Obama does something right.

[soap brain]

Stan Shannon wrote:

Considering that it was done in a constitutionally sanctioned fashion - no.

Hypocrite.

Stan Shannon wrote:

The constitution gives the government the authority to wage war - not to mass produce human fetuses.

'The Government' doesn't mass produce human foetuses. Your beloved 'People' do, the means by which I'll explain to you when you're older; they're also not going to stop anytime soon, so why should we not make it to the benefit rather than detriment of mankind?

[Stan Shannon]

Tim Craig wrote:

I hope lots of them.

And if they tasted good dipped in butter, you'd probably require even more of them.

Tim Craig wrote:

Wait until you need some gene therapy and we'll see how long you refuse it.

I would refuse any medical technology acquired from the use of human fetuses or any other form of experimentation on human beings.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[Stan Shannon]

Ravel H. Joyce wrote:

Hypocrite

Nothing hypocritical about it. I don't happen to believe that people who are morally opposed to war should be requred to fund it. But making war is a perfectly valid form of government activity and is sanctioned by the constitution. Embryonic research isn't.

Ravel H. Joyce wrote:

'The Government' doesn't mass produce human foetuses. Your beloved 'People' do, the means by which I'll explain to you when you're older; they're also not going to stop anytime soon, so why should we not make it to the benefit rather than detriment of mankind?

Embryos certainly can be massed produced, and will be now that the government has lifted the ban on tax payer money being used for that purpose.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[soap brain]

Stan Shannon wrote:

Nothing hypocritical about it. I don't happen to believe that people who are morally opposed to war should be requred to fund it. But making war is a perfectly valid form of government activity and is sanctioned by the constitution. Embryonic research isn't.

Yes, perhaps they saw into the future and decided that embryonic research was wrong. They also apparently decided that pocket calculators are an unconstitutional mode of mathematical computation within government schools.

Stan Shannon wrote:

Embryos certainly can be massed produced, and will be now that the government has lifted the ban on tax payer money being used for that purpose.

Good. Maybe they'll use those little bags of salty water to cure spinal muscular atrophy or nephroblastoma.

[Lost User]

As the result of the Bush ban, many scientists left the US for foreign countries such as UK to do this research. Would it not be beneficial to the United States to attempt to become world renowned leaders in this subject. By ignoring or condemning this subject will not make it go away.

[Stan Shannon]

There was no "Bush Ban". He merely disallowed federal taxes being used to create new embryonic stem cell lines. Otherwise, the research was unaffected. Which is why today there are any number of far more promising stem cell sources than embryos. The notion that there should be some concern about the moral limits of science is an entirely prudent concern. It is a good thing, not a bad thing.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[Stan Shannon]

Ravel H. Joyce wrote:

Yes, perhaps they saw into the future and decided that embryonic research was wrong. They also apparently decided that pocket calculators are an unconstitutional mode of mathematical computation within government schools.

In the US the constitution does not provide for 'government schools'

Ravel H. Joyce wrote:

. Maybe they'll use those little bags of salty water

They are human embryos.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[soap brain]

Stan Shannon wrote:

In the US the constitution does not provide for 'government schools'

OK then, burn them all!

Stan Shannon wrote:

They are human embryos.

Fine, clumps of bags of salty water.

[73Zeppelin]

Stan Shannon wrote:

But making war is a perfectly valid form of government activity and is sanctioned by the constitution. Embryonic research isn't.

Neither is boinking your wife on a Saturday night after a few beers. WTF is your point?

[Lost User]

Stan Shannon wrote:

moral limits

Should it be a case of where we feel at ease with our own conscience or is this the sole domain of religion, or are you looking towards religion as a guide and a pointer to how conscientious you should become?

[Oakman]

Tim Craig wrote:

You don't actually have to "believe" anything about it but go through the motions to please the power base.

That's the problem with those dam' liberals. They think they can just ignore the rules and claim the prize without running the race. Stan probably thinks that being a Christian doesn't require any limitations on one's behavior at all.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.

