write clumsly here on BOL, but I assure you I am no clumsy writer.
BTW: I use the name "Chucklehead" in good fun. If it bothers you, I'll stop.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/20/06 03:00 PM
clumsly = clumsily
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/20/06 03:15 PM
Quote:
Chucklehead, it was not a suggestion at all. It was a question I asked of straw, not you; about a comment he made, not you. And maybe I do write clumsly here on BOL, but I assure you I am no clumsy writer.
BTW: I use the name "Chucklehead" in good fun. If it bothers you, I'll stop.
if you think it bothers me, you don't know me very well.
i realized who you asked, by why may i not answer the question, too? i didn't say it was a suggestion either. i said your question suggested what i originally responded to.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/20/06 03:34 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Chucklehead, it was not a suggestion at all. It was a question I asked of straw, not you; about a comment he made, not you. And maybe I do write clumsly here on BOL, but I assure you I am no clumsy writer.
BTW: I use the name "Chucklehead" in good fun. If it bothers you, I'll stop.
if you think it bothers me, you don't know me very well.
i realized who you asked, by why may i not answer the question, too? i didn't say it was a suggestion either. i said your question suggested what i originally responded to.
I think there are moral absolutes, but that individuals, societies, tribes, and governments sometimes:
1) don't get it right;
2) don't care; and
3) know what's moral, but as sinful humans just fail to do it or intentionally don't do it.
I did not think it would bother you, but others might, so I thought I'd clear that up. BTW: Are you Ron Popeil of Ronco fame?
Posted By: Bengals Fan
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/20/06 03:40 PM
Quote:
So J, do you support the President's Solomonic decision a few years ago that allowed federal funds to be spent on research on existing stem cells.
If destroying those embryos is akin to murder, why did he split hairs. Doesn't that weaken his argument? Did you oppose it?
How does not ending research being done on lines that have already required killing the embryo weaken his argument that the destruction of the human life was wrong? All he said was what's done is done. Does harvesting organs from a murder victim make the murder any less vile?
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/20/06 03:48 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Chucklehead, it was not a suggestion at all. It was a question I asked of straw, not you; about a comment he made, not you. And maybe I do write clumsly here on BOL, but I assure you I am no clumsy writer.
BTW: I use the name "Chucklehead" in good fun. If it bothers you, I'll stop.
if you think it bothers me, you don't know me very well.
i realized who you asked, by why may i not answer the question, too? i didn't say it was a suggestion either. i said your question suggested what i originally responded to.
I think there are moral absolutes, but that individuals, societies, tribes, and governments sometimes:
1) don't get it right;
2) don't care; and
3) know what's moral, but as sinful humans just fail to do it or intentionally don't do it.
I did not think it would bother you, but others might, so I thought I'd clear that up. BTW: Are you Ron Popeil of Ronco fame?
that sounds like a religious-based interpretation of things. from a conservative christian perspective, i think you are correct. from a secular perspective that is informed by christianity, i think morality "changes" or adapts as more is known. you know, what faith once "explained" is now made clearer by science.
and maybe i "set it and forget it" and maybe i don't
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/20/06 03:54 PM
Quote:
Quote:
So J, do you support the President's Solomonic decision a few years ago that allowed federal funds to be spent on research on existing stem cells.
If destroying those embryos is akin to murder, why did he split hairs. Doesn't that weaken his argument? Did you oppose it?
How does not ending research being done on lines that have already required killing the embryo weaken his argument that the destruction of the human life was wrong? All he said was what's done is done. Does harvesting organs from a murder victim make the murder any less vile?
i disagree. morally reprehensible is morally reprehensible. your opinion and the president's suggest no tolerance. do they allow crack dealers to keep their crack because they already have it?
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/20/06 03:54 PM
Dude, there is no "morality" in science. How in the world can science possibly set up morals of any kind? If everything is matter and matter has no soul, how can matter clear up or establish morality.
Dust, water, carbon, gravity, etc. cannot make morals clearer.
That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. --Groucho.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/20/06 04:03 PM
Quote:
Dude, there is no "morality" in science. How in the world can science possibly set up morals of any kind? If everything is matter and matter has no soul, how can matter clear up or establish morality.
Dust, water, carbon, gravity, etc. cannot make morals clearer.
