Arondale

I'm not evading or being hypocritical. Here is the thought behind my post. The initial point of this thread was a discussion of a book that states that republicans are overstepping the constitution and using big-government ideas, which would go against the usual republican platform. Then I was asked by J.A. if the government should be in the business of defining marriage and whether that is limited government. J.A. started this thread and stated he agreed that republicans are overstepping their boundaries; therefore, I implied from this question that he was stating that by expecting the government to define marriage, republicans are not preaching a limited government. SO, my point was not to simply say the democrats do it too. My point was that J.A. is implicating only republicans in the fight against gay marriage - I was simply pointing out that this battle initially started under Clinton, a democrat. I also pointed out that if you consider this to be overstepping the boundaries of the republican party, you would also have to face the facts that a large majority of the country supports this strategy as evidenced by 38+ states the have passed marriage amendments, many by an overwhelming majority. You can't attribute general claims made by people to me - find me in this thread where I claimed "that government is too intrusive into personal life". Big and small government is not always black and white. You'll find different opinions of that between republicans and democrats and between fellow republicans. Until I state my exact beliefs, you can't pull something out of space and call me hypocritical.

So then who is going to take in all the "unwanted" homeless people and care for them? Who is going to take in all of the "unwanted" elderly that are piling up huge medical bills? Who is going to take in all the "unwanted" prisoners maxing out our prisons? Who is going to take in all of the "unwanted" foster children who were born to loving parents that made some bad choices? The argument for abortion just because some of those children born will be unwanted is garbage. If we define the value of people based on whether they are wanted or not then we should round up every homeless person and kill them; we should kill every elderly person who has no family and is simply costing the healthcare system money; we should kill every criminal if they show no signs of rehabilitation; we should kill every foster child regardless of their circumstances. I'll start sending the homeless, elderly, etc. to your house since you seem willing to "buck up" and abide by this policy.

Why don't you ask Clinton that since he signed the Defense of Marriage Act, which explicitly recognizes for purposes of federal law that marriage as "a legal union of one man and one woman as husband and wife" and by stating that spouse "refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife." Don't pin this just on Republicans. In the mean time, ask the 38+ states that have passed gay marriage amendments. That is hard to ignore and that is not just the evangelical Christians passing those votes as many have won by huge majorities.

Thanks - I figured you could give some more detail and I didn't feel like doing a ton of research on my own. My question/concern is when this is going to end. If the democrats filibuster any judicial nominee that is pro-life, you know that in the future Republicans will remember that and do the exact same to the Democrats. Regardless of whether Frist is right or wrong on his facts, I can't help but think he has a point in that it does not seem right that the senate, representatives elected by the people, are unable to even vote on the judges. I realize some may think I am taking this stance because I am a Republican and I am pro-life, but the implications extend far beyond the abortion issue. I just see no end to this filibuster strategy. I also don't see how this allows for proper representation of the people. After all, we vote for senators based on who we support and believe in, and we then expect them to be able to be an extension of our vote in the government. If they are not being allowed to even vote, how is this right? With the current situation, in effect the Democrats are using the filibuster to act as the majority and I just don't see how that can be right. I'm not sure I believe in completely eliminating the filibuster, but it seems to me that something needs to be done. Otherwise, big issues like abortion and gay marriage will continue to divide Republicans and Democrats unless one side gains a 60 vote majority. Any suggestions?

Just a couple questions for you Mickey. Since you seem to be very knowledgeable on the Constitution, what is your opinion of the following quote from Bill Frist on the filibuster problem: I think the important thing for the American people is to understand that never in over 200 years of Senate history has a minority, using a procedural tool, the filibuster, denied the majority the opportunity of giving advice and consent. And that's our only responsibility. It's the president of the United States who makes these appointments. Our constitutional responsibility is to advise and consent. The only way we can do that is vote yes or vote no. But just allow us to vote. What it basically — it's called the nuclear option. It's really a constitutional option. And what that means is that the Constitution says you, as a Senate, give advice and consent, and that is a majority vote. And then you vote on that, and that takes 50 votes to pass. And I think it clearly becomes a viable, viable option if we see a minority denying the majority the opportunity to express advice and consent. Also, what do you think are the options when we have individual judges overruling the people? I'm speaking of gay marriage, where states are passing gay marriage amendments left and right, but several are being shot down by judges. I can't name all the cases, but I know in Louisiana the voters approved the constitutional amendment with almost an 80% majority vote but then a district judge ruled it null and void based on opinion. What options are left for voters other than a constitutional amendment? I'm just asking for opinions, I'm by no means an expert in this area. I don't necessarily see these two cases as big government, etc. when it seems to me that the constitutional rights are currently being withheld and republicans are looking for solutions to the problem.

