OT: Interesting article on stem-cell breakthrough

[scarygirl]

That question was to someone else. Somewhat strong, but no more confrontational than words like "big mouth televangelist who lead their flock" and "uneducated." It is a valid question. How would one feel if someone wanted their cells, their organs etc.

I agree that the "big mouthed" and "uneducated" were unnecessary and I really should have left them out of my quote from that post, but I agree completely with the overall meaning of the post. Religion has no place in the laws of this country and the influence that evangelicals have had on republican leaders is a very sore point with me.

My favorite line from any TV show that I've watched in my life is from the West Wing when Jed Bartlett told three of them (one of which was obviously representing Falwell) to "get their fat asses out of his White House."

Funny thing about that is, you can say that about any point of view. People get their ideas from somewhere. Whether it be religion or philosophy or even certain books and tv shows. Should I then say to all the atheist senators, get your fat asses out my senate? People use whatever their beliefs are to guide them in their decision making. There's no getting around it.

[ohsherrie]

Should I then say to all the atheist senators, get your fat asses out my senate?

No you shouldn't because this country's constitution SEPARATES CHURCH AND STATE. Neither religious belief nor lack of it has anything to do with legislative decisions.

No one is telling the evangelicals or any other religion that they have to have abortions or stem cell implantations. If they don't like those things they can decline them like the Amish decline modern conveniences. You have no right whatsoever to impose your beliefs on the rest of the country. Why can't you understand that? Or is it that you do understand it but hope to one day have this country run by your church like the Arabic countries are run by Islamic beliefs?

[scarygirl]

Should I then say to all the atheist senators, get your fat asses out my senate?

No you shouldn't because this country's constitution SEPARATES CHURCH AND STATE. Neither religious belief nor lack of it has anything to do with legislative decisions.

No one is telling the evangelicals or any other religion that they have to have abortions or stem cell implantations. If they don't like those things they can decline them like the Amish decline modern conveniences. You have no right whatsoever to impose your beliefs on the rest of the country. Why can't you understand that? Or is it that you do understand it but hope to one day have this country run by your church like the Arabic countries are run by Islamic beliefs?

That last quote, talk about imflammatory. You talk about the seperation of church and state and not imposing your beliefs on others, but in fact you do by having or disposing of children through no fault of their own or for using them and their accoutrements to save others. You never answered my question, what if the child doesn't want to be used this way? Who's choice are we talking about now? A disease like cancer can last for years and years. It can come and go. If you have a child so they'll be a biological match, then you could end up using them over and over again.

[ohsherrie]

That last quote, talk about imflammatory. You talk about the seperation of church and state and not imposing your beliefs on others, but in fact you, do by having or disposing of children through no fault of their own, and for using them and their accoutrements to save others.

No, I don't. A fetus that is not yet viable outside the womb is not yet a child. You call it a child. I call it what science does, a fetus.

Who's choice are we talking about now? A disease like cancer can last for years and years. It can come and go. If you have a child so they'll be a biological match, then you could end up using them over and over again.

OK, so now you're going to let your church tell parents of terminally ill children that they can't have more children because the might use them for donors? Where do YOU draw the line?

[scarygirl]

Should I then say to all the atheist senators, get your fat asses out my senate?

No you shouldn't because this country's constitution SEPARATES CHURCH AND STATE. Neither religious belief nor lack of it has anything to do with legislative decisions.

No one is telling the evangelicals or any other religion that they have to have abortions or stem cell implantations. If they don't like those things they can decline them like the Amish decline modern conveniences. You have no right whatsoever to impose your beliefs on the rest of the country. Why can't you understand that? Or is it that you do understand it but hope to one day have this country run by your church like the Arabic countries are run by Islamic beliefs?

The first ammendment talks specifically about the government not establishing a RELIGION, and not preventing free speech there of. It doesn't say, freedom from religion.

Seperation of church and state is nowhere in the constitution, but rather comes from this guy.

The phrase separation of church and state is generally traced to an 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists, where Jefferson spoke of the combined effect of the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. In that letter Jefferson wrote, "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state." The phrase "separation of church and state" itself does not appear in the Constitution, but it has been quoted in several opinions handed down by the United States Supreme Court.[1]

[scarygirl]

That last quote, talk about imflammatory. You talk about the seperation of church and state and not imposing your beliefs on others, but in fact you, do by having or disposing of children through no fault of their own, and for using them and their accoutrements to save others.