That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. --Groucho.
stay consistent. what was once thought to be immoral is no longer immoral because we know more about something.
homosexuality MUST be immoral because it doesn't seem "right". well, the reason it happens simply doesn't work that way. that 'must' doesn't fit anymore except to those who wish to rely more on faith than reality for certain things.
Posted By: Deelytefuldee
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/20/06 04:10 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Dude, there is no "morality" in science. How in the world can science possibly set up morals of any kind? If everything is matter and matter has no soul, how can matter clear up or establish morality.
Dust, water, carbon, gravity, etc. cannot make morals clearer.
That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. --Groucho.
stay consistent. what was once thought to be immoral is no lon what was once thought to be immoral is no longer immoral because we know more about something. we know
homosexuality MUST be immoral because it doesn't seem "right". well, the reason it happens simply doesn't work that way. that 'must' doesn't fit anymore except to those who wish to rely more on faith than reality for certain things.
Ohhhh brooooooooooother!
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/20/06 04:12 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Dude, there is no "morality" in science. How in the world can science possibly set up morals of any kind? If everything is matter and matter has no soul, how can matter clear up or establish morality.
Dust, water, carbon, gravity, etc. cannot make morals clearer.
That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. --Groucho.
stay consistent. what was once thought to be immoral is no lon what was once thought to be immoral is no longer immoral because we know more about something. we know
homosexuality MUST be immoral because it doesn't seem "right". well, the reason it happens simply doesn't work that way. that 'must' doesn't fit anymore except to those who wish to rely more on faith than reality for certain things.
Ohhhh brooooooooooother!
sorry mr fallwell.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/20/06 04:19 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Dude, there is no "morality" in science. How in the world can science possibly set up morals of any kind? If everything is matter and matter has no soul, how can matter clear up or establish morality.
Dust, water, carbon, gravity, etc. cannot make morals clearer.
That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. --Groucho.
stay consistent. what was once thought to be immoral is no lon what was once thought to be immoral is no longer immoral because we know more about something. we know
homosexuality MUST be immoral because it doesn't seem "right". well, the reason it happens simply doesn't work that way. that 'must' doesn't fit anymore except to those who wish to rely more on faith than reality for certain things.
Ohhhh brooooooooooother!
sorry mr fallwell.
Ron, that's unfair. Your comments are ridiculous and it has nothing to do with Jerry Falwell. Science CANNOT prove something moral or immoral or shed light on a subject so that we can hone in our moral judgment. Who is to say what is or isn't moral? You could find a homosexual gene, but that has nothing to do with morals. If that gene were found, it might seem logical to you that then it must be moral, but who is to say what is and isn't moral. Who is to say what morals are to be based on? If we find that scientifically Andrea Yates could not prevent killing her children because of her dementia, then was the killing moral? Science has no room for morals and shed no light on it.
Science if for measuring an ordered universe, not for informing us how to order our morals.
Posted By: straw
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/20/06 04:23 PM
Quote:
Quote:
So J, do you support the President's Solomonic decision a few years ago that allowed federal funds to be spent on research on existing stem cells.
If destroying those embryos is akin to murder, why did he split hairs. Doesn't that weaken his argument? Did you oppose it?
How does not ending research being done on lines that have already required killing the embryo weaken his argument that the destruction of the human life was wrong? All he said was what's done is done. Does harvesting organs from a murder victim make the murder any less vile?
We should not profit from the embryos destruction. That is what has been argued. But because the embryos are dead already, it is ok?
What if the freezer fails for some of the embryos? Can we experiment on those then because they are already dead?
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/20/06 04:31 PM
Quote:
Who is to say what is or isn't moral?
apparently you are.
the whole point of this exercise is to make us dig a bit deeper instead of declaring something black-or-white immoral. i say do the calculus; use science and the metaphysical/"natural law or morality" together to combine to decide right and wrong as a law for all citizens. instead, W decided that he wanted to go black-or-white. is morality as a metaphysical concept given by our creator supposed to be our law (like in Islam) or should it simply inform our lawmaking? after all, that is where the rubber meets the road.
and i am sorry if i was unfair. i was just calling a spade a spade though. how should i respond to someone who enters the fray with a closed mind about the subject?
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/20/06 04:35 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
So J, do you support the President's Solomonic decision a few years ago that allowed federal funds to be spent on research on existing stem cells.