When you get a group that so clearly votes against their own moral interests, you just have to step back and realize that you're not dealing with an informed section of the populace. Money isn't everything. If worse economic conditions meant an end to 1.3 million babies being aborted every year, no government sponsored embryonic stem cell research, abstinence education, upholding marriage between a man and a woman, a recognition of moral absolutes, etc. then I would take the worse economic conditions anyday. If you consider living a comfortable life most important, then I think you may be the one who needs to be informed.

Just a question for everyone arguing for gay marriage. Where does morality come into play in all of this? I can give everyone all the reasons why I am against gay marriage, but the foundational reason is based in my faith. As a Christian, I believe homosexuality is morally wrong. I believe it is a choice and nothing more. So even before considering gay marriage, I believe homosexuals are sinning in their lifestyle. That being the case, there is no way I can condone these people continuing in their lifestyle, let alone being granted equality in marriage. My question is basically meant to ask whether you believe in moral absolutes. Homosexuality has always existed, but it has not always been so widely accepted in society, yet several have posted that because society accepts it that is the very reason why it should be allowed. Others have argued that if it doesn't personally affect me then it should not be an issue. The thing missing in these arguments and others similar to them is any reference to morality. Is morality defined by what society believes at the time? Is morality only a personal matter and not a societal matter? Is morality relative for each individual? I think most of you would be unable to argue the fact that our country and society in general has seen a steady decline in the importance of morality. From television to movies to prominent people, morality is on the decline. I will fight gay marriage not merely on the principle of homosexuality, but also on the belief in a moral absolute. I do not believe that morality changes as society changes. I believe the moral decline of society is a serious issue and I believe gay marriage is just one more step down that road. This isn't about what is normal or what is mainstream, it is about a moral absolute. The point of arguing about incest, pedophiles, polygamy, etc. is simply to point out that the support for gay marriage is ignoring the moral implications. Supporting gay marriage means you are only concerned about equality and are ignoring any issues of whether it is morally right or wrong. I shouldn't say it is ignoring the moral implications, but it is either defining morality on public opinion or using equality to define morality. If you take this approach on morals with homosexuality, then there is no reason to believe that down the road polygamists and others could simply point to the homosexual argument and demand the same treatment.

You can't compare Michael Moore to the "evangelical right" as a whole. They kept people like Falwell out of sight because he is on the extreme end and does not represent the base of evangelical Christians like myself. GW never hid the base of evangelical Christians, as he himself has never been afraid to quote scripture and mention God. Evangelical Christians like Frist and Santorum have not been hidden - those men are much more representative of evangelical Christians than Falwell. Using your theory, you would equate Bill Frist to Michael Moore, which is ridiculous. I would also disagree with your views on gay marriage. If you read the particulars of why GW is seeking the constitutional ammendment, he is doing so because the courts are currently not allowing states to decide the matter. States are passing gay marriage ammendments and then having the courts strike it down. GW is correct in saying that if the activist courts are not going to allow the states to decide the matter, then the only course of action is to go to the Constitution. John Kerry and GW believed the same thing, that it should be left up to the states - but John Kerry refused to recognize that the courts were taking that right away from the states. GW recognized that and realizes the only step to combat that is to ammend the Constitution. How is it "pandering to the evangelicals" when over 40 states now have passed gay marriage laws? How can you say "very few . . . find this issue something that threatens the fiber of American life" when over 40 states have passed these laws? Don't you think the supporters in those 40+ states are angry their vote is being nullified by activist judges? The majority of the American people, not just evangelical Christians, want marriage defended and yet a few unelected officials are witholding their right. This is not about pandering to one group, it is about giving the majority a necessary solution. Just to verify GW's stance on the issue, here is a link to one of his radio addresses that clearly explains it: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...7/20040710.html.

I don't know what background you are coming from and how familiar you are with the Bible, so it is difficult to answer this. I'm not going to get in depth, but I do believe that the Bible is the Word of God, without exception. Let me just make one point here. I do not consider it to be dangerous to interpret the Bible literally. The problem is how you define "literally". If you think the original post is a literal translation of the Bible, then yes that is dangerous. But in fact, that is not a literal translation. A literal translation is not just taking scripture verses and following the exact words. Again, you have to take the Bible in its entire context. A literal translation of the Bible would not result in the conclusions your initial post made. Show me a true literal interpretation of the Bible that you consider to be dangerous, which means finding a verse and correctly understanding its context, then we can better discuss your problems with the Bible.

I mistook you as the person who posted the initial scripture, that is why I was annoyed that you did not look at the context. The initial post did the same thing and I simply made the mistake of thinking you were the same person. I apologize for offending you and not correctly identifying you. Regardless, I made no comments as to how you should live your life nor did I indicate in any way that my life is of more value than yours. I simply want people to look at the context as they do with any other source. Please accept my apologies, I do not want to discourage you from questioning and examining scripture.

So again, just pull whatever you want out of scripture, without any reference to the context of each verse and get all excited because you have proven that Jesus contradicted himself. According to your method, since we have a law stating it is illegal to murder, but we allow people to kill others in self defense or we allow police to kill when necessary, then we are contradicting ourselves. You can't just pull what you want from any source, put it out there without any reference to context and declare it to be factual and completely accurate. It just doesn't work, despite your efforts to do so. Just so others get the clear picture, I'll give the entire context of the verses you mentioned. Matthew 10: 32-38 You pull out only verse 34: "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword". If you read the entire context of this verse, from verse 32 through verse 38 you will see that the word sword is not even in reference to the physical nature of the sword. It is an analogy to conflict. Jesus states that he will bring "a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; a man's enemies will be the members of his own household". Jesus is speaking of the conflict that will arise for those that trust in Him and have faith in Him. Those that follow Jesus will forsake worldly ways and this may cause conflict with friends and family. This is evident now throughout the country, even on this board - faith can divide people. Luke 22: 35-37 You pull out only verse 36: "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one”. In the full context, verse 35-37 you will see that this is just before Jesus was taken custody prior to his crucifixion. In verse 35 Jesus states that before this time, they did not need a purse, bag or sword to follow him and proclaim the gospel - Jesus provided for all of their needs. Now, with the crucifixion immanent, he is simply stating that things are changing. His disciples would not have his leadership, and they would be faced with danger much more often. He is simply telling them to be prepared. Matthew 26: 51-54 You pull out only verse 52: "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword”. Again, the context of this verse that you left out reaches from verse 51 to 54. This is again in reference to Jesus' arrest prior to the crucifixion. One of his disciples pulls out his sword and cuts off the ear of one of the high priests there to arrest Jesus; he does so in anger and against the will of Jesus. You have to understand a broader context of this verse. First, Jesus preached that we must obey government and authority. Second, Jesus had foretold of his crucifixion for a long time but his disciples did not understand that it was necessary and part of God's plan. So this disciple not only acted out of anger, but also against the authority of the government. He also acted without regard for the fact that it was necessary for Jesus to be arrested and Jesus was not resisting. For those that draw the sword in anger, against the law, then yes they will die by the sword.

1) So I guess we should consider the Constitution and the foundation of this country dangerous since they were tied closely "to moral values of particular religion of choice". I'm not going to debate whether this country was founded with 100% all Christian values, but you can't deny that the foundation of this country was based on or tied to morals of Christianity. 2) It is the most ridiculous argument when people try to pull things from the Bible, or any book for that matter, without any understanding of their context, their place in the entirety of the book, etc. You did not pull anything from the New Testament, which clearly indicates you have no understanding of the Bible. If you are going to quote scripture at least try to have an understanding of scripture in its entirety, not little passages here and there that you think prove your point. That would be like watching one half of a football game, or reading one half of a book and stating that you know everything else that happens in the rest of the game or book. To give a Bills' example, under that scenario, after the first half of the Houston playoff game you would have determined the Bills got demolished by Houston. Even the next day, with the newspaper reports and tv highlights right there for you to see, you would have stated that you watched them get killed in the first half so you know they actually lost. You wouldn't have watched the Super Bowl since you knew the Bills got killed after the first half of the Houston game. Even now, you would deny the Bills played in the Super Bowl that year and point to the first half of the Houston game as proof. I know it sounds like a stupid analogy, but that is exactly what you are doing with this post.

Let's look at a simple scenario. Say a woman delivers a healthy baby at 40 weeks. The baby is delivered, completely outside the mother yet still attached by the umbilical cord. This mother is heartbroken to discover the baby has several abnormalities and it is obvious it will not be a normal child. Under your theory, as long as the baby is still attached by the umbilical cord, it is not a separate entity from the mother. Therefore, under your theory the mother would have every right to simply order the baby killed. Under your theory, the right to life of the baby can't co-exist with the mother's rights because they are still attached. This theory would create chaos - mother's would tell the doctor not to cut the umbilical cord until the baby was thoroughly examined and considered healthy. As you can see, there is a pretty big hole in this line of thinking. Do you want to advocate the murder of children just because they are still attached by an umbilical cord? That is very interesting, thank you for that insight. My only comment would be that in cases such as partial birth abortion it is not an issue for priests and such to declare when life begins. Science supports the fact that partial birth abortion kills viable babies. In this case I think the courts could and should declare partial birth abortion murder due to the destruction of a living human being that is a person and has rights under the Constitution. First of all, I forget the actual title of the law, but GW signed legislation declaring the murder of a pregnant women to be double murder. Now, I do believe that it is very limited in nature, only to certain types of murder or something, nonetheless it is federal law. Second, I realize I refered to government, but my intent was to cast suspicion on the population as a whole as well. California is one of the states with the double murder law, yet the population definitely leans towards pro-choice over pro-life. You continue to speak in terms of the law and the constitution, but I am asking you to look at the issues. I think most people support the double murder law, yet a lot of those same people are pro-choice. I'm simply pointing out that it is impossible to support abortion and support the double murder law - for those that do, they can't back up their argument. If you notice, I never once used the double murder issue as an argument to overturn Roe. I brought up the double murder separately simply to point out that people can't have it both ways. People want to protect the baby in one case and not in the other. I don't use it as an argument to overturn Roe, I use it as an argument to show people they can't have it both ways. You can have your opinion on the reason for these laws, but don't assume my reasons are the same.

I'm not going to argue Constitutional law, especially since I do not consider myself to be an expert on it. That was not my point in the previous post. Let me ask you something. If Roe is ever overturned and abortion is made illegal, would you not agree that it would be on the basis of the unborn baby's right to life? Take partial birth abortion. If the laws making that illegal are upheld, it is because it was determined that the baby is a living, human being with rights. The issue of choice by the mother is not a factor. The pro-life side is not called anti-choice for a reason. We do not believe this is an issue of choice or of privacy, it is an issue of life. That is the perspective I am coming from. I put bold on two remarks you made for a reason - they represent fundamental differences in how we are approaching this issue. In your first comment you state that the mother and child are not separate entities and therefore you can't "grant a right to one without taking away from the right of the other". This may be currently how the issue is viewed and how you view the issue, but my point is that if Roe is overturned, this will not be the case. If Roe is overturned, the baby and the mother will rightly be viewed as separate and equal human beings. If we have separate and equal human beings, they both have equal rights and are governed by the law. Therefore, the mother won't have a right to kill the baby because that is not a legal right under the law. It would be the same as an adult murdering another adult. I have a major problem with the pro-choice side that use this argument through the whole pregnancy. While I am certain that, regardless of the stage of pregnancy, the baby has a right to life, I will respect those that have difficulty agreeing with that in the early stages of pregnancy. However, how can you say that a 28 week old baby is not a separate entity from its mother? How is it that as soon as that baby is delivered it now is a separate entity, but minutes earlier when it was in the womb it was not and did not have any rights? I believe babies have survived that are as early as 24 weeks, perhaps earlier. What sense does it make to determine the value of a baby based on its location? It is the same exact being at 24 weeks whether it is inside the womb or outside the womb. Your second comment is similar. If Roe is overturned, the baby will have the same right to life as the mother. The mother's privacy right will not be trumped by the right of the baby, because under current law the right to privacy is forfeited in regards to the right to life. The law does not state that you can murder someone in the privacy of your own home. I understand what you are arguing, but you are doing so from the current legal perspective of Roe v. Wade. I am merely trying to point out that for abortion to be declared illegal, the current argument of Roe will not be valid. It will become an issue of the right to life. The baby will have the same right to life as the mother. As for your argument of double murder. You are arguing from a purely pragmatic, legal standpoint while I was asking you or anyone to justify that standpoint. You stated that "the right to terminate a pregnancy is the right posessed by the woman who is pregnant". I am merely asking how the government can say that with a straight face and then go on to say that murdering a pregnant woman is equivalent to murdering two human beings? Step back from the legal jargon and look at the issues. If it is double murder to kill a pregnant woman that means the government is stating that two human beings are killed. If two human beings are killed, that means the government is calling the unborn child a human being. If this argument is an absolute argument and has no exceptions, how then can an abortion not be considered killing a human being? You can't pick and choose when an unborn child is a human being and when it isn't. The motive and circumstances behind the termination of a pregnancy should not change whether or not the unborn child is a human being.

The conclusion you come to is based on the perspective you are coming from. You believe that making abortion illegal is granting "the government jurisdiction over reproductive decisions". I believe that making abortion illegal is granting equal rights to the unborn. It is making the life of the unborn and the life of the mother equal in value. If Roe is overturned, how can you argue that government "can override a person's decision to carry a pregnancy to term"? Again, if Roe is overturned it will be on the premise that the unborn have equal rights. The decision will not be based on privacy rights or the right to choose, it will simply be a matter of life. That being the case, if Roe is overturned there is no way the government will then be able to make a woman terminate her pregnancy. An issue relating to abortion that I find very interesting is the murder of a pregnant woman. The unborn victims bill was passed as law this year and many states have similar laws. How can it be double murder in this case, but when a woman chooses to kill the baby herself, there are no consequences? I don't see how anyone can reconcile those two situations. There is no difference. Motive, circumstances, etc. do not change the fact that an unborn child is killed. I find it interesting that the government can pass such laws yet still say with a straight face that abortion is different.

1. It doesn't do you or your opinion much good if your only response is to make fun of and exaggerate the ideas of the opposing side. Find me a place in this thread where it was said that "sex should only be done for the purpose of procreation". So I if you adhere to sex within the confines of marriage, that all of a sudden is less enjoyable than sex outside of marriage? You can feel bad for me all you want, I could care less. I'll live happily with my wife. I'll live knowing my children will grow up with a mother and father. I'll live knowing I didn't get some teenage girl pregnant. I'll live happily since I didn't become a father at the age of 16. I'll live knowing I didn't get a girl pregnant who then got an abortion. I'll live knowing I am safe from AIDS and other STD's. 2. Why do you and others believe, just because this thread is mostly a discussion among men, that it is only men who are telling women what to do. This is not a man v. woman issue. I can get you in touch with hundreds of women that are just as pro-life as I am. So I guess you believe it is a woman's right to kill a viable baby via partial birth abortion? I guess you believe that it is a woman's right to have a doctor perform a procedure where, while the fetus is dangling partly out of the her body, and just a few inches from a completed birth, a doctor uses an instrument such as a pair of scissors to tear or perforate the skull. The doctor then crushes the skull or uses a vacuum to remove the brain and other intracranial contents from the fetal skull, collapses the fetus' head, and pull the fetus from the uterus. What is classic about your response is that it offers no intelligent argument whatsoever.

My point wasn't to say that adoption is a bandaid or cure-all for abortion. My point was in reference to the pro-choice argument that if abortion is made illegal, women will be put at risk due to backalley abortions. The argument was that poor women would not be able to afford to pay for a safe abortion, since they would be illegal; therefore, they are put in danger due to their socio-economic status. That argument just does not work. Its not as if, with abortion illegal, women will be forced into dangerous, backalley abortions. They have a choice - they can choose adoption. There is nothing that could happen that would make it necessary to have a dangerous, backalley abortion. If they choose to do so, then they choose to put themselves at risk. The legal system and society are not responsible for the consequences of a bad choice when a better choice was available.

Let's assume that abortion is made illegal; should the law then be at fault for making it dangerous for anyone to kill another innocent human being? A bank robbery can be very risky and dangerous to the robber, does that mean we should make robbery legal? In the past some women chose dangerous, illegal abortions. People choose to do many stupid things when there are better alternatives available. That's just the point: they choose. Sometimes they are bad choices, but it is still their own choice. There's no coercion and no one is forcing anyone to have a "backalley illegal" abortion. A woman is no more forced into the back alley when abortion is outlawed than a young man is forced to rob banks because he refuses to find employment. Both have better and safer options. These women are not risking "their own death based on their socio-economic status". They are risking their own death because they choose to do so. No one can deny that there are better options. My wife works as a labor and delivery nurse and often has 15-17 year old girls giving birth - some keep the babies and others give them up for adoption. Adoption is is a reasonable and realistic alternative that will solve any "socio-economic" issues they might have. It does not have to be a "period of desparation", nor do they have to choose dangerous, backalley abortions. Choice has its limits. Our right to choose ends where harm to another individual begins. That's true with every law.

