Posted on 11/07/2006 8:02:24 AM PST by NYer
No problem. I understand completely. (That pic made my day. !Sigh!).
He was awesome in "Count of Monte Christo"
Please check your facts.
LOL! I don't think that post was intended for me, but I agree. He was great.
See my post #19. BTW, I'm an Air Force brat,too.
This is incorrect. The Catholic position is that in vitro fertilization is a grave moral evil.
Yes, he was...
SUBJECT: Stem Cell Statements should lead to the REAL Question...
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
K&V Jenerette... South 'By-God' Carolina - www.jenerette.com |
"Hurry up and give me what I want, already! Commoditizing human beings and creating markets for human parts!"
"Caviezel and several other celebrities"
Does anyone know who the "other" celebrities are? It's always nice to know who who is standing up for what's right.
And, btw, I LOVE this (post 28): "Regardless of the political decisions, we can be certain of one thing: those who support and yell the loudest for embryonic stem cell research funding will NOT be the people who will provide their embryonic offspring to the research laboratory."
THANK YOU!
Patricia Heaton and someone from the St. Louis Cardinals.
I spend last week with a woman from MO. She said that despite the money dumped into supporting prop 2, most people are against it. We shall see.
It is a grave moral evil because conception must be within the marital act. How do you think those sperm become available for in vitro except through another grave moral evil? Embryos being destroyed afterward is just a perfect example of how evil leads to more evil.
For leaving Lee "blind" on the approach to Gettysburg; and while Stuart was good in other repects I don't believe that successor Joe Wheeler would have done the same to his C.O.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander!
Whew! Thanks for the pic.
I have to say I saw him speak at the Eucharistic Congress in Atlanta a few years ago. He is just as handsome up close.
Second, what individuals do is private and many of us do not want tax money used to support others misguided "beliefs".
Children have a right to be conceived as the result of their parents' expression of conjugal love in the marital act. Separating conception from the marital act results in treating kids like manufactured products (don't forget the quality control; no defective units allowed off the assembly line!!), not human beings with intrinsic dignity given them by God.
The spin is on you...Just like his backtracking on "Stay the Course," Bush certainly DID flip on the 'Morning After Pill' after promising right-to-lifers never to allow ANYTHING that would prevent "life" after conception! Hey, it's no skin off my nose because I'm of the Libertarian position that while women may have the right to choose early in pregnancy there exists a moral absolute line in the sand resulting in a point of no return (somewhere near the 13th month) when "quickening" occurs. But, make no mistake about it, Bush's "life begins at conception" position is certainly eroded by RU287--and much like his old man's "Read my Lips" promise.
The reason you haven't gotten any more responses is that your belief displays that you are unwilling to understand our beliefs. My belief is that when sperm meets egg, a very special unique person is created. Just because that person cannot survive on their own, does not have eyes and ears yet, etc, does not make them not a person.
I have no problem with IVF, IF all the babies are preserved and get to have a chance at life. However, I do have a problem with embryonic stem cell research.
I hope this explains it well enough.
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.