If destroying those embryos is akin to murder, why did he split hairs. Doesn't that weaken his argument? Did you oppose it?
How does not ending research being done on lines that have already required killing the embryo weaken his argument that the destruction of the human life was wrong? All he said was what's done is done. Does harvesting organs from a murder victim make the murder any less vile?
We should not profit from the embryos destruction. That is what has been argued. But because the embryos are dead already, it is ok?
What if the freezer fails for some of the embryos? Can we experiment on those then because they are already dead?
i think the bigger issue here, straw, is why no push to stop our "God-playing" in the realm of in vitro fertilization in the first place? that's right, the religious right decides where it wants to draw the line. (at least BF has been consistent-ish on the in vitro point as it pertains to what happens to the in vitro-created embryoes)
Posted By: Jokerman
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/20/06 04:40 PM
Quote:
Quote:
So, Straw, you think that, while slavery is immoral today, those in the past who enslaved others were acting morally?
They thought they were. Is the reverse possible? That things we deem immoral today will be moral tomorrow?
It's certainly possible that the things we deem moral or immoral today will be deemed immoral or moral tomorrow. But whether they are immoral or not will not change.
Quote:
As we become more enlightened, our morality/ethics, etc adjust to that enlightenment. That enlightenment can come from science, religion, whatever the source, but according to you, these things have always been immoral.
According to me, what is immoral always has been. As we become more enlightened, our beliefs may change. Also, as we become more depraved, our beliefs may change.
Quote:
Were slave owners like Wash. and Jefferson immoral?
Their act of owning slaves certainly was. Like any person, they took actions which redound to their credit, and actions which do not.
Quote:
So J, do you support the President's Solomonic decision a few years ago that allowed federal funds to be spent on research on existing stem cells.
At the time, while I understood the thinking behind it, I believed it would ultimately lead to more problems.
Quote:
If destroying those embryos is akin to murder, why did he split hairs. Doesn't that weaken his argument? Did you oppose it?
I did not actively support or oppose it. I do not believe that the President believes that it is the equivalent of murder. He appears to believe that it is activity which does not respect the dignity of human life, and I agree with him.
Posted By: Bengals Fan
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/20/06 04:51 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
So J, do you support the President's Solomonic decision a few years ago that allowed federal funds to be spent on research on existing stem cells.
If destroying those embryos is akin to murder, why did he split hairs. Doesn't that weaken his argument? Did you oppose it?
How does not ending research being done on lines that have already required killing the embryo weaken his argument that the destruction of the human life was wrong? All he said was what's done is done. Does harvesting organs from a murder victim make the murder any less vile?
i disagree. morally reprehensible is morally reprehensible. your opinion and the president's suggest no tolerance. do they allow crack dealers to keep their crack because they already have it?
Of course not, because having the crack is the crime. Killing the embryo is the morally reprehensible act, not using the stem cells for research. The president has been extremely clear on this. He was the first president to allow federal funding for the already existing lines. He stated he will not fund new lines. If you cannot see the distinction between using stem cell lines already there versus creating more, you should seek help.
Posted By: Bengals Fan
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/20/06 04:52 PM
Quote:
Dude, there is no "morality" in science. How in the world can science possibly set up morals of any kind? If everything is matter and matter has no soul, how can matter clear up or establish morality.
Not even the most foolish of scientists claims there is nothing in the universe but matter. Go back to school.
Posted By: straw
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/20/06 04:59 PM
Quote:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, Straw, you think that, while slavery is immoral today, those in the past who enslaved others were acting morally?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They thought they were. Is the reverse possible? That things we deem immoral today will be moral tomorrow?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's certainly possible that the things we deem moral or immoral today will be deemed immoral or moral tomorrow. But whether they are immoral or not will not change.
If we deem it moral? Isn't that akin to saying someone isn't in love, they only thought they were in love. If you thought you were in love, weren't you in love?
Quote:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Were slave owners like Wash. and Jefferson immoral?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Their act of owning slaves certainly was. Like any person, they took actions which redound to their credit, and actions which do not.
I didn't ask if their action was immoral; I asked if they were immoral. Since we based our system on their values, if they were immoral by being slave owners, doesn't that make our system immoral?
Quote:
At the time, while I understood the thinking behind it, I believed it would ultimately lead to more problems.
