Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Passion of the Christ Star Jim Caviezel Explains Opposition to Embryo Research
LifeSite ^ | November 6, 2006 | Meg Jalsevac

Posted on 11/07/2006 8:02:24 AM PST by NYer

Monday November 6, 2006

Passion of the Christ Star Jim Caviezel Explains Opposition to Embryo Research
His Opposition to Michael J. Fox's Stem-Cell Ads

By Meg Jalsevac

HOLLYWOOD, November 6, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Actor Jim Caviezel is defending his stance against Michael J. Fox’s campaign ad which was used to promote politicians who support embryonic stem cell research.  Caviezel insists that he is sympathetic to Fox’s condition but wants to ensure that the public is informed of all the facts before they cast their votes.   

Fox’s ad encouraged Missourians to vote ‘Yes’ on Amendment 2 which would allow scientists in the state of Missouri to use human embryos for their research.  Caviezel and several other celebrities appeared in a rebuttal ad clip which encouraged Missourians to vote ‘No’ after explaining the facts surrounding the proposed amendment.

About the ad, Caviezel says, "I really care about people and the public. I believe the public needs to be informed. What they decide to choose is their choice, but I care very much."

Caviezel says he is "absolutely for adult stem-cell research.”  Adult stem-cell research is looked on as an ethical form of stem-cell research because it does not destroy embryonic life in the research process. 

Caviezel says, “I care very much about people who have diseases, especially Parkinson's disease, and I'd be through the moon if they ever came up with a cure for any of those diseases, especially Parkinson's."          

The election in Missouri has focused largely on the Missouri Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative – also called Amendment 2.  Among other things, the amendment claims that it would ban human cloning and the buying and selling of human eggs.  In fact, the amendment only prohibits implanting a human clone in a woman – not creating a clone for research purposes.  It also allows for “reimbursement” for human eggs including all expenses and “lost wages of the donor”.    

Read Related LifeSiteNews Coverage:

Sad to see Michael J. Fox Suffer But Sadder Still that he's been Deceived on Embryo Research
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/nov/06110106.html

Neurologist Says Rush Limbaugh Criticism of Fox Technically Inaccurate But Likely Close to Mark
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/oct/06103102.html

Michael J. Fox is Right About One Thing: Pro-life Movement Must Oppose IVF
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/oct/06103006.html

Actor Jim Caviezel Battles Michael J. Fox on Embryonic Stem Cell Video Ads
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/oct/06102501.html


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; Philosophy; US: Missouri
KEYWORDS: catholic; caviezel; embryo; esc; fox; prolife; stemcell
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-105 next last

1 posted on 11/07/2006 8:02:27 AM PST by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Lady In Blue; Salvation; narses; SMEDLEYBUTLER; redhead; Notwithstanding; nickcarraway; Romulus; ...
Catholic Ping
Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list


2 posted on 11/07/2006 8:02:59 AM PST by NYer (Apart from the cross, there is no other ladder by which we may get to Heaven. St. Rose of Lima)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Voted against it this morning. I hope Missourians are guided by their hearts.


3 posted on 11/07/2006 8:04:44 AM PST by rightinthemiddle (Without the Media, the Left and Islamofacists are Nothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Please put me on your list. Thank you. Kelli


4 posted on 11/07/2006 8:08:14 AM PST by newconhere (bzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. zap)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Mr. Caviezel is welcome to use my argument; that there is no difference between destroyng an embryo for stem cells and harvesting organs from prisoners, ala China.


5 posted on 11/07/2006 8:16:36 AM PST by yooling (I don't have anything nice to say...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Isn't there a picture rule for posts about Jim Caviezel? :-)


6 posted on 11/07/2006 8:25:15 AM PST by Juana la Loca (Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuma)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Juana la Loca
Isn't there a picture rule for posts about Jim Caviezel? :-)

What she said!

7 posted on 11/07/2006 8:37:23 AM PST by MJemison
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Juana la Loca
Isn't there a picture rule for posts about Jim Caviezel? :-)

What she said!

8 posted on 11/07/2006 8:37:42 AM PST by MJemison
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Okay, the Jesus character is against embryonic stem cell research...but, please, somebody explain to me why he and others see this as infanticide? It is my understanding most of the embryos in question are "owned" by couples who produced them in homes of eventually impregnating one inside a womb and producing a living, breathing human baby. But it is also my understanding that they are tossed when same said couples no longer want them or want to continue paying for their maintenance in cryrogentic friges...AND, it is my BELIEF that an embryo is just that--an embryo--until it is implanted and becomes capable of becoming fetal material. Furthermore, most birth control methods (exception condoms and certain other devices) do not prevent conception but the same said implantation (especially the RU287 "morning after" that Bush approved), therefore why the rub?
9 posted on 11/07/2006 8:46:54 AM PST by meandog (While Bush will never fill them, Clinton isn't fit to even lick the soles of Reagan's shoes!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: meandog

Exactly. Very, very few of these embryos will ever become the "snowflake" babies so many in the "culture of life" crowd crow about. Since they're destined to be destroyed anyways, best their at least put to some use. Adult stem cells go a long way, I know, but certain organs, notably the pancreas in Type I diabetes (a devastating disease for those--mostly young people--who suffer from it) are not helped by adult stem cells; there is no adult stem cell for the pancreas. For them, embryonic stem cells are the only hope.


10 posted on 11/07/2006 8:52:54 AM PST by ruffedgrouse (Think outside the box, dammit!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Can anyone explain to me why there's opposition to research with embyonic stem cells, when the embryos being used for research are going to be discarded anyway and not used for reproduction?

I don't see this as any different than organ donation. If a parent's child dies, that parent is entitled to say the child's organs can be re-used to help others. If a parent no longer needs the surplus embryos, why isn't it that parent's right to allow the embryo to be used to help others?

It puzzles the heck out of me.

It seems the opposition is misplaced - if a person is against destroying surplus embryos, that person should be against in-vitro fertilization, since that's what creates the surplus embryos anyway.


11 posted on 11/07/2006 8:54:22 AM PST by Air Force Brat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: meandog

I see we have the same question. See my comment No. 11 below.


12 posted on 11/07/2006 8:55:58 AM PST by Air Force Brat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: meandog

Totally non related issue...but I checked out your homepage. Why is JEB Stuart in your neutral American section?


13 posted on 11/07/2006 8:57:14 AM PST by James Ewell Brown Stuart (Go back and do your duty as I have done mine. I would rather die than be whipped!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Juana la Loca; MJemison

Don't complain when we guys post girlie pics!

14 posted on 11/07/2006 8:57:32 AM PST by GraniteStateConservative (...He had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here...-- Worst.President.Ever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Juana la Loca

Here you go.

15 posted on 11/07/2006 8:58:21 AM PST by A_perfect_lady ("If it's not the Crusades, it's the cartoons." -GWB)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Doctor Dean Edell also criticized this actor while defending Fox.


16 posted on 11/07/2006 8:58:43 AM PST by RightWhale (RTRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Juana la Loca

If there isn't one, there should be!


17 posted on 11/07/2006 9:01:35 AM PST by Jaded ("I have a mustard- seed; and I am not afraid to use it."- Joseph Ratzinger)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: NYer; All
Just have a second, but Jim Caviezel's opposition to embryonic stem cell research is because he knows the TRUTH!!! The truth proves that embryonic/fetal stem cell research is a horrible gruesome crime against humanity. The FACTS are HERE" http://www.angelfire.com/blog/stemcells/ . Please FReep this page and pass it around.
18 posted on 11/07/2006 9:01:52 AM PST by TexasPatriot8 (Issues matter. The Democrats can Foley & Macaca all they want to. They're still wrong on the issues!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: meandog

First of all, Bush didn't "approve" the morning after pill. You fell for the spin. Once the genie was already out of the bottle, there was a debate over whether or not minors should be able to get the drug over the counter and Bush said that they should be required to get a prescription. The press spun that into "Bush says teens should be able to get morning after pill with a prescription!"

