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. 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
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!
Mainly and quite simply because it is directly opposed to the divine and natural laws.
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!
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Please see post #50, Kaylee...BTW are you and Miss Marple the same person? Twin sisters?
"somebody explain to me why he and others see this as infanticide?"
It destroys a human life that is at its very earliest stage of human development.
"? 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. "
Yes...couples pay to have these embryos created and then frozen.
These embryos are human beings in the earliest stages of human development.
". 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..."
True and this is very sad that many lives are created - and then destroyed.
"AND, it is my BELIEF that an embryo is just that--an embryo--until it is implanted and becomes capable of becoming fetal material."
This is YOUR BELIEF.
Many believe that human life begins at fertilization.
This is the point where the mother's and father's genetic material unite and result in one unique human life that carries its very own DNA code and begins the process of human development. This occurs prior to implantation.
It is a stage of human development - and so is implantation - and so is gestation - and birth - and infancy - and so on.
"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?"
You are right. Many oppose the pill, RU287, and Plan B because of this.
Many were disappointed in Bush's approval.
There's a completely legit reason why embryonic stem cell research is absolutely and morally wrong. And while it's rather complicated (not to mention difficult to explain), I'll do my best to try to put it in plain English...
Ia. The keys to understanding these lies in several places--namely being Scripture, Catholic teachings through the ages, papal documents (e.g. encyclicals and pastoral letters) and the Magisterium. Though, a recent gift given to the Church by Pope John Paul II is the Theology of the Body, which combines these and more into a coherent strengthening of why the Church teaches the way it does.
Ib. Directly related to this is the principle that all that God creates is very good in and all itself.
II. This includes sexual activity, which is a continuous sign of the marital sacrament; and children, which are gifts from God Himself.
III. God, the Author of Life Himself creates each life--it is He who formed each of us into who we are. From the moment of conception, it is He who has ordained that soul, gave it the right to Life and bestowed upon it the very same human dignity that you and I carry. These three things are present in every human at the time of conception--they are given by God, and it is only He, in His infinite wisdom, who has the authority to take it away.
IV. While an embryo may not necessarily have the ability to survive in this world on its own--or completely resemble a human being, it is undoubtedly in the process of being shaped by God.
V. Embryonic stem-cell research is then not only denying this person their dignity (and their right to life), it is also man denying the awesome grace and love of God and instead grasping for some of His power.
Finally, these reasons are a significant part of why Catholic teaching holds that in vitro is morally wrong...
(NYer, wagglebee; lj; et al.~ If I left something out or something's in error, feel free to jump in) 8^)
That's very interesting.
But if you hoped to convince me that Roman Catholic dogma should be the basis for public policy in the United States of America, you failed.
What you feel or believe about it interesting, of course, but it's not determinative. What is determinative, bioloically, is the totipotency of the initial cell containing the human genome.
And yes, primcipled people who object to the killing of living human beings, object also to the discarding of embryos, and the use of abortifacient hormones for the purpose of birth control.
The "owning" of another human at any age or any stage is as abhorerent as chattel slavery, and for the same reason.
The Catholic Church does not require the government to follow its teachings. However, there are some positions proposed by and/or for government on which we do not agree, and it is our duty to speak against those policies and also to exlain why we believe this way to others. It is your choice whether or not to agree, and it is every other voter's choice as well. We simply hope to convince enough voters of the rightness of our position.
"But if you hoped to convince me that Roman Catholic dogma should be the basis for public policy in the United States of America, you failed."
That's clearly not my goal. Yes, we live in a truly democratic and free society--and for no specific religion or denomination's dogma should be the final arbiter of what is wrong for ALL of society.
This does NOT mean that it should NOT be taken into account. Indeed much of what the Church teaches a.) goes back to Christ, if not before, and b.) most all Protestant denominations were in general agreeement until the late 1940s.
Right now, I'm concerned with the issue from a Catholic standpoint, and not from the democratic or legal (at least not yet).
But if you want a brief and blunt answer on why this has exact relevance (theology aside), here it is:
Whether you (or anyone else, for that matter) admit it or not, the very fundamental core of American law--the very mantle on which the Constitution sits on is Judeo-Christian teaching. And what I outlined, while now (sadly) is only held by the Catholic Church, used to be a fundamental Christian teaching, and thus became part of the very core of who we are as a society and as a key principle of our law.
Yes, they definitely didn't have in-vitro fertilization back then. But the teaching that sex was holy and children are a gift from God did. And the Founding Fathers took that into account. Thus the principle stands just as vital and just as honored today in our country as it did 230+ years ago.
Whether we want to acknowledge it is a different matter...
Nope, not Catholic, I just happen to agree with them on abortion. I do not agree with Catholics on the withdrawal method or condoms, but I do agree with their stance on abortion after conception.
Couldn't say it any better myself. :)
Meandog, your arguments are not logical. You have apparently made your decision about when life begins, but really don't have anything to back it up.
If you don't know when life begins, then how can you know it doesn't begin in a test tube?
If life is only life when it has a viable chance of living outside the womb, then 50 years ago "life" began at a different time than it does now?
You also said earlier that God doesn't put a soul into a person until it reasonably resembles a human being....exactly when does that happen? Are you sure? What if you're wrong? What if the soul goes in a week earlier than you think?
Lastly, your referral to "quickening" makes me doubt seriously your real knowledge of this subject. Quickening is when the mother feels the baby. It is subjective and varies based on lots of things other than the development of the baby. I hope you will approach this from a more logical perspective....Look at the facts, and then decide when you believe the embryo becomes human, and please remember that whatever conclusion you come to will be your belief not fact, because nobody really knows when the soul attaches. I'd just rather be wrong in the direction of not destroying humans with souls as opposed to the other way.
O2
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.