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If destroying those embryos is akin to murder, why did he split hairs. Doesn't that weaken his argument? Did you oppose it?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I did not actively support or oppose it. I do not believe that the President believes that it is the equivalent of murder. He appears to believe that it is activity which does not respect the dignity of human life, and I agree with him.
Could you enlighten as to what the thinking was? It seemed like a poor compromise then; if the premise is sound that it disrespects human dignity, that premise holds for these embyonic lines as well for new ones does it not?
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/20/06 05:29 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Dude, there is no "morality" in science. How in the world can science possibly set up morals of any kind? If everything is matter and matter has no soul, how can matter clear up or establish morality.
Not even the most foolish of scientists claims there is nothing in the universe but matter. Go back to school.
OK, you caught me, but the point still remains. Even if you add forces and energy to the list of things, my point remains valid, fool.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/20/06 05:56 PM
Quote:
Killing the embryo is the morally reprehensible act, not using the stem cells for research.
then why did the president authorize the use of the existing lines? is killing those less or, more accurately, non-reprehensible logically?
you should seek friends.
Posted By: straw
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/20/06 06:19 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
So J, do you support the President's Solomonic decision a few years ago that allowed federal funds to be spent on research on existing stem cells.
If destroying those embryos is akin to murder, why did he split hairs. Doesn't that weaken his argument? Did you oppose it?
How does not ending research being done on lines that have already required killing the embryo weaken his argument that the destruction of the human life was wrong? All he said was what's done is done. Does harvesting organs from a murder victim make the murder any less vile?
i disagree. morally reprehensible is morally reprehensible. your opinion and the president's suggest no tolerance. do they allow crack dealers to keep their crack because they already have it?
Of course not, because having the crack is the crime. Killing the embryo is the morally reprehensible act, not using the stem cells for research. The president has been extremely clear on this. He was the first president to allow federal funding for the already existing lines. He stated he will not fund new lines. If you cannot see the distinction between using stem cell lines already there versus creating more, you should seek help.
Well I don't see the distinction and I will not seek help. I think I have been very courteous and this discussion has gone well, but there is no need for that comment. You have a tendancy to get fed up with quesitons that ask you to probe your beliefs a little deeper. Don;t be afraid to do so. You may find that the probing only strengthens your beliefs, rather than erodes them.
Yes, the embryonic destrucion is the immorality, so why engage in any conduct that may lead to further immorality.
J has argued that. What if the embryos die naturally? Your premise is it is okay to do this. So, if the scientists pull the plug on the freezers containing the embryos, then it would be ok to exeriment on them.
Posted By: Jokerman
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/20/06 06:26 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, Straw, you think that, while slavery is immoral today, those in the past who enslaved others were acting morally?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They thought they were. Is the reverse possible? That things we deem immoral today will be moral tomorrow?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's certainly possible that the things we deem moral or immoral today will be deemed immoral or moral tomorrow. But whether they are immoral or not will not change.
If we deem it moral? Isn't that akin to saying someone isn't in love, they only thought they were in love. If you thought you were in love, weren't you in love?
Straw, come on. This is rather silly. Love is an action, not a feeling. Feelings of affection come and go, just like cultural feelings about what is right and wrong come and go.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Were slave owners like Wash. and Jefferson immoral?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Their act of owning slaves certainly was. Like any person, they took actions which redound to their credit, and actions which do not.
I didn't ask if their action was immoral; I asked if they were immoral. Since we based our system on their values, if they were immoral by being slave owners, doesn't that make our system immoral?
Whether they were good or bad people is hardly for me to judge. I can tell that you that a specific action was immoral, no more.
And what is this flailing about trying to prove that if they were immoral, then America must be, too? This is not typical of you, Straw; your posts are generally better thought out than this.
Quote:
Quote:
At the time, while I understood the thinking behind it, I believed it would ultimately lead to more problems.
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If destroying those embryos is akin to murder, why did he split hairs. Doesn't that weaken his argument? Did you oppose it?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I did not actively support or oppose it. I do not believe that the President believes that it is the equivalent of murder. He appears to believe that it is activity which does not respect the dignity of human life, and I agree with him.
Could you enlighten as to what the thinking was? It seemed like a poor compromise then; if the premise is sound that it disrespects human dignity, that premise holds for these embyonic lines as well for new ones does it not?
