You really believe that a majority of people in this country do not believe that life begins at conception? If so, why does the left fight tooth and nail any suggestion that the matter be put to a vote?
Bears wipe their asses on adirondack hunters. They're absorbent and actually seem to like it.
Foxfyre:
Saying one thing, doing another. And people wonder why we don't trust him....
Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn wrote:What a well-written speech. Cheers to whoever wrote it, because it sure wasn't bush, lol.
As for the content; I do realize there are two sides to the issue, but we continually come up against the wall of Religion poking its ugly head into politics.
If abortion is legal in this country (which it is) becuase the majority of people wish it to be legal (which they apparenlty do) then the issue of when a set of cells becomes a child is a rather moot point on this debate. We already sanction the killing of 'possible' people in their eyes. This is just the new way to attack that issue, to me.
Cycloptichorn
Just because abortion is legal does not necessarily lead to a conclusion that a majority of people wish it to be legal. I seem to recall that a slight majority disagrees with abortion, but since I cannot provide hard data I will not argue that point. What becomes legal often times has little to do with what the majority want. I would bet that the majority of people would like to see pot smoking legal, but it is not. All polls I have seen show that a majority of people believe gay marriage should not be legal, but at least as of now it is. So there is no real hard correlation between what the majority of Americans want and what is the reality. Heck, a majority of Americans (based on the popular vote count) wanted Gore as President and last I checked he lost.
And to keep from beating a dead horse around here, I will not even begin to argue that people of religious faith have every right to push for laws based on their beliefs just as homosexuals have every right to push for laws they believe in. Just too many people here who think people whose beliefs are Christian based should not be allowed to campaign for laws based on those beliefs.
Actually I think most Americans would probably vote for reasonable abortion procedures to remain legal. Rape, incest, a seriously deformed fetus, etc. create moral decisions most of us would not choose to make for the mother. I do think a majority of Americans would otherwise say a woman has a choice whether to become pregnant, but once a human life is created, it should not be murdered out of convenience.
Evenso, the President has never ever suggested that Roe v Wade be overturned. I think he would like to see it enforced as written.
As for whatever it was that Cyclop quoted up there--no link provided--it is pure bull pucky that the research was not possible because the strains never existed. And it does not change the moral and ethical considerations outlined in his speech.
As far as stem cell research goes, whether or not GWB can in good conscience support it, it is going on and is not being delayed in any way that American tax dollars are not supporting cloning for the purpose of stem cell research.
I will support people who hold Christian beliefs not being allowed to campaign for laws based on those beliefs if no one can campaign for laws that fit the athiest agenda.
onyxelle wrote:CoastalRat wrote:... tells me something about your intellectual capacity... idiotic statements
Lets try to be civil & not insult those whose views may not be in line with your own or not as eloquently put as your own. Thank you.
I am all for that. I really don't believe he is an idiot. His statement however was. You are telling me it is ok to accuse someone of slaughtering people but wrong to point out the absurdity of that comment?
And yes, I admit that absurd may have been a better word than idiotic. And maybe I should not have questioned his intelligence. I will accept the rebuke for that and I whole heartedly apologize.
I realize people may have different views than I have. And I am all for discussing those views. While I went too far in questioning his intelligence, I think I had every right to say his statement was idiotic and lent nothing to the discussion of this topic.
NickFun wrote:Laura Bush, like her husband, is opposed to anything that will benefit mankind or even the United States. Her husband had slaughtered tens of thousands of innocent people and she has supported him. This tells me something about her character.
Nickfun, it has been pointed out to me and I agree that I went over the line in questioning your intelligence in my previous post. If I implied that you were an idiot or somehow less intelligent than the average person I apologize. I am big enough to admit when I am wrong when I say something.
After thinking about it, I believe a better word for your statement would have been absurd, not idiotic. I really try not to call someone names on here because there are too many people already who are quick to do so. But I am quick to call someone on statements that have no real basis in reality, which is what I think was the problem with your comment. It did not add anything to the discussion going on except to pollute it with a comment based on hated for a person, in this case President Bush. That is the point I wanted to make to you.
I attempted to make the point in a poorly worded fashion and for that I am sorry.
CR, attack the argument, not the arguer and you will be fine.
How incredibly ironic to read that coming from you, McG...
Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn wrote:How incredibly ironic to read that coming from you, McG...
Cycloptichorn
Why is it ironic? You seem to be implying that I tend to attack the poster rather than the statements made by that person, is that so?
Foxfyre:
Sorry I forgot to post the link. Actually, I found a better one while looking, though:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/ethics/01Gilbert.html
A primer to current stem cell research by Gilbert, a prof of Biology. I'll quote the interesting part. Emphasis is mine:
Quote:Will Bush's policy allow human stem cell research?
The question really is: Will Bush's policy stop stem cell research in the United States? Other countries are proceeding with stem cell research. It is possible, though, that without federal funding, this country's human embryonic stem cell research could only be done by corporations. The Bush administration claims that there are 60 "lines" of stem cells already available. Many scientists dispute this, saying that there are less than a dozen lines of stem cells that meet the administration's criteria, and most of these are the property of private companies or foreign countries. We really don't know what's available right now. Many of these lines are thought to be at the limits of their totipotency, Bioethicist Arthur Caplan has called president Bush's policy against using new lines "a ban," and he points out that the restrictions on federal funds for scientists to make new stem cell lines could mean that the only scientists in America who could do human embryonic stem cell research would be those funded by corporations. Thus, "embryonic stem cell research will become a business without regulation or accountability of any sort."
What are the problems of corporations controlling stem cell research?
It's a matter of responsibility and public accountability. Like atomic energy, embryonic stem cell research is incredibly powerful and can be used for all sorts of ends, good and bad. One can start manipulating stem cells by adding genes to them. The same techniques that can cure disease could augment a person's ability. Do we want this? Probably not; but if the market economy is the only regulator of embryonic stem cell use, then we can expect to see muscle-forming stem cells injected into our wealthier high school athletes. If there are no federal regulations, will the wealthy be allowed to extend their lives continuously? There is nothing now to prevent that from happening. With atomic energy, the United States established the Atomic Energy Commission (and later, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission) to oversee and regulate nuclear energy programs in our country. We have nothing comparable for human embryonic stem cells. In Britain, the Human Fertalisation and Embryology Authority has the power to license fertility meet their strict guidelines. In America, it is strictly entrepreneurship, and embryonic stem cell entrepreneurship has already begun,
I suspect that neither the American public wants embryonic stem cell therapy to be an unregulated business enterprise. But Bush's policies may effectively take away human stem cell research away from the American public
and put it into the hands of foreign governments and corporations. That, too, is an ethical issue.
Well, we'll see how it goes. I fully understand GWB's dilemma on the ethics of it all. Because one person holds different ethics does not make him evil because he makes decisions on his own ethical sense of values.
I would guess that both of your sources are dependent on government funding and, if the program isn't funded, they won't have opportunity for the cushy grants to do whatever research they are doing. You can very often dig out the motive for a 'heartfelt conviction' just by following the money.
I believe GWB does not make such decisions lightly and I think he is open to having his mind changed if he can be sure that his ethical convictions are not violated. Instead of attacking him, proponents of stem cell research should be presenting their ethical argument to persuade the millions of us who are not sure which way it should go.
Hey Costa! Your initial attack on my intelligence has left me unscathed though I accept your apology and please feel free to attack my posts if they offend you. I know there are some war supporters out there. Stem cell research, which Bush opposes, could save countless lives. The war, which Bush has so wholeheartedly created and endorsed, could take countless lives. I don't see any compassion in him at all. In todays Boston Globe I read of Reproductive Genetics Institute in Chicago which has created 50 new stem cell lines. Maybe this whole thing can be done without government support and despite Bush's opposition.
Foxfyre wrote:... atheist agenda.
Jumpin' Friedrich Nietzsche!! We have an agenda??? 
(I haven't been invited to even one reunion)
On the other hand, I propose we all worship
The IPU 
McGentrix wrote:CR, attack the argument, not the arguer and you will be fine.
I normally do McG. And I really did not mean to attack him here, but rather his statement. Poor choice of words on my part and then I took it a bit too far. What can I say? Guess I am human after all.
Astromouse, I think the athiests have as much an agenda as the Christians do considering the hundreds of Christian denominations who do not agree with each other. To suggest that a person should be denied campaigning on any issue that involves a religious belief makes it damn near impossible for anybody who holds religious beliefs to run for office. Most of us who have religious beliefs apply the values and ethics inherent in those beliefs to all things.
But I really am sorry you have been excluded from the meetings though. That's terrible. I will happy to write a letter of recommendation.
We have a self-described Methodist and a Catholic running for President -- it's damned near impossible for anyone to run for office without a religious belief.
Anyone who holds a religious belief can an does run for office, and I do not disagree with that, but to rule a whole country one cannot, and must not base their policy on faith, to do so it would compromise the separation of church and state.
I don't mind if candidate X is a lutheran,and candidate Y is a presbiterian, once they step into public office, they must serve their country, with voodooists, jews , catholics , christians , muslims , atheists , et al.
Policy cannot be based on belief, because belief is just that , and while it looks nice on paper , it crumbles in real life. Mind you that I've not started a revolution every christmas because it offends me, it does not, I've learned that to live you must co-exist , and to do so you must respect every one and their beliefs and celebrations , but the goverment and all of it's branches are there to administrate, not to pander.
Once a person steps into the role of public office, he must and has to , leave his religion at home , because he is a representative of the people, and the people is all of us.
p.d
I appreciate the letter of recommendation offer, but coming from a self proclaimed believer , as you stated, makes the recommendation a little suspicious. (they might think I'm a double agent :wink: )
Well gee Astro, we should repeal all the marriage laws then, and stealing should be okay, and you should take anything that you fancy from your neighbor's garage or even his car, and if somebody pisses you off, blow him away. All laws related to that stuff are based on ancient Jewish law and are subscribed to by most modern day Christians and Jews.