As for the whole "unused" embryo argument. Yes, there are people who have no trouble discarding/destroying them. But that doesn't mean pro-lifers have ever been OK with it, just because it is legal. I believe the Catholic position is, in vitro fertilization is OK, so long as all the embryos are implanted, there are no "selective abortions" and/or the embryos are donated to another couple for implantation. The reason the McCougheys had seven babies is because they respected the life of each embryo and refused to abort any of them when their implantation was successful.


19 posted on 11/07/2006 9:02:07 AM PST by soccermom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: NYer

The man who was robbed of the most deserving Oscar of all time...he is forever blessed.


20 posted on 11/07/2006 9:03:11 AM PST by My Favorite Headache ("Head-On...Apply Directly To The Forehead, Head-On...Apply Directly To The Forehead")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GraniteStateConservative
Don't complain when we guys post girlie pics!

No problem. I understand completely. (That pic made my day. !Sigh!).

21 posted on 11/07/2006 9:03:45 AM PST by MJemison
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: soccermom

He was awesome in "Count of Monte Christo"


22 posted on 11/07/2006 9:03:45 AM PST by Maverick68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: meandog

Please check your facts.


23 posted on 11/07/2006 9:04:05 AM PST by Jaded ("I have a mustard- seed; and I am not afraid to use it."- Joseph Ratzinger)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Maverick68

LOL! I don't think that post was intended for me, but I agree. He was great.


24 posted on 11/07/2006 9:04:35 AM PST by soccermom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Air Force Brat

See my post #19. BTW, I'm an Air Force brat,too.


25 posted on 11/07/2006 9:05:33 AM PST by soccermom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: soccermom
I believe the Catholic position is, in vitro fertilization is OK, so long as all the embryos are implanted,

This is incorrect. The Catholic position is that in vitro fertilization is a grave moral evil.

26 posted on 11/07/2006 9:05:51 AM PST by murphE (These are days when the Christian is expected to praise every creed but his own. --G.K. Chesterton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Maverick68

Yes, he was...


27 posted on 11/07/2006 9:06:27 AM PST by James Ewell Brown Stuart (Go back and do your duty as I have done mine. I would rather die than be whipped!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: NYer
SUBJECT: Stem Cell Statements should lead to the REAL Question...
"Are we all cowards as we dance around the real issue? We should at least be brave enough to start by asking just one question: What if scientific medical research finds that embryonic stem cells are a cure for any disease or condition known to man and they could be used to prolong and improve human life indefinitely?
    ...would this change the argument?
or, at this point will the argument really just begin?"
 

To Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) and the great celebrities like the late Chistopher Reeves - Michael J. Fox - Mary Tyler Moore - or any pro-stem cell politicians if they really support the use of human embryonic stem cell they should please follow these instructions:

#1) Go to a clinic with your 'better half' and create a fertilized child embryo.

#2) Use that particular embryo for your own research and your own cure or to help others.

OPTION: If you are past the production point ask one of your children or grandchildren to provide(or be) the raw materials for your miracle cure.

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.



 HUMAN LIFE and RIGHTS   We have to respect and Protect All human life
 

To each individual their life is sacred. As a people, to begin to pass judgement or sentence on human life by age, quality, position or potential has the effect of placing a price or a measure on what can only be deemed a gift from our creator.

However, there is a paradox of life and rights:

Our rights as a people for individual-self-government are based upon the uniqueness of human life with rights granted by 'nature's God,' which in turn are protected by our Constitution.

One must follow the other, or else the entire argument of human rights becomes based on man's opinion. Either life with rights is given at the same time that life begins or we have no rights beyond which other men or governments are willing to allow us.

If we as a people do not respect the sacred notion of human LIFE how can we expect to have respect for RIGHTS that are dependent upon the concept of human LIFE itself?

