Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 77
  1. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
       #41  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    I'm talking about the slow devaluation of human life in deference to the quality of life. I'm talking about abortion, then embryo farming, then euthanasia, then??? We can already see this playing out in Europe. In the Netherlands, where euthanasia has been tolerated for over thirty years, not just for the terminally ill but also for the merely depressed, the debate over the last few years has centered around infanticide--the practice of killing disabled infants. In fact, this has been the practice for over fifteen years. What to do with all these dead babies? May as well use the tissue for transplant or research.
    Ah, I see. But as you guessed I don't see it that way.
  2. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
       #42  
    Quote Originally Posted by Theta
    The point to remember as this relates to the opening post about hypocracy is that if president Bush had NOT vetoed federal funding of *embryonic* stem cell research, he would have been a hyprocrit.
    It is his stance and reasoning for vetoing the bill that is hypocritical. Not the action itself. Wonder why he vetoed in a closed door session?

    Quote Originally Posted by Theta
    This president was elected by a majority
    You are both right and wrong with this statement. He was not elected by a majority of the amercan people in 2000, but was in 2004.

    Quote Originally Posted by Theta
    .........that he would not decide by polling the American public on every issue. The majority wanted a president with higher moral values than the last, and even if the majority do not agree with his decision on *embryonic* stem cell research funding (and I'm not saying the majority does disagree - I don't trust polls as they are themselves biased in wording chosen often), he made a decision based on his morals and *that* is an excellent change for the better!
    I can understand your distrust of polls, especially when they go against what you believe. But we also have to understand the president serves at our(the american citizen's) pleasure, not his.
    Last edited by NRG; 07/22/2006 at 06:31 PM.
  3. #43  
    Quote Originally Posted by aprasad
    Why don't the Bushes and the Brownback's close down the IVF clinics? Because they are hypocrites ...
    Of course they are, they're politicians. I'm not an apologist for Bush on all issues. Al I can say is that I think this particular veto was well advised. If nothing else, it might make some pause to consider and discuss and learn.
  4. #44  
    Quote Originally Posted by TomUps
    Excellent point. However, shouldnt the decision be the parents, and not some politician sitting in his office in Washington?
    Certainly. In fact, ownership of the decision is another reason for us not to use federal funds for the research. The financier is entitled to direct the effort.

    When you include federal funds, you specifically place decision making in the hands of politicians.
    Last edited by shopharim; 07/23/2006 at 07:58 PM.
  5. #45  
    Well, I have known a devout pro-life Christian couple who have gone through fertility treatments, but they made sure that there were not fertilized more embrios than they would implant... they wound up with twins. Responsible IVF treatments can be done if where is a will to do so.

    It is a myth that the only options are flushing the embrios or doing embronic stem-cell research on them.

    There are thousands of barren couples just as heartbroken as those who go thru IVF. Should not they have the option of adopting and implanting these young lives? Flushing them takes away this option.
    "Everybody Palm!"

    Palm III/IIIC, Palm Vx, Verizon: Treo 650, Centro, Pre+.
    Leo killed my future Pre 3 & Opal, dagnabitt!
    Should I buy a Handspring Visor instead?
    Got a Pre2! "It eats iPhones for Breakfast"!
  6. #46  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    Certainly. In fact, ownership of the decision is another reason for us not to use federal funds for the research. The financier is entitled to direct the effort.

    When you include federal funds, you specifically place decision making in the hands of politicians.
    My tax dollars are spent on 2000 pound bunker busters.
  7. TomUps's Avatar
    Posts
    22 Posts
    Global Posts
    28 Global Posts
    #47  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    My tax dollars are spent on 2000 pound bunker busters.
    Not sure what this has to do with the topic?
  8. #48  
    Wondering that myself. My tax dollars get spent on all kinds of stuff. Do yours? Maybe this is something new.
  9. #49  
    Quote Originally Posted by TomUps
    Not sure what this has to do with the topic?
    You're not?

    You read this
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    Certainly. In fact, ownership of the decision is another reason for us not to use federal funds for the research. The financier is entitled to direct the effort.

    When you include federal funds, you specifically place decision making in the hands of politicians.
    then this
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    My tax dollars are spent on 2000 pound bunker busters.
    and you arent "sure what it has to do with the topic"?

    I don't know what to say.
  10. #50  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    I don't know what to say.
    Perhaps you share the connection "bunker busters" and stem cell research.
  11. #51  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    Perhaps you share the connection "bunker busters" and stem cell research.
    Connection between bunker busters and stem cell ressearch? I thought your post was about your tax dollars being spent in ways that violate your beliefs.

    In the case of federal tax dollars "The financier is NOT entitled to direct the effort. Sorry, just not the way it works.
  12. #52  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Connection between bunker busters and stem cell ressearch? I thought your post was about your tax dollars being spent in ways that violate your beliefs.
    I made no such inference.
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    In the case of federal tax dollars "The financier is NOT entitled to direct the effort. Sorry, just not the way it works.
    That is precisely how it works. In fact, that is why your tax dollars are being spent in part on bunker busters--presumably in opposition to your beliefs.
  13. #53  
    I suppose you could make the case that the taxpayers are the financiers. However, we have appointed representatives to act on our behalf--BUT, according to their discretion.
  14. #54  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    I suppose you could make the case that the taxpayers are the financiers. However, we have appointed representatives to act on our behalf--BUT, according to their discretion.
    I must have misunderstood your post.

    I thought you were saying you dont want your tax dollars used because you oppose in vitro fertilization and stem cell research.
  15. #55  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    I must have misunderstood your post.

    I thought you were saying you dont want your tax dollars used because you oppose in vitro fertilization and stem cell research.
    I was replying to a comment from TomUps suggesting that the decision-making should be with parents, not a politician in his office in Washington DC.
  16. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #56  
    I don't get the IVF argument. IVF is about helping people have babies. I do believe there's a moratorium on federal funding for IVF. At least, there was. Even if there isn't, the distinction is helping to start a life with IVF versus destroying a life for embryonic stem cells. How is that hypocracy?
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  17. #57  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael
    I don't get the IVF argument. IVF is about helping people have babies. I do believe there's a moratorium on federal funding for IVF. At least, there was. Even if there isn't, the distinction is helping to start a life with IVF versus destroying a life for embryonic stem cells. How is that hypocracy?
    While the intents are different, the process/procedure is similar in principle.
  18. #58  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    What is the reason for vetoing this bill then?
    The Religious Right has been furious with the Bus Admin in the second term. Every hot-button issue Rove threw out to manipulate their little jihadist a$$e$ this Admin completely dropped after the election.

    This veto was throwing them a bone in the lead up to the '06 election. Nothing more, nothing less.
  19. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #59  
    Actually, I think he said he'd do this when he was campaigning. You could call it a bone I guess, but it doesn't represent a shift for their benefit. He already had this stance.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  20. #60  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael
    Actually, I think he said he'd do this when he was campaigning. You could call it a bone I guess, but it doesn't represent a shift for their benefit. He already had this stance.
    Um yea. That's what I'm saying.
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions