Free Republic

Betrayal will get you into that last circle of hell.

I guess Jesus didn't die on the cross for those sinners, aye? I think I remember that part from the Passion of the Christ... Jesus, on the cross, looks toward heaven and says, "To Hell with 'em!"

I've always respected the Catholic Church on its moral stands... obviously I don't agree with all of them, but at least it has standards. Of course, a lot of devout Catholics don't agree on many of these issues either--birth control being a big one. Furthermore, the Church's teaching on the subject and objection to IVF tends to lean heavily on IVF's misuse. My previous post touched on how IVF can be done in such a way as to respect embryonic life from the moment of conception, and respect the marriage covenant and family unit. Furthermore, the Church tends to put embryonic stem cell research and IVF in the same bucket when they are very much not the same--with embryonic stem cell research an embryo is always destroyed and as I have pointed out, it is quite possible to undergo IVF in such a way as to respect embryonic life to the uttermost and destroy (or freeze) embryos.

Ultimately, however, what the Catholic Church teaches doesn't matter to me much because I am not Catholic.

Please see my response above to gooper concerning how IVF can be performed in a life affirming way. I agree that sometimes couples who desire children and suffer from infertility often compromise their moral stands to achieve the goal of starting a family. However, if one proceeds carefully, you can do IVF in an ethical life-affirming way.

While there are certainly some areas of Assisted Reproductive Technology to be avoided, IVF can be done in a life-affirming way and that is the way my wife and I proceeded.

Here is how... First some standards:

• A human egg by itself is not human life
• A male sperm by itself is not human life
• A fertilized egg--en embryo--is earliest form of human life.

When my wife and I did IVF here is how we did it to ensure that no life was created and destroyed: We allowed the doctor to retrieve as many eggs from my wife as he could. We requested that the embryologist eyeball the eggs and do the best he could to pick three good ones. He fertilized all three, and we required that all resulting embryos be transferred into my wife's uterus. None were frozen, and none were discarded.

Now I fully admit that most couples--even conservative Evangelical Christian couples--don't fully think through what IVF involves and therefore do not specify specific guidance for the clinic to follow in order to avoid morally cocerning procedures. I also admit that that it is very easy to have "slipping standards" during a cycle--you start with a standard that says, "no freezing, no destruction, we're only going to fertilize 2-3 eggs and we'll transfer them all" and by the day of retrieval you've changed your standards because the risk is so high that no pregnancy will occur with so few embryos. So then you find yourself calculating odds--"if we inseminate 6, and the clinic has a 70% fertilization rate, and 90% survivability to day three, that would probably give us 3-4 embryos... etc." If you don't decide your standards beforehand, then with a little pressure from the clinic, you are likely to make poor decisions--and many people do. When you add the pressure that the $12,000-$16,000 cost per cycle (which a majority of people in the U.S. must pay out of pocket) adds, compromise is all the more likely. Especially, when you consider that most people don't have $100s of thousands of dollars sitting around to fund multiple attempts.

We were fortunate in that my insurance paid 100% of the procedure (up to 3 attempts) and therefore some of this pressure was not a factor in our decision. However, the pressure was still there. We sought the guidance of a lot of friends, family, colleagues, pastors, etc.

I also want to point out that while outright destruction is clearly to be avoided, I was never able to conclude likewise about embryo cryopreservation (freezing). We elected to take the most conservative approach we could and therefore avoided it. However, I never got to a point where I decided it was 100% clearly wrong. Dr. Donald Cline, at Reproductive Endocrinology Associates, however does believe cryopreservation should be avoided and his clinic has had some success in freezing eggs instead.

I'm sorry to hear he is taking back his remarks... I was glad he had the courage to say what he said. I don't have a problem with private capital funding a rebuild of the city in place, but no federal funds should go to rebuild it in its current location.

If the system in question supports it (like Active Directory), it is much more secure, and easier to remember, if you use pass phrases. For example, my last password at work was "I'm glad GWB won 2004!"

Easy to remember, secure, and I grin from ear to ear every time I login!

RE: Yes, JC WATTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Watts is spent due to a bad attitude and questionable moral character.

Of course they do just as they would allow a gathering of Freepers in Disneyland or Walt Disney World. Do you think they would have someone standing at the gate saying, "Are you a Freeper? Are you a Freeper? How about You?" Then kicking them out of the park if the answer was yes? If so, we would then have grounds to sue the park which is why ANYONE can have a gathering at Disney World or Disneyland so long as they are willing to pay admission.

If you don't think Disney/ABC pushes the homosexual agenda, I'd suggest you open your eyes.

I certainly believe that they push the homosexual agenda, but Gay Day is not a Disny organized event.

Gay Day is not an officially sanctioned Disney day. It isn't organized, endorsed or promoted by Disney.

Thanks for the info about the new version. I downloaded and installed it and it doesn't fix either of the issues I was hoping it would--it still doesn't maximize completely and it still doesn't minimize to the system tray.

But sure enough, you're right about the right-click context menu. Of course, they behave sort of odd--not truly context sensitive. Why give me the option to re-encode an AAC file as AAC. It is already AAC! Disable that option. Same thing with ID3 retag item. Small things like that drive me crazy.

I've been doing some research concerning AAC and according to independent reports, AAC is a better FORMAT, but all the encoders are fairly new and therefore lag behind the quality of some MP3 encoders which have been in development for years. So encoding files under LAME with VBR still seems to produce better than any of the AAC encoders. Regardless, however, I still think 128K is unacceptable if I'm going to buy the music. I did hear that Apple encoded from the masters which is interesting. But again, give me at least 160kbps.

I was very excited about the release for Windows. However, the fact that it won't maximize properly, and won't minimize to the system tray drives me crazy. Additionally, the application is somewhat unintuitive from a Windows user perspective because it, like OS X, doesn't support right-click context menus. Finally, the fact that files purchased from the iTunes Music Store are only encoded at 128kbps is a deal killer for me. Give me at least 160kbps!

Did you not read my response? I clearly stated that the cerimonal laws where the laws related to animal sacrifice, clean and not clean foods, etc. Aside from that, the moral laws are reenumerated in the New Testament. So, if you want to do what liberal "theologians" do and basically deny the Old Testament, I'll be more than happy to oblige and defend the moral laws using only the New Testemant as source material. This might be less confusing to you as there are no cerimonal laws to trip you up.

There are two types of Law in Leviticus--ceremonial law and moral law. Ceremonial law relates to animal sacrifices, cleanliness, etc. while moral law relates to behavior. When Christ died on the Cross, the old law passed away, and was replaced by a new covenant. In short, the new covenant is grace through faith in Christ and repentance of sin. Under the new covenant the ceremonial law is nullified, BUT the moral law IS NOT. In fact, the new testament makes clear that our behavior is evidence of our salvation.

You're smoking crack. I'm a Java developer. There is nothing in that file to be concerned about.

Yep... I heard a lot of talk about Owens in terms of him being a future Presidential candidate. That's out the window now. Of course, Regan was divorced wasn't he?

I didn't say anything about the rule of law. If the law says you should be tried and convicted for killing and abortion doctor, then that is what should happen. You have to be willing to face the consequences of your actions.

Yes, you would be justified in my opinion.

Hope you get your 72 virgins, its not likely that First Degree Murderers are going to Heaven.

As I suspected from your first post, you don't have a clue about true religious faith. If you did, you would know that murderers certainly can go to Heaven. In short, it is not our behavior that condems or saves us. It is a pure act of will on God's part.