Any society that diminishes the value of one life from another risks its very existence.


thoughts on human stem cells...

Nearly every discussion about the stem cell question has centered on the question of the sources of stem cells - adult versus embryonic - and the potential each has with regards to medicine - and of course the argument that some embryonic research had ended in disaster during research. To see the truth, I personnally believe that we should look at the stem cell argument from a totally new perspective.

I don't think that any of the questions so far are going to the heart of the matter. Are we all cowards as we dance around the real issue? We should at least be brave enough to start by asking just one question:

What if scientific medical research finds that embryonic stem cells are a cure for any disease or condition known to man and they could be used to prolong and improve human life indefinitely?

Would this change the argument? Or, at this point would the argument really just begin? Does it matter if embryonic stem cells are proven to be the medical equivalent of the elusive 'fountain of youth?'

Most civilized nations and people throughout history have been willing to sacrifice themselves so that the next generation will survive. Are we on the verge of becoming a people who are willing to sacrifice the next generation so that our current generation can continue to survive?

I don't think that it matters if we are capable of creating or using one life so that we can save another life. Either we respect all human life or we respect no human life. We cannot have it both ways at the same time.

The reason we as a people must have moral judgment and values which are clearly defined is that any action we take can and could be 'justified' from some practical standpoint. Our morality forces us to draw a line that we won't cross. It is only our sense of morality that allows us to be called human and it is only that which separates us from the jungle.

Once the line is moved from the moral high ground the very concept of morality becomes prosituted and becomes a matter of group or power opinions.

For example, if the Titantic were to sink today, using today's standards of morality and ethics - who would get to climb into the lifeboats first and who would be expected to go down with the ship? I'm not sure that today's society or medical community would stand back and save the women and children...

Any people who move from the position of protecting human life from its beginning to its end becomes just another part of the immoral mob - no better with any opinion - no worse without one. Just a mob.

In the end, the line that we draw on the argument of individual human life will become the line that is drawn to define individual human rights.


...post thoughts part I

As for the argument about the eventual destruction of frozen embryos - the 'they are going to die anyway' logic - history is full of examples of this 'foot-in-the-door' argument.

For background, read about the post WWII 'ethical' use of medical information that resulted from Nazi experiments on institutionalized and concentration camp men, women, and children. For starters, read about the following 'respected 'members of the WWII medical community including one who was a fellow of the Rockefeller Foundation:

Dr. Julius Hallervorden a distinguished academician, who occupied the Chair of Neuropathology at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institut in Berlin-Buch throughout the war years and following the war was a neuropathologist at the Max Planck Institute in Frankfurt. The following is a post-war quote from Hallervorden during an interview: "I heard that they were going to do that and so I went up to them and told them, 'Look here now, boys, if you are going to kill all those people, at least take the brains out so that the material could be utilized'." He is also is documented to have directed the selection of certain children for extermination and subsequent pathological studies as their brains were suitable for a research project.

Dr. Sigmund Rascher a researcher in neurophysiology and originally a Captain in the Luftwaffe Medical Service he wrote of his 'Experiments on Escape from High Altitude' where he had vivisection carried out on his subjects even prior to the heart completely stopping. He also experimented on exposure to hypothermia by the immersion of subjects in ice cold water and took part in a top secret report entitled "Freezing Experiments with Human Beings." Rascher was quite proud of his work with humans. "I am the only one in this whole crowd who really does and knows human physiology because I experiment on humans and not on guinea pigs or mice."

Dr. Georg Schaltenbrand a pre-eminent German clinical neuroscientist who had served as a fellow of the Rockefeller Foundation who used humans for multiple sclerosis experiments designed to find a cure for the disease.

"If the physician presumes to take into consideration in his work whether a life has value or not, the consequences are boundless and the physician becomes the most dangerous man in the state." - Christopher Hufeland, 18th century German physician


 
  K&V Jenerette... South 'By-God' Carolina - www.jenerette.com  


28 posted on 11/07/2006 9:13:44 AM PST by Van Jenerette (U.S.Army 1967-1991 Infantry OCS Hall of Fame, Ft. Benning Ga.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: murphE
OK -- but the explanations I've read say it is a grave and moral evil because embryos are destroyed. If the embryos aren't destroyed, how can it still be considered a grave and moral evil?
29 posted on 11/07/2006 9:15:12 AM PST by soccermom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: NYer
text

"Hurry up and give me what I want, already! Commoditizing human beings and creating markets for human parts!"

30 posted on 11/07/2006 9:32:13 AM PST by Oratam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

"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!


31 posted on 11/07/2006 9:34:23 AM PST by luckymom (Forget the baby whales, save the baby humans.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: luckymom

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.


32 posted on 11/07/2006 10:10:53 AM PST by Jaded ("I have a mustard- seed; and I am not afraid to use it."- Joseph Ratzinger)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: soccermom

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.


33 posted on 11/07/2006 10:42:29 AM PST by murphE (These are days when the Christian is expected to praise every creed but his own. --G.K. Chesterton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: James Ewell Brown Stuart
Why is JEB Stuart in your neutral American section?

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.

34 posted on 11/07/2006 10:59:03 AM PST by meandog (While Bush will never fill them, Clinton isn't fit to even lick the soles of Reagan's shoes!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: GraniteStateConservative

What's good for the goose is good for the gander!


35 posted on 11/07/2006 11:03:58 AM PST by Juana la Loca (Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuma)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: A_perfect_lady

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.


36 posted on 11/07/2006 11:05:54 AM PST by Juana la Loca (Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuma)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: meandog
First, the facts are not on your side.

Second, what individuals do is private and many of us do not want tax money used to support others misguided "beliefs".

37 posted on 11/07/2006 11:05:57 AM PST by fml
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: soccermom
OK -- but the explanations I've read say it is a grave and moral evil because embryos are destroyed. If the embryos aren't destroyed, how can it still be considered a grave and moral evil?

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.

38 posted on 11/07/2006 11:11:00 AM PST by Campion ("I am so tired of you, liberal church in America" -- Mother Angelica, 1993)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: soccermom
First of all, Bush didn't "approve" the morning after pill. You fell for the spin. Once the genie was already out of the bottle, there was a debate over whether or not minors should be able to get the drug over the counter and Bush said that they should be required to get a prescription. The press spun that into "Bush says teens should be able to get morning after pill with a prescription!"

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.

39 posted on 11/07/2006 11:12:07 AM PST by meandog (While Bush will never fill them, Clinton isn't fit to even lick the soles of Reagan's shoes!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: meandog
please, somebody explain to me why he and others see this as infanticide? .... snip ... AND, it is my BELIEF that an embryo is just that--an embryo--until it is implanted and becomes capable of becoming fetal material.

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.

40 posted on 11/07/2006 11:14:28 AM PST by Kaylee Frye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: fml
First, the facts are not on your side.

Uh huh, facts...like the kind you don't present? I know a bit about the issue and the facts are: 1. Couples own those embryos and can do with them what they want. 2. The embryos have not been implanted, are in a state of suspended animation, and therefore are cannot be viable fetal tissue. 3. There is no such thing as Santa Claus, Mother Goose, or "life" outside the womb beginning at conception!

41 posted on 11/07/2006 11:17:52 AM PST by meandog (While Bush will never fill them, Clinton isn't fit to even lick the soles of Reagan's shoes!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: soccermom

Mainly and quite simply because it is directly opposed to the divine and natural laws.


42 posted on 11/07/2006 11:24:19 AM PST by Gerish (Feed your faith and your doubts will starve to death.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Kaylee Frye
My belief is that when sperm meets egg, a very special unique person is created.

When sperm meets egg a zygote is formed, nothing more until somewhere when the "unique person" has a chance at survival outside the womb. An embryo is a seed, not a seedling...and just as it doesn't bother me to see a seed fail to root, it DOES bother me to see a tree in the process of growing uprooted. It is my belief that God does not imbue a soul into someone's being until it is REASONABLY formed in the likeness of a human and is capable of at least a chance of life outside the womb...these test tube embryos could go a long way to helping such life and, then again, they might not--but we will never know until RESEARCH is allowed!

43 posted on 11/07/2006 11:25:25 AM PST by meandog (While Bush will never fill them, Clinton isn't fit to even lick the soles of Reagan's shoes!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Jaded; luckymom
Patricia Heaton and someone from the St. Louis Cardinals.

Yes, it was starting pitcher Jeff Suppan of the World Champion St. Louis Cardinals. In addition were Kansas City Royals player Mike Sweeney and Super Bowl XXXIV MVP Kurt Warner, then of the St. Louis Rams (1999 season). Kurt is very public about his Christian faith and spoke at the Billy Graham crusade in St. Louis (1999).

44 posted on 11/07/2006 11:29:31 AM PST by Forest Keeper (Vote NO on MO Amend. 2. Out-of-staters, come to St. Louis to make sure your vote counts!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: meandog
Ah, so there's some magic point in time when suddenly it becomes a baby. Sorry, I don't buy it. But if it makes you feel better, keep believing that. Are you denying that when sperm meets egg, that you don't have a living being? It's clearly living, it now has all of it's DNA. Just because it can't survive outside of the womb doesn't make it any less of a person. Is a person on life support not a person just because they need it to stay alive? Is a person that happens to be born without a part of their body not a person because of that?

To take your seed/seedling metaphor, I see the egg and the sperm as a seed. Once the egg and sperm meet, the baby suddenly begins to grow at enormous speed. At that point, I would liken the baby to a seedling.

45 posted on 11/07/2006 11:32:45 AM PST by Kaylee Frye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: meandog
lol...yeah.

You said belief and fact, they are not the same. My point is taxes being taken from some to pay for what is offensive and wrong in their judgement should be avoided.

46 posted on 11/07/2006 11:37:14 AM PST by fml
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: meandog
Jeb did not leave Lee "blind" on the approach to Gettysburg contrary to the movie Gettysburg and certain authors.

Mosby (who is on your bad list) came to Stuart after Brandy Station and told Stuart that he could inflict serious damage on the Army of the Potomac and confuse his plans by passing around Hooker's army and Washington and then rejoining Lee in Pennsylvania.

Stuart communicated to Lee this plan.

On June 23, Stuart received communication from Lee (signed off by Longstreet) that okayed the Stuart's plan. Stuart was to meet Early's advance at York...but to go quickly. Lee also said in this letter that Stuart's plan might be the quickest way for him to get to Pennsylvania since the roads from Shepardstown and Williamsburg were filled with infantry, artillery, and supply trains.

Lee went on to say that if Stuart chose to ride around the Union Army, then Early would look for him at York or communicate to Stuart where the army was concentrating.

The next day, Stuart executes the plan. He takes with him Rooney Lee's, Fitz Lee's and Hampton's brigades, leaving with Lee Robertson's and Jones' brigade, under command of Brigadier General B.H. Robertson.

To this force was added Jenkins' brigade, which constituted the advance of Ewell's corps in Pennsylvania, was fully equal in numbers to the brigades which accompanied Stuart. He left Lee more men than he took and Jones and Robertson were very capable commanders.

Stuart's appearance in and around Washington caused Hooker to delay Sedgwick's Sixth Corps (also the AOP's largest corp) from marching with the army as Sedgwick was left to keep an eye on Stuart.

On June 30, Stuart engages Kilpatrick at Hanover. From the newspapers, he learns that Early was heading toward York and has no reason to believe that Lee's plans to consolidate the army at York has been disrupted.

Early has turned around and is headed back to Gettysburg. He leaves no word for Stuart, though parts of his column pass not more than 7 miles from Stuart.

Because word was not left, Stuart looses two days pressing on to the Susquehanna when word reaches him to make haste to Gettysburg.