You can make the same fruit of the poison tree argument about the funding of research on existing lines if you like. I didn't like the decision because I knew that once that line was crossed with federal dollars, another was sure to come. But, as a logical matter, saying that you will fund existing lines which have already been obtained, but no more, is a defensible position.
Do we really want to go into that, though? Isn't the more important question the one that we have already been discussing?
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/20/06 06:44 PM
Quote:
But, as a logical matter, saying that you will fund existing lines which have already been obtained, but no more, is a defensible position.
politically yes. logically no. the president made a moral decision and his previous decision inconsistent and therefore hypocritical. and don't give me the BF "distinction" mularkey.
Posted By: Jokerman
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/20/06 08:01 PM
Quote:
Quote:
But, as a logical matter, saying that you will fund existing lines which have already been obtained, but no more, is a defensible position.
politically yes. logically no. the president made a moral decision and his previous decision inconsistent and therefore hypocritical. and don't give me the BF "distinction" mularkey.
Ron, you can keep telling yourself that all day long. But if your side wants to keep using the "they're going to be tossed out anyway" defense, it is certainly no more odd to use the "a limited number of embryos have already been destroyed and the stem cells are available defense".
Again, it wasn't my decision, it's not a decision I supported, and I'm not interested in defending it. But I can see how it was arrived at.
Posted By: straw
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/20/06 08:07 PM
------------------------------------
So, Straw, you think that, while slavery is immoral today, those in the past who enslaved others were acting morally?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They thought they were. Is the reverse possible? That things we deem immoral today will be moral tomorrow?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's certainly possible that the things we deem moral or immoral today will be deemed immoral or moral tomorrow. But whether they are immoral or not will not change.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If we deem it moral? Isn't that akin to saying someone isn't in love, they only thought they were in love. If you thought you were in love, weren't you in love?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Straw, come on. This is rather silly. Love is an action, not a feeling. Feelings of affection come and go, just like cultural feelings about what is right and wrong come and go.
So we can all feel that we are moral and even if it is something that we all unanimously agree is moral i.e. marriage, but there could be a moral truth out there that says marriage is immoral and therefore we have been immoral, even though mankind unanimously agrees the action is moral.
Quote:
Were slave owners like Wash. and Jefferson immoral?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Their act of owning slaves certainly was. Like any person, they took actions which redound to their credit, and actions which do not.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't ask if their action was immoral; I asked if they were immoral. Since we based our system on their values, if they were immoral by being slave owners, doesn't that make our system immoral?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whether they were good or bad people is hardly for me to judge. I can tell that you that a specific action was immoral, no more.
And what is this flailing about trying to prove that if they were immoral, then America must be, too? This is not typical of you, Straw; your posts are generally better thought out than this.
Well I find it disconcerting that you think over half of those who helped found this great country in their vision were immoralists. If they were immoral in something so basic, maybe their very values were immoral as well.
Also, that means part of the Constitution is immoral based on this universal morality constant.
Quote:
But, as a logical matter, saying that you will fund existing lines which have already been obtained, but no more, is a defensible position.
I am sorry I just don't find this logical and I don't think you can logically defend it with your believed premises.
No one has answered the hypothetical that since we are researching these lines already created because the embryos were already destroyed, why couldn't we research new lines on embryos that expire naturally?
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/20/06 08:11 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
But, as a logical matter, saying that you will fund existing lines which have already been obtained, but no more, is a defensible position.
politically yes. logically no. the president made a moral decision and his previous decision inconsistent and therefore hypocritical. and don't give me the BF "distinction" mularkey.
Ron, you can keep telling yourself that all day long. But if your side wants to keep using the "they're going to be tossed out anyway" defense, it is certainly no more odd to use the "a limited number of embryos have already been destroyed and the stem cells are available defense".
Again, it wasn't my decision, it's not a decision I supported, and I'm not interested in defending it. But I can see how it was arrived at.
the only defense "my side" (the 70% side that is) has been using is the medical benefits one. we have just been pointing out the inconsistencies W's moral stance. the oddness is the apparent moral flipflop. i'm not sure how the compromise by my side to use only those embryoes from in vitro God-playing is analogous.
Posted By: straw
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/20/06 08:18 PM
Can we forget sides, because when it comes to morality, the fact that your side did means I can do it too just doesn't cut it.
I am truly trying to understand how what the President allowed earlier is ok with J, BF and others whom have argued that this is immoral.
Morality doesn't end because "our" guy said it is ok. If you stake claim to the moral high ground, you need to back it up with actions. His action yesterday was the "moral" in your paradigm, I just question whether his prior decision was.
Posted By: Jokerman
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/20/06 09:47 PM
Quote:
So we can all feel that we are moral and even if it is something that we all unanimously agree is moral i.e. marriage, but there could be a moral truth out there that says marriage is immoral and therefore we have been immoral, even though mankind unanimously agrees the action is moral.
Are you honestly suggesting that popular opinion is the criteria? Now, obviously, someone who doesn't know that they are doing wrong is not held to the same account. So, if we are talking about honest mistakes, that would be one thing. If a slave owner could honestly say that no one had ever brought to their attention the fact that a slave might be an equally created human being, then I suppose they could have a legitimate excuse. I don't think Jefferson or Washington have that excuse.
Quote:
Well I find it disconcerting that you think over half of those who helped found this great country in their vision were immoralists.
Immoralists? I think no such thing. I've told you exactly what I think, and I think it's pretty shoddy of you to deliberately mistate it.
Quote:
Also, that means part of the Constitution is immoral based on this universal morality constant.
The fact that the Constitution originally allowed slavery was undoubtedly a moral failing.
Quote:
I am sorry I just don't find this logical and I don't think you can logically defend it with your believed premises.
As I said, I don't feel any obligation to defend it.
Quote:
No one has answered the hypothetical that since we are researching these lines already created because the embryos were already destroyed, why couldn't we research new lines on embryos that expire naturally?
Since they are frozen, they don't expire naturally. And I did answer your hypothetical about the freezer.
Quote:
I just question whether his prior decision {to fund stem cell research on cells already obtained from embryos} was {moral}.
In my opinion, the decision was not immoral, because it was not intended to lead to the destruction of embryos. In my opinion, the decision was foolish.
Posted By: straw
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/20/06 10:43 PM
Quote:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No one has answered the hypothetical that since we are researching these lines already created because the embryos were already destroyed, why couldn't we research new lines on embryos that expire naturally?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since they are frozen, they don't expire naturally. And I did answer your hypothetical about the freezer.
Sorry I couldn't find it. Which post was it.
Posted By: straw
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/20/06 10:55 PM
Quote:
Are you honestly suggesting that popular opinion is the criteria?
Of course I am not suggesting popular opinion, which is why I said all mankind unanimously agrees. If a tree falls in the woods, but no one hears it, does it make a sound.
If all believe something to be moral, but yet it is not moral by this universal morality, what human being would know.
Quote:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well I find it disconcerting that you think over half of those who helped found this great country in their vision were immoralists.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Immoralists? I think no such thing. I've told you exactly what I think, and I think it's pretty shoddy of you to deliberately mistate it.
No, you said you could not judge if they were immoral but their act was. So you can judge if their act was immoral based on this universal morality, but you cannot opine whether or not they were immoral. But if their acts were immoral, they must be immoral as well, no? Can one act immorally but be a moral person?
Quote:
The fact that the Constitution originally allowed slavery was undoubtedly a moral failing.
So the founding document of this country, perhaps the greatest civil document ever written, creating the greatest politcal system ever seen was morally flawed. I dare say the founding fathers are rolling over in their grave.
I find it interesting that you can't judge them to be moral or immoral, but can judge their actions immoral based on our concepts of morality. Oh, I forgot, morality is not a conept, it is a universal constant.
Quote:
As I said, I don't feel any obligation to defend it.
Because it is not logically defensible, although I admire the President's effort to compromise. Just the wrong issue to compromise on.
Quote:
In my opinion, the decision was not immoral, because it was not intended to lead to the destruction of embryos. In my opinion, the decision was foolish.
So, his decision was not immoral, which makes it a moral decision. Still have trouble with that. The research, even though the embryos were already destroyed, continues to desecrate the human condition.
Is it ok to continue to experiment on the Jews on the concentration camp after Mengele was through, since he was the one who killed them. Any post-mortem experiments would be analogous to the work Bush has allowed taxpayer money to be used for, according to your prior analogy.
Posted By: Jokerman
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/20/06 11:23 PM
Quote:
Sorry I couldn't find it. Which post was it.
Ooops - I know I typed, but I can't find it, either. Must not have clicked "submit".
My answer was that, as an ethical matter, you might be able to argue that doing so would be acceptable - I'd be sympathetic to the idea that it was similar to organ donation. But, you'd want to be sure that you had a safeguard against non-accidental "accidents". However, as a practical matter, my hunch is that the cells harvested would not be useful if the embryo no longer viable due to environmental factors. If it was still viable, I believe it could be re-frozen.
Posted By: straw
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/20/06 11:40 PM
Man I thought I was losing it for a minute.
Posted By: Jokerman
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/20/06 11:49 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Are you honestly suggesting that popular opinion is the criteria?
Of course I am not suggesting popular opinion, which is why I said all mankind unanimously agrees. If a tree falls in the woods, but no one hears it, does it make a sound.
If all believe something to be moral, but yet it is not moral by this universal morality, what human being would know.
You're arguing for innocence through ignorance, which is fine so far as it goes, I guess, but not the case here.
Quote:
No, you said you could not judge if they were immoral but their act was. So you can judge if their act was immoral based on this universal morality, but you cannot opine whether or not they were immoral. But if their acts were immoral, they must be immoral as well, no? Can one act immorally but be a moral person?
Nobody's perfect. I think anyone who isn't looking to argue with me understands the point.
Quote:
So the founding document of this country, perhaps the greatest civil document ever written, creating the greatest politcal system ever seen was morally flawed.
I'm surprised that you disagree.
Quote:
I dare say the founding fathers are rolling over in their grave.
I dare say the founding fathers agree.
Mason: "Every master of slaves is born a petty tyrant. They bring the judgement of heaven upon a country. As nations cannot be rewarded or punished in the next world, they must be in this. By an inevitable chain of causes and effects, Providence punishes national sins by national calamities."
Jefferson: With what execration should the statesman be loaded, who permitting one half the citizens thus to trample on the rights of the other?. . . . And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep forever.
Quote:
I find it interesting that you can't judge them to be moral or immoral, but can judge their actions immoral based on our concepts of morality. Oh, I forgot, morality is not a conept, it is a universal constant.
I am not here to judge them as people, Straw. I don't see what's difficult about this concept. I am perfectly capable of telling someone it's bad to steal from the bank. I'm much less capable of making a judgement about whether someone is a "bad person" due to this or that moral failing. If you want a judgement, it is this: "There is none righteous, no, not one."
Quote:
Because it is not logically defensible, although I admire the President's effort to compromise. Just the wrong issue to compromise on.
As Bob Dole might say, whatever. I've explained the logic repeatedly. Choose not to accept it if you want.
Quote:
Quote:
In my opinion, the decision was not immoral, because it was not intended to lead to the destruction of embryos. In my opinion, the decision was foolish.
So, his decision was not immoral, which makes it a moral decision. Still have trouble with that. The research, even though the embryos were already destroyed, continues to desecrate the human condition.
Is it ok to continue to experiment on the Jews on the concentration camp after Mengele was through, since he was the one who killed them. Any post-mortem experiments would be analogous to the work Bush has allowed taxpayer money to be used for, according to your prior analogy.
Hmm...I'll admit, you have me further questioning the decision with this one. Honestly, my reaction five years ago was, phew, that's not as bad as it could have been. Though I believed it foolish, I did not see it as immoral. You are causing me to question that. I'll have to think more about it.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/21/06 12:00 AM
Quote:
Quote:
Sorry I couldn't find it. Which post was it.
Ooops - I know I typed, but I can't find it, either. Must not have clicked "submit".
My answer was that, as an ethical matter, you might be able to argue that doing so would be acceptable - I'd be sympathetic to the idea that it was similar to organ donation. But, you'd want to be sure that you had a safeguard against non-accidental "accidents". However, as a practical matter, my hunch is that the cells harvested would not be useful if the embryo no longer viable due to environmental factors. If it was still viable, I believe it could be re-frozen.
I suppose you wouldn't want nonaccidental accidents for organ donors either.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/21/06 12:08 AM
If there were a way to get stem cells from these unwanted embryoes without harming their condition, there would be no claims of "immorality". Yet in both cases the embryoes would never be born! The situations would produce exactly the same result!
It must be more "moral" to throw out the embryoes for some reason.
Posted By: Anonymous
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/21/06 01:49 AM
What does "establishment" mean counselor? I think it is a "term of art", but please expound.
Posted By: straw
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/21/06 02:42 PM
Quote:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I dare say the founding fathers are rolling over in their grave.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I dare say the founding fathers agree.
Mason: "Every master of slaves is born a petty tyrant. They bring the judgement of heaven upon a country. As nations cannot be rewarded or punished in the next world, they must be in this. By an inevitable chain of causes and effects, Providence punishes national sins by national calamities."
Jefferson: With what execration should the statesman be loaded, who permitting one half the citizens thus to trample on the rights of the other?. . . . And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep forever.
So you find two Virginias (exclude New Englanders obviously) and that makes your point. I think not, but we don't need to argue this any further.
Quote:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In my opinion, the decision was not immoral, because it was not intended to lead to the destruction of embryos. In my opinion, the decision was foolish.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, his decision was not immoral, which makes it a moral decision. Still have trouble with that. The research, even though the embryos were already destroyed, continues to desecrate the human condition.
Is it ok to continue to experiment on the Jews on the concentration camp after Mengele was through, since he was the one who killed them. Any post-mortem experiments would be analogous to the work Bush has allowed taxpayer money to be used for, according to your prior analogy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hmm...I'll admit, you have me further questioning the decision with this one. Honestly, my reaction five years ago was, phew, that's not as bad as it could have been. Though I believed it foolish, I did not see it as immoral. You are causing me to question that. I'll have to think more about it
I think I need a drink .
As as aside, why did this vote even come up. The Republicans are split on this issue. I cannot understand why Frist allowed a floor vote on this, especially since he is on the liberal side of the issue within his party. Can't help his Presidential campaign. Have you seen anything explaining why the vote took place? The rationale?
Posted By: Jokerman
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/21/06 05:14 PM
Quote:
So you find two Virginias (exclude New Englanders obviously) and that makes your point. I think not, but we don't need to argue this any further.
HELLO?! Wouldn't Virginians be less likely than New Englanders to think the Constitution's tolerance of slavery was a moral failing?!
Quote:
As as aside, why did this vote even come up. The Republicans are split on this issue. I cannot understand why Frist allowed a floor vote on this, especially since he is on the liberal side of the issue within his party. Can't help his Presidential campaign. Have you seen anything explaining why the vote took place? The rationale?
$$$ from the biotech firms is one possible explanation. Frist could be a true believer, though his flip-flop makes me doubt it. Another possibility is an agreement between the pro-ESCR and anti-ESCR sides to have the vote on that bill, as well as two other bills that funded non-embryonic stem cell research.
Posted By: straw
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/21/06 05:55 PM
I was saying that you find 2 Virgians to say don't bother coming back with New Englanders, as obviously they were not slave owners. I was giving you credit for finding two southerners (Virginians) who were likely slaveholders but saying that it was only 2.
Turning to politics, you think the pro and anti got together to get the votes on record. Still doesn't make much sense for the GOP to agree, since it only highlights a split.
Posted By: Jokerman
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/21/06 10:03 PM
Quote:
I was giving you credit for finding two southerners (Virginians) who were likely slaveholders but saying that it was only 2.
Well, good grief, Straw, I have OTHER things to do!
How many Southern founders can you quote showing a belief that it WASN'T a moral failing?
Quote:
Turning to politics, you think the pro and anti got together to get the votes on record.
No, I think the pro may have wanted the vote on the record, and the anti may have wanted to be able to pass the adult stem cell bill.
Posted By: straw
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/21/06 10:08 PM
Quote:
Quote:
I was giving you credit for finding two southerners (Virginians) who were likely slaveholders but saying that it was only 2.
Well, good grief, Straw, I have OTHER things to do!
How many Southern founders can you quote showing a belief that it WASN'T a moral failing?
Well, the one day you want to work and I want to debate.
I won't even look, I just observe that most, if not all, were slave owners and many (not all) of those would not believe they engaged in immoral behavior.
Posted By: Jokerman
Re: Faith and Ignorance - 07/21/06 10:27 PM
Most were also political leaders in states that abolished slavery soon after they were not controlled by the crown.