Re: #117417 by dale Headley on 12/01

Thank you dale Headley.  I hope you don’t mind, but I feel compelled to reiterate your point in CAPS.

Religion’s debased issue, in dale Headley’s words:

“BECAUSE SAVING THE UNBORN WAS NEVER THEIR PRIMARY MOTIVATION IN THE FIRST PLACE; IT WAS CONTROLLING WOMEN’S SEX LIVES.”

First saying this was Bushs vision is a lie. The man has no vision.
Second, they still have a long way to go to make this work, but they can try to make the first fully functional brain for transplant into the empty head of Bush.

Life means so much to this delusional bunch of pro-lifers then why don’t they give a riff once a child is born. And the politicians don’t care once you’re born as it make take away some of the $$$ they want for their latest fantasy war game. Let’s cut the medical and food for the poor, raise medical costs and medicines and gasoline and everything we use to to survive on and make it harder for the average person to afford to feed their family and heat the house in winter, but by God they better not have access to birth control and for sure not abortion, even if they cannot afford another kid. So what if big corporations send all the jobs out of the country, like the famous saying about the poor:“Let them eat cake!”

And as for a blastocyst-which is the stage of cell division used in stem cell research and not an embryo- having a soul. These are the same religious people who claim it is okay to kill, mistreat and abuse animals as they claim animals have no souls because their God supposedly said they don’t have souls and use that to justify their mistreatment towards animals. I realize not all people fit this group, but too many of the Christian nut jobs out there do.

This is more of the partisanship that so many politicians want.  It is also what makes our society weak and our politicians reek.  One side is black, the other white, but the ISSUE is gray.  I think we need to start standing up for gray.  Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that we NEED to be gray sometime.  It depends on the situation.

Yet it doesn’t mean we can’t discern what a reasonable conclusion would be, just because our answer is gray.  For instance, as far a politicans go we can look at their past voting records, put them in the context of the times and come to a fairly black answer concerning how they will handle themselves….most especially when the “heat is on”, given past history.

The Bill O’Really’s of the world like to take gray issues like this (precisely because they can’t be proven) then require a YES or NO answer.  Yet there isn’t a YES or NO answer to: does a fertilized egg have a soul?  We don’t even KNOW if ANYONE has a soul.  We CAN say as someone pointed out, that SOME BELIEVE there is a soul.  However, they can no more prove there is, than anyone can prove there isn’t.

I know….I know…..the whole I don’t BELIEVE there is a soul for the same reason I don’t BELIEVE in unicorns….etc.  However, even that “pat” answer says: I don’t BELIEVE, which realistically is the same as saying I do BELIEVE.  So where does that leave us?

It seems logical then, to say we must address both “sides” of this gray issue.  Which doesn’t mean that everyone MUST agree or conclude that it’s an OUR WAY OR THE HIGHWAY deal.  We need to use the knowledge we have, living in the world we do, to ascertain a REASONABLE conclusion.

Scientists as a group, do not have any animosity or flagrant disregard for life.  If someone can PROVE that, I’d certainly be interested to see it.  So it would be reasonable to conclude that they are doing what they at least reasonably regard as ethical and moral, given past history.

If we were to put world leaders/politicians into this same context obviously the outcome is quite different.  Given past history, world leaders/politicians have PROVEN themselves as very often unethical and immoral.

Some may want to ask themselves: “Why do I KNOW the earth goes around the sun and not vice versa?”  Have you seen it?  Did you do the measurements and calculations to MAKE SURE it was true?  So why do you BELIEVE it?

We should all know by now that BushCo members all fit into the category of political animal. That means they have no hearts and no brains, just appendages, lungs, mouths, teeth, reproductive organs, and organs to expel waste. Ellen is reaffirming the lack of memory and the absence of compassion. Over six years of activity have demonstrated the animal’s use of teeth to protect itself while it has spread excrement for all others to who follow to clean up

You and others keep clouding the issue with straw men, women, and fetuses. It never was an argument about USING stem cells collected from unused frozen embryos, it was about FUNDING research which utilized those embryos.

Sure, a lot of other people like you, but opposite, claimed that such use comprised murder of a living human being, but no one suggested making laws which forbade that murder, and indeed no one wanted to try, they just wanted to use it as an argument, and a poor one at that.

As in the game of sudoku, there was in this case another approach which got you through to the solution of the “problem,” so everyone can now say that the right-to-lifers were correct, and God has given man a new way to get stem cells, and of course everyone will be happy as a lark, except for one small thing.

The Bushitter gang of thugs don’t give a farthing for human life (look at all the innocent humans they have killed in Afghanistan and Iraq), all they care about is money, and they STILL aren’t going to fund stem cell research, no matter how you collect the cells.

It may well have been a POLITICAL decision to back the rtl groupies position on embryos as humans, but if those embryos stood between the Bushitter gang of thugs and their oil, you can bet they would burn them on a pyre like St. Joan’s in a heartbeat.

What I’m saying is that the Bushitter gang of thugs has not ever made a principled decision about anything, and it isn’t about to start now. If they somehow back YOUR position, you had better check your position to see how many people you may kill by taking it, because there is no way that the thugs let a little thing like human life get in their way.

I wonder what happened to the many ‘souls’ in the Petri dishes? Embryonic stem cells are pluripotent, can potentially give rise to human beings and therefore considered by fundamental christians and others as having ‘souls’. Consequently, according to them they cannot be used for other purposes. The new work using skin fibroblasts rendered them also pluripotent by the four gene transfections. According to the same misguided logic, they should also have ‘souls’ since they are pluripotent and have the potential to become human beings. So what is the difference? I think that neither the embryonic nor fibroblast pluripotent stem cells have ‘souls’ and should be able to be used in therapeutic applications.

BTW, what exactly is a soul?

According to Wikipedia:

“The soul, according to many religious and philosophical traditions, is the self-aware essence unique to a particular living being. In these traditions the soul is thought to incorporate the inner essence of each living being, and to be the true basis for sapience. It is believed in many cultures and religions that the soul is the unification of one’s sense of identity. Souls are usually considered to be immortal and to exist prior to incarnation”.

So there you have it!

This delusional moron has absolutely no shame.  He’s got to be laughing at how easy it is for him to wave his magic wand and the sheep will follow no matter how rediculous…