[Tim Craig]

Oakman wrote:

That's the problem with those dam' liberals. They think they can just ignore the rules and claim the prize without running the race. Stan probably thinks that being a Christian doesn't require any limitations on one's behavior at all.

Like most of the christians in the US and at least one I know of in Australia, it's whatever they define it to be. Or rather, what the snake oil salesman turned preacher tells them it is because branding it all important. Although for many, there's no thought involved, no dragging their asses out on Sunday morning and going to church, or other effort reqired. You just knee jerk tell the pollster that you're a christian when they ask. It's the 'merican thing to do. :laugh:

"Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke

I'm a proud denizen of the Real Soapbox[^]
ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTES!!!

[Stan Shannon]

Oakman wrote:

Stan, Christianity is a religion with very specific entrance requirements.

SO, thats like what... the use of christianity to rationalize evil? I'm not at all sure I understand your point. This really isn't even about religion. You could be the most rock ribbed atheist on the planet and still possess some vague glimmering clue about why it is wrong to process human beings into medicinal materials, food supplies or brick mortar.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[Stan Shannon]

Tim Craig wrote:

It's the 'merican thing to d

Is there any thing at all you like about the traditions of your country? How the hell did the Craig family sink so low?

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[Stan Shannon]

73Zeppelin wrote:

Neither is boinking your wife on a Saturday night after a few beers. WTF is your point?

There are people who belive that it is immoral to produce human embryos to experiment upon. That should be something a civilizaed person would, at the very least, acknowledge as being a heart felt humane concern given the history of such activities over the last century or so. It is a perfecly legitimate thing to believe. The question is why is there so much effort to demonize it...

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[Stan Shannon]

Richard A. Abbott wrote:

Should it be a case of where we feel at ease with our own conscience or is this the sole domain of religion, or are you looking towards religion as a guide and a pointer to how conscientious you should become?

What difference could it possible make? Religion is at least as valid a means of formulating ones moral perspective as is any other.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[Oakman]

Stan Shannon wrote:

I'm not at all sure I understand your point.

I'll type slow ;) My point is that one shouldn't wrap the mantle of Christianity around oneself if one is not a Christian. It's kind of like claiming to be a progammer because you write macros in Access.

Stan Shannon wrote:

You could be the most rock ribbed atheist on the planet and still possess some vague glimmering clue about why it is wrong to process human beings into medicinal materials, food supplies or brick mortar.

Do you really not get it, or are you adopting that line of lack of reasoning to hide the fact that you do?

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Stan Shannon]

Ravel H. Joyce wrote:

burn them all!

All what? government schools?

Ravel H. Joyce wrote:

Fine, clumps of bags of salty water.

The are human embryos. They are a point on a continuum of human life that we all emerged from. That deserves some amount of respect. The fact that you can be so easily convinced otherwise indicates how easy the process of dehuminization is. It is little wonder that their is such a close association politically between tis and the extermination of people by Nazis. It is a very similar process.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[Stan Shannon]

Oakman wrote:

My point is that one shouldn't wrap the mantle of Christianity around oneself if one is not a Christian. It's kind of like claiming to be a progammer because you write macros in Access.

ANd, you , of course, are the arbiter of who is and who isn't, I suppose. I am a christian, Jon. I don't need your approval one way or another. And my ancestors who owned slaves and killed Indians were christian also. Deal with it.

Oakman wrote:

Do you really not get it, or are you adopting that line of lack of reasoning to hide the fact that you do?

My argument is perfectly reasonable. We are discussing the processing of human beings into medical supplies. That is precisely the point. If you cannot comprehend the connection, it is your own ability to reason that is in question.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[Oakman]

Stan Shannon wrote:

How the hell did the Craig family sink so low?

Tim makes a valid point about the number of people in the US who claim to be Christian while demonstrating that they have no idea of what the sobriquet stands for, and you can only attack him as unpatriotic? For shame, Stan, for shame.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface