Posted on 11/07/2006 8:02:24 AM PST by NYer
Monday November 6, 2006
By Meg Jalsevac
HOLLYWOOD, November 6, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) Actor Jim Caviezel is defending his stance against Michael J. Foxs campaign ad which was used to promote politicians who support embryonic stem cell research. Caviezel insists that he is sympathetic to Foxs condition but wants to ensure that the public is informed of all the facts before they cast their votes.
Foxs 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
Well, I can see this devolving pretty quickly.
You have your opinion and I have mine. Mine just happens to be rooted in the Constitution.
I didn't. Similar to your request, please be factual when you reply to me.
I'll dissect your reply for you and that will have to be it. You aren't going to convince me you're right, and I'm not going to convince you you're wrong. That's what's great about America - we are all free to have our own opinions.
It is not a religious belief.
You're right - I said it was "opinion - a matter of philosophy, really." But if you're going to attempt to crawl out onto the branch that says people's opposition to embyonic stem cells is not rooted in their religious beliefs, then my advice to you is to watch out below. That's a very, very weak branch; not well attached to the tree called reality.
Religion deals with the supernatural. Human life is part of the natural world.
No arguments there.
It is an empirically provable scientific fact that a human embryo is a human being.
No, it is not. It is an empirically provable scientific fact that an embryo under the right conditions can grow into a human being. There is a huge difference between your statement and mine. Mine is correct.
Billions of people were at one time in their lives embryos.
Billions of people at one time were eggs and sperm. Shoot - all people were.
That embryo has the same DNA as it will have all along its development path.
Yes. So? The dead skin cells you've shed that are nestled between the keys of your keyboard have the same DNA as you too. Are they dead humans?
You have the same DNA that you had when you were an embryo immediately after you were conceived.
Yes. So?
What does it mean to be a human? I maintain my opinion that that is essentially a philosophical question.
"Mine just happens to be rooted in the Constitution."
You're partially right. However, you're missing why these ideas are enshrined and enumerated there, why the foundation for the Constitution is equally important, and why even a strict constructionist interpretation of the Constitution demands (albeit implicitly) we protect human life.
reply #96: "You're perfectly entitled to have a religious belief that says an embryo, an unfertilized egg, or an unrequited sperm cell is a human."
I never made any claim that a sperm or egg is a human being because they obviously are not. Your adding of them to your statement implying that I did is disingenuous.
I said it was "opinion - a matter of philosophy, really."
Um, no. Let's go back to reply #96, again. "You're perfectly entitled to have a religious belief"
People's opposition to embryonic stem cell research is rooted in biology and ethics. Ethics and morals are closely related to religion, but they are distinct from religion. So, one does not have to base their opposition to embryonic stem cell research on "religious beliefs."
Billions of people at one time were eggs and sperm.
No they weren't. Before the egg and the sperm met, the human being did not exist. Which is the point I have been trying to make. Human life begins at conception. Ask a biologist if you don't believe me.
Yes. So?
So, the DNA is the human blueprint for an individual human being. That human embryo has all the information that defines it as a unique human being.
Sigh.
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.