No, I don't. A fetus that is not yet viable outside the womb is not yet a child. You call it a child. I call it what science does, a fetus.

Who's choice are we talking about now? A disease like cancer can last for years and years. It can come and go. If you have a child so they'll be a biological match, then you could end up using them over and over again.

OK, so now you're going to let your church tell parents of terminally ill children that they can't have more children because the might use them for donors? Where do YOU draw the line?

I draw the line at the use of others. You didn't answer my question. What happens if the second child, when it gets old enough to say it's wants and needs, says, no, I don't want to continue doing this. What about the rights of the second child?

As to fetuses, science can call them whatever they want, doesn't make it right.

[ohsherrie]

The first ammendment talks specifically about the government not establishing a RELIGION, and not preventing free speech there of. It doesn't say, freedom from religion.

Seperation of church and state is nowhere in the constitution, but rather comes from this guy.

The phrase separation of church and state is generally traced to an 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists, where Jefferson spoke of the combined effect of the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. In that letter Jefferson wrote, "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state." The phrase "separation of church and state" itself does not appear in the Constitution, but it has been quoted in several opinions handed down by the United States Supreme Court.[1]

So you're saying you would have your religious beliefs rule all of us in this country the way it's done in Islamic countries?

Where do YOU draw the line?

[ohsherrie]

I draw the line at the use of others. You didn't answer my question. What happens if the second child, when it gets old enough to say it's wants and needs, says, no, I don't want to continue doing this. What about the rights of the second child?

Well hopefully the parents would respect the child's wishes of course. Just like, hopefully, evangelical parents of a child who can't buy it and decides he/she is an atheist would respect their wishes.

As to fetuses, science can call them whatever they want, doesn't make it right.

So, you're saying this country should be ruled by mythology rather than science?

[scarygirl]

The first ammendment talks specifically about the government not establishing a RELIGION, and not preventing free speech there of. It doesn't say, freedom from religion.

Seperation of church and state is nowhere in the constitution, but rather comes from this guy.

The phrase separation of church and state is generally traced to an 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists, where Jefferson spoke of the combined effect of the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. In that letter Jefferson wrote, "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state." The phrase "separation of church and state" itself does not appear in the Constitution, but it has been quoted in several opinions handed down by the United States Supreme Court.[1]

So you're saying you would have your religious beliefs rule all of us in this country the way it's done in Islamic countries?

Where do YOU draw the line?

I was refuting your claim of seperation of church and state. If I believed in living like an Islamic country, we wouldn't be having this debate. We would sitting in huts, covered in a burkah, praying for God to take us from this hell.

[ohsherrie]

So you're saying you would have your religious beliefs rule all of us in this country the way it's done in Islamic countries?

Where do YOU draw the line?

I was refuting your claim of seperation of church and state. If I believed in living like an Islamic country, we wouldn't be having this debate. We would sitting in huts, covered in a burkah, praying for God to take us from this hell.

That doesn't answer my question. It dodges it by giving an absurd example. How far do you think YOUR religion should go in DICTATING how people in this country should live their lives?

[scarygirl]

I draw the line at the use of others. You didn't answer my question. What happens if the second child, when it gets old enough to say it's wants and needs, says, no, I don't want to continue doing this. What about the rights of the second child?

Well hopefully the parents would respect the child's wishes of course. Just like, hopefully, evangelical parents of a child who can't buy it and decides he/she is an atheist would respect their wishes.

As to fetuses, science can call them whatever they want, doesn't make it right.

So, you're saying this country should be ruled by mythology rather than science?

Hopefully, there's your answer. There's your problem. The way I see it, parents barely respect the 1st lives they create, much less respect their second and third offspring.

So, you're saying this country should be ruled by science? Science is not always right. There have been cases of babies born with just a brain stem. At that level, all one would expect would be minimal functioning. Breathing, etc. But, there have been cases of these children living to almost kindergarten age and in that time, achieving the smallest miracles, telling apart colors, counting, etc. Science said it was impossible. Science said abort.

The same goes with children with down syndrome. Even now, they usually tell parents to abort without considering that there are different levels of function. A lot of them are high functioning people who, with proper care, go on to hold down jobs, and live semi to fully independent lives.

No, I don't want to live in a country of extremes. Either way, fully religious, or totally scientific, they're both doomed to collapse.

[scarygirl]

So you're saying you would have your religious beliefs rule all of us in this country the way it's done in Islamic countries?

Where do YOU draw the line?

I was refuting your claim of seperation of church and state. If I believed in living like an Islamic country, we wouldn't be having this debate. We would sitting in huts, covered in a burkah, praying for God to take us from this hell.

That doesn't answer my question. It dodges it by giving an absurd example. How far do you think YOUR religion should go in DICTATING how people in this country should live their lives?

My respect for human life is not dodging and that has nothing to do with religion. No matter what religion you are or are not, you need standards to live by.

[scarygirl]

I draw the line at the use of others. You didn't answer my question. What happens if the second child, when it gets old enough to say it's wants and needs, says, no, I don't want to continue doing this. What about the rights of the second child?

Well hopefully the parents would respect the child's wishes of course. Just like, hopefully, evangelical parents of a child who can't buy it and decides he/she is an atheist would respect their wishes.

As to fetuses, science can call them whatever they want, doesn't make it right.

So, you're saying this country should be ruled by mythology rather than science?

God is not a myth. God is real and wonderful. I'm sorry you feel that way.

BTW, I'm not an evangelical. To be honest with you, I don't attend church. I am not wholly liberal nor republican, I fall in the middle. I believe in personal responsibility, and not creating that which you cannot support. I don't believe in sex before marriage. That's not to say that I am morally perfect in that area. I am like a lot of people, I have floundered around, and have decided that it's not for me. Not because of religious belief, though it does guide it somewhat, but because I don't have the means to support another human being at this point and I know, that no one method of birth control is perfect. If however, I changed my mind, and decided to fall from this tract and a child came as a result, well, I'd lump it and carry on.

That paragraph was probably a bit much information, but since you keep trying to peg me as an evangelical, I thought I would claify my beliefs a little bit more.

I don't understand how respect for life became so inflamed, and such cause for defense.

[scarygirl]

So you're saying you would have your religious beliefs rule all of us in this country the way it's done in Islamic countries?

Where do YOU draw the line?

I was refuting your claim of seperation of church and state. If I believed in living like an Islamic country, we wouldn't be having this debate. We would sitting in huts, covered in a burkah, praying for God to take us from this hell.

That doesn't answer my question. It dodges it by giving an absurd example. How far do you think YOUR religion should go in DICTATING how people in this country should live their lives?

What I don't want is a non belief in anything and anything goes to destroy other people. You were a fetus, once. If someone had chosen to not have you, you wouldn't be here. All that you are was contained within you inside the womb. You are different in that you were allowed out.

[conversationpc]

and an overall confrontational tone to her previous posts and had been presented in the form of a question for discussion rather than a challenge I probably would have taken it as one.

And you've never been confrontational here?

[Enigma869]

Religion has no place in the laws of this country and the influence that evangelicals have had on republican leaders is a very sore point with me.

Well said! While I think religion is a VERY personal issue for EVERYONE, I don't think it should EVER influence public policy. The problem with the religious power, as it relates to politics in this country, is that it is ALL Christianity (and for the record, I was raised a Christian)! There are FAR more religions in this country that have zero influence on anything, related to politics!

Religion should stay out of politics, COMPLETELY! Much to my chagrin, it is probably NEVER going to happen. Generally if a presidential candidate wins the "Bible Belt" states, he is on his way to The White House! I think this country will be a whole lot better off once we leave religion (and I mean ANY religion) out of politics! Public policy should be dictated by intelligence and common sense, not the god a particular polictican prays to!


John from Boston

[conversationpc]

No, I don't. A fetus that is not yet viable outside the womb is not yet a child. You call it a child. I call it what science does, a fetus.

A fetus, whether you call it a child or not, is still 100% human AND alive by the time any abortion can be performed.

[Rhiannon]

No, I don't. A fetus that is not yet viable outside the womb is not yet a child. You call it a child. I call it what science does, a fetus.

A fetus, whether you call it a child or not, is still 100% human AND alive by the time any abortion can be performed.

Exactly, Dave. Sherrie, we'll have to disagree on perceptions here. When you became pregnant and had that life growing inside you, did you think of it as a ball of developing cells with no life, or did you think of it as your child??

