Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What these people (Rush, et. al) are today aren't conservatives, they are neo-conservatives, and there is a HUGE difference. They are amoral, intellectually dishonest, and completely agenda-driven, and that I can't respect.
Amen to that.
Nixon was probably the last conservative President we had --- and his views were quite a ways to the left of most of today's Democrats!
He's distorting the truth for political gain and trying to effect the election. Why shouldn't he be called out on the carpet?
He has a foundation let him keep up the good work but now he has made himself a tool of the Dems.
While I don't agree that Fox is distorting anything, that's not why Rush was "calling him out on the carpet". Limbaugh accused Fox of exaggerating the effects of the disease by "going off his meds", which he clearly was not.
But while we're on the topic of honesty and clean campaigning, how do you feel about the racist ads that Corker is using in his Senate race against Ford? Or is that okay because Rush is a racist, too?
No, in all seriousness, what needs to happen here is that we need to have a free and open debate in this country no these issues and then put it to a vote. I don't like any groups trying to legislate via the courts. That's not what courts are for. That's what legislators are for.
This is a democracy. Let's have all sides have their say, put forth their evidence, then vote.
It's not a perfect system. Democracies have been wrong before. (Slavery comes to mind.) But that's what we've got.
With an emphasis on free and open. I think there has been a marked decline in free, open, and intellectually honest debate in this country for a few years now, and it's tragic and dangerous.
You could take them to the maternity ward to look at all those new "masses of cells." Or to the daycare to see more developed masses of cells. Or to schools to see even further developed cells learning. Or to any business or service industry seeing even more masses of cells contributing to society. Then maybe on to nursing homes to see very advanced masses of cells still in need of care.
You could educate them on all the great masses of cells who have contributed to society in a big way --- Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, FDR, Martin Luther King, Gandhi, Susan B. Anthony, Pasteur, Thomas Paine...even Jimi Hendrix and Bob Dylan!
Then explain to them how every one of those groups at one time was no more than a microscopic mass of cells inside their mother.
You make great points.
However, one could also make the point that since about half of all pregnancies are spontaneously terminated. So if God can end pregnancies for no apparent reason, then why can't we harvest embryonic cells for beneficial purposes such as curing disease?
I'm not saying I necessarily agree with that viewpoint. I am just reiterating the point that the whole issue is deeply complex, and there are layers and layers of ethical and moral issues to work through.
You don't have to be religious to have convictions about abortion any more than you have to be religious in order to have convictions about slavery, the death penalty, minimum wage, health care, etc.
If you're a citizen of this country, you should have convictions about those things whether you are religious or not.
No, you don't HAVE to be religious to have an opinion on abortion, but since religious organizations are fueling so much of the opposition to this topic, I assumed that the other poster's religious convictions shaped her viewpoint. If that's not the case, I apologize.
The whole question for abortion, and the stem-cell isue, for me, comes down to "when does life begin"- and to be honest, I don't believe that life begins at conception, but rather when a fetus develops with functioning organs. However, I am respectful of the fact that before that happens, you do have to have embryos, and I haven't reconciled my feelings regarding the whole embryo/stem-cell issue.
However, one could also make the point that since about half of all pregnancies are spontaneously terminated. So if God can end pregnancies for no apparent reason, then why can't we harvest embryonic cells for beneficial purposes such as curing disease?
First of all, while I respect everyone's religious views (especially my own ), that really shouldn't be the deciding factor in the debate. Your point "if God can end pregnancies for no apparent reason" is completely unprovable. Is God ending them? Prove it. If so, is it for no reason? Again, prove it. You can't and I can't either, so we should leave that reasoning out of the debate.
But just pretend for an instant that you could. One could then take the point further and say that God killed thousands of people in Indonesia with a tsunami. Would that then justify the government killing thousands of people in Indiana in order to cure a disease? No.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mb919
I am just reiterating the point that the whole issue is deeply complex, and there are layers and layers of ethical and moral issues to work through.
Exactly. And that's why we need to be having these debates.
No, you don't HAVE to be religious to have an opinion on abortion, but since religious organizations are fueling so much of the opposition to this topic, I assumed that the other poster's religious convictions shaped her viewpoint.
There are lots and lots of pro-life organizations out there with no religious backing. Feminists For Life, Democrats For Life, Allies for Peace, Libertarians For Life, PLAGAL (Pro-life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians), Punks For Life...just to name a few. A quick Google search could probably scrape up a bunch more.
they end because they were not meant to be, does God take all life? Does God give the people the disease as a way to take them? does god create the embryos just to be frozen or left to die? Or are they not subject to the same rules because god didnt create them a lab did?
Or are they not subject to the same rules because god didnt create them a lab did?
Clinical murder is still murder. Location is irrelevent.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
