Posted on 07/29/2005 5:55:35 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
It flows just fine for me. Brownback is a Pub I could vote for with a clean conscience.
OTOH, Frist just lost 5 votes from my family no matter what else he says or does. Before this I would not have been happy with him as the nominee, but I could have voted for him if nothing better showed up. But now he has shown that not only is he a poor, ineffective leader, he can't be trusted to dance with him who brung him.
Welcome, troll.
Trouble with it is, it bears little or no resemblance to the reality of the situation it satirizes. Human life isn't something to create and toss in the trash until you find one you like. God says that whoever takes innocent life will answer to his justice system, and that includes nations as well as individual people.
If the US continues to race down the anti-life path it's been on since 1973, the divinely erected wall of protection it has enjoyed for over 2 centuries will eventually be removed by the same unseen hand that put it in place to begin with. And if that happens, the remote possibility of science finding a cure for some disease by snuffing out human lives in a Petri dish will be the last thing on anyone's mind.
I understand the differences of opinion here, but the question I see, which is not a religious question, is:
What is the difference between a human being and a human person?
At conception, a completely unique, genetically independent being of the species homo sapiens is created. With nothing added nor taken away, this being procedes through each of the stages of human life-- it cannot become a chicken or a monkey. Thus we have a living being that is human. What must occur for a human being to qualify for personhood?
I respect your religious viewpoints on the matter, but I do not share them with you. A Jehova's Witness would find the funding of a blood transfusion to be immoral, while most would not. Frist is right in stating the need to consider both faith and science. I would never force you to use any remedies that you would feel would be wrong to use, but I would like it if you would not obstruct the adoption of treatments that could improve the lives of millions of Americans. I am sympathetic to the idea that the government should not be in the business of funding medical research at all, but if this is to be our course of action we need to be consistent, if we are not going to fund stem cell research we need to stop funding the rest too. Otherwise we have wrongly singled out one branch of research under a system that is built on a foundation of government subsidies. It may well indeed be best to get completely out of the subsidizing business, but until we reach that decision, I believe that we need to have consistency.
I know you jest but I really believe that if Roe is to be overturned it will not only take new justices but creative use of logic and the law.
The humanist folk of Babel thought they could prosper without the blessing of God and they were wrong.
Saw your page, I'll take the one on the left... Heck, I'll take both.
I don't know, maybe, four laps around a 400-meter track, unaided by machine, of course.
How about reciting the Communist Manifesto from memory?
Procure at least two of the following: A Nobel Peace Prize, a Pulitzer, an Oscar or the Fickled Finger of Fate Award.
Better yet, let's allow the 9 persons in black robes decide - I suggest that they are biased, however, and it begs the question - who gets to vote on their personhood?
Your question is more foolish than my rantings, but more to the point, it is culturally suicidal.
This is a political move more than a medical move. Frist knows that all the good and promising research on stem cells is being accomplished through adult stem cells and cord blood cells.
The support for embryonic stem cells comes from a need to justify the relative worthlessness of the unborn or infirm, so that abortion can continue.
From what I understand, embryonic stem cells are inherently flawed as a useful solution to any medical condition, because they tend to form TUMORS.
see more info at www.stemcellresearch.org
It may well indeed be best to get completely out of the propaganda business, but until we reach that decision, I believe that you need to have an education.
What I meant is that he probably won't be a Senator from Virgina.
If he runs for the Presidency, he CAN win it.
me neither....
Someone should introduce a bill to ban ESCR all together.
I don't think anyone can answer that question and offer hard, verifiable scientific proof for the answer given.
However, I believe that common sense and the process of deduction will lead an unbiased, objective questioner to the conclusion that a new human life begins the moment a human spermatozoa invades a human egg and new human tissue begins to be formed by that union. The newly created zygote is undeniably human according to it's DNA, and it is undeniably alive because inert matter does not grow in size and complexity by creating new living tissue out of non-living elements. I don't believe there is any scientific way to prove that a new human soul and spirit is created simultaneously with the physical human tissue. But my belief in God, biblical revelation, and whatever common sense I may have been given by Him, leads me to believe that it is.
I can respect the honest opinion (by honest I mean one not colored by personal bias) of others who do not believe as I do on that point. But, believing in the righteousness of God's laws as I do, I can't approve of the deliberate destruction of what I firmly believe is an innocent, living human being created by God in his own image, even in it's earliest stage of development.
(And having read your home page I tend to think that you would agree with some or most of my off the cuff, semi-coherent answer)
The two most conservative men in the senate.
Yes.
It is unethical to create embryonic human beings outside of the womb because it places them in the category of a laboratory "material" and a marketable "commodity," which is inherently damaging to their human identity just as was chattel slavery. It is also unethical because it exposes them to elevated risk of injury or death.
The embryos who exist at this point should be implanted in adoptive mothers' wombs --- this has already been done to a tiny extent, but needs to be much more vigorously promoted and supported.
No more such embryos should be created.
The problem with handing them over as experimental subjects, is that the subjects cannot benefit from the research, have not consented, and will in fact be destroyed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.