A fetus is just a stage of development in the human life cycle. Life begins with fertilization and implanting.

[ohsherrie]

Hopefully, there's your answer. There's your problem. The way I see it, parents barely respect the 1st lives they create, much less respect their second and third offspring.

So, you're saying this country should be ruled by science? Science is not always right. There have been cases of babies born with just a brain stem. At that level, all one would expect would be minimal functioning. Breathing, etc. But, there have been cases of these children living to almost kindergarten age and in that time, achieving the smallest miracles, telling apart colors, counting, etc. Science said it was impossible. Science said abort.

The same goes with children with down syndrome. Even now, they usually tell parents to abort without considering that there are different levels of function. A lot of them are high functioning people who, with proper care, go on to hold down jobs, and live semi to fully independent lives.

No, I don't want to live in a country of extremes. Either way, fully religious, or totally scientific, they're both doomed to collapse.

So, you're saying people shouldn't even have kids because some of them don't respect them. How would you decide who should and shouldn't have kids?

I didn't say science is always right, but it beats the hell out of religious opinion. At least there is some basis in fact with science.

No doctors I've ever know of tell patients to abort. They give that option when it's appropriate to do so.

OK, so if we're all doomed why do you care about stem cell research, or anything else for that matter?

[ohsherrie]

God is not a myth. God is real and wonderful. I'm sorry you feel that way.

That is your opinion and I'm not sorry I feel that way.

BTW, I'm not an evangelical. To be honest with you, I don't attend church. I am not wholly liberal nor republican, I fall in the middle. I believe in personal responsibility, and not creating that which you cannot support. I don't believe in sex before marriage. That's not to say that I am morally perfect in that area. I am like a lot of people, I have floundered around, and have decided that it's not for me. Not because of religious belief, though it does guide it somewhat, but because I don't have the means to support another human being at this point and I know, that no one method of birth control is perfect. If however, I changed my mind, and decided to fall from this tract and a child came as a result, well, I'd lump it and carry on.

That paragraph was probably a bit much information, but since you keep trying to peg me as an evangelical, I thought I would claify my beliefs a little bit more.

I don't understand how respect for life became so inflamed, and such cause for defense.

Thank you for that explanation. I can respect that because it's a personal choice that you've made. Everyone should have the right to make the personal choices that are right for them. I didn't lump you in with the evangelicals. I simply said that they are the ones who are trying to influence the laws of this country. You were defending that and therefore putting yourself in that catagory.

I don't disrespect life. I just disagree on when it should be legally declared to begin.

[conversationpc]

I didn't say science is always right, but it beats the hell out of religious opinion. At least there is some basis in fact with science.

There is fact with religion as well, if you're willing to see it. I'm not going to argue about it here but it exists. I've seen it myself, relating to our experiences adopting our daughter and how it came about, i.e. a series of events that could not have been consequences. Religion may never be able to answer some questions to the satisfaction of some but science also cannot answer some questions as well (origin of life & matter, for instance).

[ohsherrie]

No, I don't. A fetus that is not yet viable outside the womb is not yet a child. You call it a child. I call it what science does, a fetus.

A fetus, whether you call it a child or not, is still 100% human AND alive by the time any abortion can be performed.

But that doesn't mean the human body that is carrying that fetus should have to go through with the pregnance regardless of the consequences to her human life. The fetus isn't sentient. The body carrying it is.

[conversationpc]

No, I don't. A fetus that is not yet viable outside the womb is not yet a child. You call it a child. I call it what science does, a fetus.

A fetus, whether you call it a child or not, is still 100% human AND alive by the time any abortion can be performed.

But that doesn't mean the human body that is carrying that fetus should have to go through with the pregnance regardless of the consequences to her human life. The fetus isn't sentient. The body carrying it is.

Some elderly people stricken with Alzheimer's aren't sentient, either. The last time I saw my Grandfather alive, he didn't know anyone. He didn't even react to anyone. Probably the saddest memory I have.

[scarygirl]

Hopefully, there's your answer. There's your problem. The way I see it, parents barely respect the 1st lives they create, much less respect their second and third offspring.

So, you're saying this country should be ruled by science? Science is not always right. There have been cases of babies born with just a brain stem. At that level, all one would expect would be minimal functioning. Breathing, etc. But, there have been cases of these children living to almost kindergarten age and in that time, achieving the smallest miracles, telling apart colors, counting, etc. Science said it was impossible. Science said abort.

The same goes with children with down syndrome. Even now, they usually tell parents to abort without considering that there are different levels of function. A lot of them are high functioning people who, with proper care, go on to hold down jobs, and live semi to fully independent lives.

No, I don't want to live in a country of extremes. Either way, fully religious, or totally scientific, they're both doomed to collapse.

So, you're saying people shouldn't even have kids because some of them don't respect them. How would you decide who should and shouldn't have kids?

I didn't say science is always right, but it beats the hell out of religious opinion. At least there is some basis in fact with science.

No doctors I've ever know of tell patients to abort. They give that option when it's appropriate to do so.

OK, so if we're all doomed why do you care about stem cell research, or anything else for that matter?

I said a country based on extremes is doomed to failure.

[ohsherrie]

No, I don't. A fetus that is not yet viable outside the womb is not yet a child. You call it a child. I call it what science does, a fetus.

A fetus, whether you call it a child or not, is still 100% human AND alive by the time any abortion can be performed.

Exactly, Dave. Sherrie, we'll have to disagree on perceptions here. When you became pregnant and had that life growing inside you, did you think of it as a ball of developing cells with no life, or did you think of it as your child??

A fetus is just a stage of development in the human life cycle. Life begins with fertilization and implanting.

Rhi, my children aren't the isssue here. I haven't said anywhere that I would ever have chosen to have a abortion. However, if one of my pregnancies had threatened my life I would like to think that my husband and I would have had the legal option to do what we considered best for our situation.

In fact, I'll give a little more personal information than I ever would have thought I would. My second delivery was a rough one. There was doubt as to whether we could both survive. My husband had to make the decision(that thankfully became unnecessary) about which one to save. We already had a child. He thought she needed a mother.

I just want women to have a choice about what's right for them in their particular circumstance. I don't think any religious belief has the right to dictate whether they have that option.

A life based on human genetics begins to be formed at conception. IMO, it's not a human life until it is sentient. Until that time whether a mother considers it a life that she will risk hers for is he decision to make.

Would you want to live under all the morality rules of the evangelical church? Where do you think the line should be drawn on that? Why should women who are faced with a decision about abortion be the only ones held to the code of morality?

[conversationpc]

In fact, I'll give a little more personal information than I ever would have thought I would. My second delivery was a rough one. There was doubt as to whether we could both survive. My husband had to make the decision(that thankfully became unnecessary) about which one to save. We already had a child. He thought she needed a mother.

Good choice. If it's a question on who to save, the mother or the child, then I agree with your position here.

A life based on human genetics begins to be formed at conception. IMO, it's not a human life until it is sentient.

Many Alzheimer's patients aren't sentient.

[ohsherrie]

No, I don't. A fetus that is not yet viable outside the womb is not yet a child. You call it a child. I call it what science does, a fetus.

A fetus, whether you call it a child or not, is still 100% human AND alive by the time any abortion can be performed.

But that doesn't mean the human body that is carrying that fetus should have to go through with the pregnance regardless of the consequences to her human life. The fetus isn't sentient. The body carrying it is.

Some elderly people stricken with Alzheimer's aren't sentient, either. The last time I saw my Grandfather alive, he didn't know anyone. He didn't even react to anyone. Probably the saddest memory I have.

That's not a comparable situation. Alzheimer's patients are people who have established a history in this life and have had an influence on the lives of their families and society.

Are you telling me a three week old fetus that you've never seen would mean as much to you as your grandfather who must have had an impact on your life? If you had to choose one over the other which would you choose?

[conversationpc]

That's not a comparable situation. Alzheimer's patients are people who have established a history in this life and have had an influence on the lives of their families and society.

Are you telling me a three week old fetus that you've never seen would mean as much to you as your grandfather who must have had an impact on your life? If you had to choose one over the other which would you choose?

Ask a mother who has carried a child within her and had a stillborn child or a miscarriage.

[ohsherrie]

There is fact with religion as well, if you're willing to see it.

Only to those who believe it and are therefore needing to see it.

[conversationpc]

There is fact with religion as well, if you're willing to see it.

Only to those who believe it and are therefore needing to see it.

Baloney.

My wife and I at the time I spoke of were on a different path. What we experienced, saw, and heard changed our lives forever. We thought God had different plans for us. We were wrong.