Now, the main problem with the "Stuart left Lee blind" argument is (1) that it must be proven that Stuart really did leave Lee blind. He did not. He left Lee ample cavalry. Lee chose not to use Robertson and Jones, leaving them to guard the Valley passes. He did call them up, but only after the enemy was engaged at Gettysburg, but they were available to him on June 23rd.

(2) Word reaches Stuart from Lee that the army is at Gettysburg. How did that happen? Because Lee knew where Stuart was... Knew he was at York because he (Lee) was the one who ordered him there.

There is an excellent book on the subject entitled The Sabre and the Scapegoat. It is well worth the read. I think you might be surprised what you find there from not only Stuart's staff, but from Mosby, Early, and finally Longstreet himself that supports the argument that Stuart followed his orders, and Lee's blindness was self-inflicted.

I am not pitting Lee versus Stuart. Both men have my deepest admiration and respect.

47 posted on 11/07/2006 11:52:15 AM PST by James Ewell Brown Stuart (Go back and do your duty as I have done mine. I would rather die than be whipped!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: meandog
As a Catholic, Caviezel holds to the teaching of the Church, which is that life begins at conception. The Church also forbids the creation of test tube embros in an effort to conceive for this exact reason, that the embryos are discarded. It is a non-negotiable position of the Church and also of the Right to Life movement.

You may disagree with it, but this is why Caviezel is opposing this amendment, and it is also why I oppose it. If you want further explanation, I will be happy to give it or you may go to the EWTN web site or the Vatican web site for further information.

48 posted on 11/07/2006 12:01:05 PM PST by Miss Marple (Lord, please look over Mozart Lover's and Jemian's sons and keep them strong.```````````````````````)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: James Ewell Brown Stuart
There is an excellent book on the subject entitled The Sabre and the Scapegoat. It is well worth the read. I think you might be surprised what you find there from not only Stuart's staff, but from Mosby, Early, and finally Longstreet himself that supports the argument that Stuart followed his orders, and Lee's blindness was self-inflicted. I am not pitting Lee versus Stuart. Both men have my deepest admiration and respect

Thanks for the clarification...you seem well-knowledgeable in CW facts and must have researched something I haven't, however, there seems to be ample fact that Lee was mightedly pissed in Stuart when he finally made an appearance at G'burg for some reason (according to historians). I blame the battle of G'burg onlittle-known general William "Extra Billy" Smith. Smith (twice governor and twice senator of Virginia) was a 67-year-old politician with Ewell's (previously Stonewall Jackson's) command when he fell on to the town. Typical of dirtbag politicians, he immediately began orating to the people of Gettysburg why the Confederacy was there, stalling miles upon miles of columns of butternut-clad Johnnies, and in the meantime someone discovered there was a shoe factory nearby--the rest, as they say, is history.

49 posted on 11/07/2006 1:24:55 PM PST by meandog (While Bush will never fill them, Clinton isn't fit to even lick the soles of Reagan's shoes!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple
As a Catholic, Caviezel holds to the teaching of the Church, which is that life begins at conception. The Church also forbids the creation of test tube embros in an effort to conceive for this exact reason, that the embryos are discarded. It is a non-negotiable position of the Church and also of the Right to Life movement.

You're free to believe in anything your heart tells you, but the fact is that a seed is a seed, while a living plant that bursts forth is something else entirely. I do not know when life begins in a human but I do know that it doesn't begin in a test tube. My instinct and reasoning tells me life is only life when it has a viable chance of living outside the womb (or somewhere in the 2nd trimester of pregnancy), therefore I am vehemently anti-late-term abortion; but as for 1st trimester when a woman may have been raped, or the ambiotic fluid tests tell her the fetus has no chance, or even when a 14-year-old girl makes a mistake with her boyfriend in the heat of passion...well, I guess you and I will have to disagree.

50 posted on 11/07/2006 1:34:56 PM PST by meandog (While Bush will never fill them, Clinton isn't fit to even lick the soles of Reagan's shoes!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-105 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson