Why do the religious right bother to take medications?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Schmika @ Aug 13 2006, 11:14 PM) [snapback]302778[/snapback]</div>

I agree with Scmika here.

I must have missed the memo in Sunday School class that those in the religious right were supposed to hate science. That's probably news to my nephew who is getting a PhD in Organic Chemistry. Never in all of my 20+years of being in the religious right have I heard anything about the inherent evil of the scientific method. Now, anything that is good can be used for evil purposes. If you look back over the history of science, you can find many Christians who were very much into science. Examples. I continue to meet well educated scientific individuals who appear to be evalengical/fundamentalist Christians.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ScottR @ Aug 14 2006, 04:15 PM) [snapback]303166[/snapback]</div>

I believe you are right and I apologise. I was using the word fetus to mean a post-conception and pre-birth entity. That was incorrect usage.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(EricGo @ Aug 14 2006, 07:04 PM) [snapback]303235[/snapback]</div>

My stance is quite sane. All I am saying is that the abortion debate and the stem cell debate have the same root issue. In both cases an embryo is terminated and the question is "Is that embryo a human?"

Starvation is a very different issue. It involves a group that all sides agree are human and therefor have rights. There is also a difference in not sustaining anothers failing existance and actively terminating it. I have no desire to say we should ignore hunger, but it is not an equivilent debate.

I don't know of any group that condems the death of spem or eggs, as these are each half of a full set of DNA. The commonly debated starting points are conception and birth, both of which exclude sperm and eggs.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee @ Aug 14 2006, 07:58 PM) [snapback]303254[/snapback]</div>

I've recently been pondering about the second half of this statement. It's something that I used to fiercely believe, and defend, since as a former engineer in R&D, one could claim some scientific legitimacy. But lately I've been wondering if the chasm between the two (at least the one that exists in the West) is an illusion, or at least, a hurdle in gaining knowledge. I question this, because I don't really know what I don't know, but I suspect that my discomfort in stepping outside of my own paradigm limits what I CAN know.

A little OT, but I'm not so sure anymore that science and spiritualism should be so separate and distinct.

I'm also not so sure anymore that sharing OT ruminations late at night is a good idea either....

 

What if the stem cells were obtained from umbilical cords? The potential medical benefits are huge; surely we can start somewhere.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Schmika @ Aug 14 2006, 10:44 PM) [snapback]303315[/snapback]</div>

it is indeed a small group of people in the larger view of things.

however, percentage wise, i think you probably have fewer of them up there by you than we have down this way. thank your lucky stars... :mellow:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hawkjm73 @ Aug 14 2006, 11:09 PM) [snapback]303336[/snapback]</div>

Not even close.

Abortion can span the gamut from a sperm to a fetus just before birth. *Your* starting points for debate are NOT **commonly accepted**, are certainly not mine, and are completely arbitrary.
Stem cells can be culled or cultivated, from embryonic to those present in every single adult.

But why bother with science and fact, when dogma and ignorance is there to point the way ?

In the meantime, explain to me why one should expend effort, money and capital to prevent the destruction of pin-sized human embryos you could not differentiate from that of a cockroach if your life depended on it, while ignoring children dying of hunger. When people like you learn to respect *all* life, you will have some moral ground to stand on. In the meantime, I find the hypocrisy boring.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(EricGo @ Aug 14 2006, 08:55 PM) [snapback]303360[/snapback]</div>

So, what you are saying is it is easier for people like YOU to stand on immoral grounds? :huh:

What has me baffled is that godless liberals are all for protecting the life of convicted murderers who have proven themselves not worthy of being allowed to live amongst civilized man, but think nothing about allowing a viable, unborn baby - who has not had the opportunity to prove their worth to humanity - to be murdered by choice of the mother.

On the other hand, you have god fearing conservatives who think all unborn human life is precious, but don't think twice about executing living human beings who are sentenced to death.

WTFsUWT?

I fall somewhere between . . . and as such am torn both ways. :mellow:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sufferin' Prius Envy @ Aug 15 2006, 02:26 AM) [snapback]303397[/snapback]</div>

No, genius. I am saying that my morality, such as it is, is not turned into a joke from hypocrisy.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(EricGo @ Aug 14 2006, 10:55 PM) [snapback]303360[/snapback]</div>

to *your* points
1. the "commonly accepted" starting point is based on "commonly accepted" medical terminology; which follows:

But scientific and medical authorities including the NIH, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the Association of Reproductive Health Professionals define the beginning of pregnancy as the implantation of the fertilized egg in the uterus, and "contraception" is anything that prevents pregnancy by preventing ovulation, preventing fertilization (joining of egg and sperm) or preventing implantation of the fertilized egg in the uterus.

Senator Whipple's bill simply makes clear that methods of contraception that prevent ovulation, prevent fertilization, or prevent implantation are not abortion, since abortion ends a pregnancy, and no pregnancy exists if implantation has not occurred.

source http://democracyforvirginia.typepad.com/de..._whipples_.html

By Webster Dictionary



Abortion, in its most common usage, refers to the voluntary, or induced, termination of pregnancy, generally through the use of surgical procedures or drugs. As a result, birth does not take place. Medically, the term also refers to the early termination of a pregnancy by natural causes ("spontaneous abortion" or miscarriage), which ends one in five of all pregnancies, usually within the first thirteen weeks, or to the cessation of normal growth of a body part or organ

source http://dictionary.laborlawtalk.com/Abortion

it appears hence, that yours is the arbirtrary starting point in the debate.

2. "But why bother with science and fact, when dogma and ignorance is there to point the way ?"
further proves that when logical and source material is lacking to substantiate your point simply insulting your opponent will suffice to win the arguement.

3. "When people like you learn to respect *all* life"
many on the "christian" side of the fence do indeed do a great deal to ease the sufferings of the unfortunate (although much of my basis for this is from personal experience and not "quotable" source material). It is also to be allowed that apparently many "christians" (and i am defining that term very broadly as those that claim to follow the teachings of Christ) have a much broader definition of what is "life" than you currently allow, thus it would be they who would find your stance both hypocritical, illogical and lacking in significant moral standing.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Schmika @ Aug 14 2006, 10:44 PM) [snapback]303315[/snapback]</div>

Well said

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sufferin' Prius Envy @ Aug 14 2006, 11:26 PM) [snapback]303397[/snapback]</div>

I'm SICK of hearing that CRAP! I am one of those godless liberals, and I am tired of being lumped into some UTTERLY STUPID stereotype. :angry: :angry: :angry:

I fully support the death penalty, when it is deserved. There are very few cases that actually deserve it, and no one person is qualified to determine when it is deserved. I am also against abortion, except in medically necessary cases, rape, or incest. And yes, I realize those are a very small number of the total abortions. I also know that many unborn human lives are lost to natural causes that could have been prevented with appropriate medical care.

Embryonic stem cell research, I'm not 100% convinced on yet, not even 90%. I'll wait until more information is available. My problem with Bush vetoing government support is that it is a promising avenue of research, and he has decided that the government should not support it. I'm all for preventing "joke" research, but this is serious research with possible results that could greatly improve the quality of life for many people. What would have been better would be to promote government funding for a time to determine if the research could give viable results, and if something good comes of it, continue funding. If not, drop it. ALL leaders should have the capability to push aside their personal beliefs and the voices of the misguided masses and act in a way beneficial to society.

As for the religious right, here's my definition. People who believe their belief system is absolutely correct, and anyone or anything calling their beliefs into question, even the religion they profess to follow, is immoral, heathen, evil, or whatever else they can think of at the time. They push their beliefs onto others and expect everyone to instantly "realize" that their beliefs are correct. They believe that their society's laws should be molded to reflect their beliefs and make any other beliefs or actions criminal. As an example, those who believe that gay marriage should be banned because it is against some tenet of their religion fit into the religious right. If there is a legitimate reason for banning it, please, tell me. Until then, allow it.

Ok, while I'm in a ranting mood, I've got some commissioners to complain to.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(EricGo @ Aug 14 2006, 11:55 PM) [snapback]303360[/snapback]</div>

Exactly which group considers the death of a sperm to be abortion?

If conception and birth are arbitrary starting points for human life, then any other starting point is just as arbitrary. There are lots of mile-stones in pre-birth development. Which one would you like to use? You still have to answer whether an individual embryo at a given stage is a human life. If you answer no, then neither abortion or stem cell harvesting is a problem to your ethics. If you answer yes, then you will need to justify the destruction of the embryo against your ethics.

What group has been fighting forms of stem cell cutivation other then embryonic? I don't know of any. The debate has been over the cells sourced from embryos.

Exactly which facts have you presented that invalidate my supposition that both abortion and embryonic stem cell harvisting require the destruction of life form who's status as human must be decided?

Neither proceding nor ending embryonic stem cell research will solve hunger. Massive amounts of money will be spent either way. Perhaps you would like to donate the proceeds from the sale of your house or car to the starving? You and I both know that neither of us is going to do that. People are selfish as a whole, and likely always will be. Attempting to imply that any given source of funding can simply be diverted to solve another problem is a red herring.

You've already called your own respect for "*all* life" into question by denegrating the cockroach.

Exactly what hypocritic statment have I made? I haven't even declared my stance on the question. I have simply said that the question of the start of human life must be answered and abortion and embryonic stem cell research are thoroughly tied up in the answer.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(EricGo @ Aug 14 2006, 08:55 PM) [snapback]303360[/snapback]</div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sufferin' Prius Envy @ Aug 14 2006, 11:26 PM) [snapback]303397[/snapback]</div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jtullos @ Aug 15 2006, 08:32 AM) [snapback]303521[/snapback]</div>

Sorry if you take offense jtullos.

I was returning the favor for EricGo's use of an UTTERLY STUPID stereotype.

If the use of UTTERLY STUPID stereotypes bothers you, talk to EricGo too.

If you are only bothered by UTTERLY STUPID stereotypes which offend you on a personal basis . . . talk to yourself.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sufferin' Prius Envy @ Aug 15 2006, 06:11 PM) [snapback]303835[/snapback]</div>

Sorry, I must have missed his stupid stereotype. He stated (basically) that the people who are dead set against using embryonic stem cells typically ignore world hunger. And this is true, at least in my experience, for over half of them. Granted, this is based on my personal experiences here and in Mississippi. But the majority of people I have talked to regarding embryonic stem cell research are also people who I know are against feeding the hungry. They believe that if people can't feed themselves, they don't deserve to eat. And as a side note, though relevant, EVERY ONE of them claimed to be a Republican. That has been my experience in the matter. So while it may be a stereotype, it is unfortunately accurate. It offends me only in the sense that it should not be true.

There are quite a few stereotypes that do offend me that do not include me personally, and I will address them if three conditions are met: 1) I know enough to accurately object. 2) I am aware of the stereotype being used. 3) I'm not feeling too lazy at the moment. Usually, if something is directly against me, I'm more likely to meet #3, and #1 is already met.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jtullos @ Aug 16 2006, 10:58 AM) [snapback]304068[/snapback]</div>

So if, in one persons experience, over half of a group exhibits a trait, then it's okay to assume that trait is constant over the group and stereotype it to each individual? That sound to me to be exactly why the idea of stereotypes are hated.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hawkjm73 @ Aug 16 2006, 11:31 AM) [snapback]304210[/snapback]</div>

I never said it was ok. I was explaining why I did what I did, and why I said nothing regarding the original stereotype.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TJandGENESIS @ Aug 14 2006, 01:53 AM) [snapback]302888[/snapback]</div>

I'm only speaking for myself; I don't make fun of the religious right, I merely criticize their hypocrisy and resent their exclusiveness (and usually, closed-minded hatred of those not like them).

Notice I say "religious right," not religious people. Jim Wallis, for example: that is a man of God who practices what he preaches. I don't criticize him because he doens't preach exclusivity or hate. I only wish there were more of his ilk around.

I don't get the hate, either. Unfortunately, when people criticize the religious right, it's usually in defense.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(livelychick @ Aug 16 2006, 08:54 PM) [snapback]304400[/snapback]</div>

Everyone is a hypocrit just accept it and move on...your post just proves my point, as will your response

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(buyaninsight @ Aug 17 2006, 12:22 AM) [snapback]304495[/snapback]</div>

No, everyone is a spell check...

'hypocrit' is spelled 'hypocrite'.

Wait. Does picking on spelling, the word hypocrite in this case, mean that I should not pick on spelling? Dang it.

I am he as you are me and we are all together. B)