Posted on 01/24/2007 4:14:09 PM PST by Brilliant
You're dodging my question too. Why focus on stem cell research? The frozen embryo industry discards these every day. No one utters a peep.
Show me where it says in the Bible that an embryo is a human being.
One of the reasons I oppose federal funding of embryonic stem cell research is that I recognize some people (like you) don't agree with my conclusion that an embryo is not a human being. Personally, I don't think that anyone should be forced to pay taxes to fund activity that a large number of people think is immoral. But on the other hand, there are even more who don't agree with your conclusion. I don't see why those people should be prohibited from putting their own money into this research, if they want.
We live in a democracy, and the majority rules. In this case, you are in the minority.
Easy for you to say; you've already been born.
I just don't think the government should pay for it.
Well, at least you're half right.
Cordially,
Your question doesn't make any sense. You are confusing the incidental properties of human beings, such as age, with the essential nature of humanness. It is a category mistake, like asking what is the taste of the color blue.
1.What kind of being is it, if not a human being? We're not talking here about rhinoceroses or cacti here, you know. By defintion we are talking about human beings.
2.Are you a human being?
3.When did you begin to exist?
4.Were you ever an embryo?
5.When Jesus was concieved by the Holy Spirit, what kind of being was it that was conceieved?
Cordially,
As I stated, neither of us can prove when the human spirit is present with the alive being started at conception. If you don't believe there is such a thing as a human spirit, any age to exploit human beings is okay if you can create sufficient utilitarian desire for the harvest. There are a growing number who oppose the explotation of embryonic age life for in vitro fertilization, not the least of whom is Charles Krauthammer, a member of the President's Counsel On Bioethics. Conceiving embryonic humans to be stored for possible future use is an obscenity if one believes there is a human spirit and cannot know for sure that there is no human spirit in the embryo-aged human ORGANISMS. Krauthammer suggests conceiving only the number of embryos who will be implanted at a single episode of in vitro fert. That is a minimal position I could support, though I would prefer the practice be halted all together until the most efficient methodology could be developed via experimentation with other mammals, first.
That is a key feature to address in the debate over embryos ... the fact that the embryo is an ORGANISM, a HUMAN organism. And if you believe there is a human spirit, then it is essential to err on the side of life if we are to err at all. Focusing on embryonic stem cell exploitation is essential to speaking out in pro-life mode because your life and mine and billions of human lives all began at conception of the individual, even if a second or third individual may emerge followig the first individual life at zygote age.
The Bible is very clear that unborn alive humans are human beings of individual worth. Not being able to cite a specific date at which this human being has a human spirit is the heart of why we ought not be exploiting the earliest age in the lifetime of the individual human being.
Flushing 200 million dollars down the toilet.
Oh well,the biotech companies will make some cash which they in turn can turn around and donate (uhem) to politicians campaigns.
It's legalized theft and nothing more.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
"Krauthammer suggests conceiving only the number of embryos who will be implanted at a single episode of in vitro fert. That is a minimal position I could support..."
Let's face it... Neither your position nor my position is anywhere near being mainstream. The overwhelming majority of Americans not only have no opposition to the routine creation and destruction of embryos (which apparently you have a problem with), but they in fact want our GOVERNMENT to fund scientific research on those embryos as though they were lab rats (which I oppose). Nothing much is accomplished by us arguing about which of our two ultra-rightwing viewpoints is right.
"The overwhelming majority of Americans not only have no opposition to the routine creation and destruction of embryos ..." Aside from the real possibility that an overwhelming number have no idea of the facts by which to make informed choices in this area, I will agree. And that my fellow freeper is why I'm a pro-life activist who will step out on the limb of unpopular, speaking out ... I firmly believe we must be better informed and acting more for human life support than exploiting it. If the overwhelming number of our fellow Americans believe there is such a thing as the human spirit, it is time to look at this issue from the persepctive of what/whom is being insulted with willful destruction and exploitation of the alive unborn.
"When the Constitution was written, the law was that a fetus did not become a human until birth." Uh, again you are absolutely wrong. When the Constitution was written, birth was the date for citizenship and the Constitution said nothing about becoming a human.
Would you actually like to take a stab at answering the questions in writing?
Cordially,
Not really true. You are correct that the Constitution does not not use the term "human," but the Constitutional issue was not citizenship. The Constitutional issue I'm talking about is what is a "person?" That is the term used in the Fifth Amendment which prohibits the taking of life without due process of law.
However, when I said that the law was that a fetus doesn't become a human until birth, I wasn't really talking about the Constitution. I was talking about the Common Law. There were actually cases where people were charged criminally and civilly with killing a fetus. Generally, the courts said that a fetus did not have the same legal rights as a human until birth. At that point in history, live birth was considered too speculative.
So my point was that when they wrote "person" in the Constitution, they were most likely using the Common Law definition, which would not include a fetus.
That, however, does not mean that States did not have the power to protect a fetus or make abortion a crime. There are lots of things we pass laws about that don't involve the killing of a human. And the drafters of the Constitution did not intend to prevent States from regulating abortion. There were several States that already had laws against abortion, in fact. It wasn't until Roe v. Wade that abortion became a Constitutional right.
Got it. And the subpreme court making that Constitutional Right was decidedly beyond the scope of their powers, but the addition of the Doe v Bolton ruling created a stare decis acceptance of the wrong headed ruling in Roe.
??? I'm not getting involved in a meaningless discussion attempting to include faith into science. That story ended in 15th Century Italy and the Spanish Inquisition.
Thanks for the ping!
No problem, we can ignore you.
ok
Apparently 'we' can ignore me too. I had hoped to have a discussion on this issue. Touche
There's no rule against FReepers visiting DU, but it's customary to take an acid bath before returning. It's painful, but it does prevent copy/paste accidents like that one.
Our Lord said: "Fear ye not them that kill the body; but rather fear Him that can destroy both soul and body in hell"
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.