I never meant that looking back on history there has never been sex outside of marriage. But you can't deny that from the middle of the 20th century through the present, that practice has increased exponentially. I also never meant that it is realistic for an entire generation to practice abstinence. Obviously that is impossible. However, in theory it does prove my point, that sex outside of marriage is the major issue in this. As far as AIDS or abortion, it is proven that abstinence is a realistic and effective solution. In Africa where AIDS is a dangerous epidemic, Uganda has been a pioneer in educating the people about abstinence and monogomous relationships. Since the 1980's when the program started, pregnant women infected with HIV has gone from over 20% to close to 5%. If that isn't realistic and effective, I don't know what is. It is not unrealistic to expect similar results if used to reduce abortions.

Just a couple of comments. I am pro-life and I do not believe abortion is right in any circumstance, so that is where I am coming from. One of the arguments that has come up several times is the fear of future consequences if abortion is made legal. In other words, what impact will the 1 million plus aborted babies have on the nation if they are all allowed to live. Someone said it would be worse to allow a child to be born into poverty and to parents that did not want her than to be killed in the womb. Someone else said once abortion is legal it will make it more dangerous for women since they will have to risk getting an "underground" abortion. Another said the problem of poor, single mothers would only get worse. The issue with all of these arguments is taking one life over another. I believe most of those that posted along these lines said they were personally against abortion, but still pro-choice. Using these arguments basically is dangerous for several reasons. First, by doing so you are valuing one life more so than another based on their impact to society. In other words, an unwanted child's life is of no value. A woman's life is of more value than the baby she carries. A baby born into poverty is of no value and erodes the value of the mother. Who are we to determine which life is more valuable? What do we use to make that determination? Is value determined by potential, economic factors, age, sex, etc? If we start putting a value to each person's life, then we are in trouble. It won't be long before the elderly that are stuck in nursing homes are viewed as expendable. After that, kids with disabilities and down syndrome will be killed at birth. I fully realize there are issues to deal with if abortion is to be made illegal. I don't believe, as someone mentioned, that pro-life advocates only care about the nine month period during a pregnancy and don't pay attention to pre-natal care and after birth care. You can have your opinion, but that is certainly not the case with the people and organizations I am familiar with. The reality is that things would have to be improved, but just because current social programs may not be ready, does not mean we should continue to allow abortion. To the woman who said she did not know anyone who waited until marriage - now you do, and I could get you in touch with hundreds of others. Abstinence is a valid solution, just as it is a valid solution in the fight against AIDS. Your solution of having sex to test out a potential spouse is part of the problem that started abortion. I'm sure I'll get hammered for this, but history supports the fact that sex was intended to be part of marriage only. If you don't think so, then look at reality. Think about this, if an entire generation practiced abstinence and sex within marriage what would happen - AIDS would be virtually eliminated and abortions would be greatly diminished. A worldview that supports sexual promiscuity is a worldview that accepts the consequences of STD's and huge abortion numbers.

You are missing my point. I'm not talking about federal funding. I was making the point that both forms of stem cell research are not restricted within the private sector. There is no ban on embryonic stem cell research, despite what many people think. The discrepancy in federal funding and private funding proves my point . ASC is getting more because it is ethically viable, less risky and has proven results. A couple of the cases I mentioned in my first post were prior to 2001. Before any funding decisions were made, ASC advanced farther than ESC. To be honest, I would be fine if there was not federal funding for either. That way, the government is staying neutral and science will prove which is the best choice. Thats convenient. You take the chance to ridicule my beliefs, but advise me not to reply. Thanks for the respect. My beliefs have nothing to do with any of the facts I have stated, do they? I'm not pulling these scientific facts from the Bible am I? The Bible could be a fictional book as you say, but does that in any way change any of the facts I have given you? The core issue with stem cells and abortion is the right to life. People try to make nuances, but that is the foundational issue. The moral question behind any pre-born human life can be stated simply: is it wrong to kill pre-born humans? Most informed Pro-lifers affirm that both abortion and ESCR kill innocent human beings; therefore, both abortion and ESCR are wrong. Pro-choicers, by and large, deny it because to them, no bona fide human being is sacrificed. I could get in a completely new discussion on this if you like, but as for now I'll leave it at that.

I agree and I didn't mean to imply you did. My point in emphasizing the success of ASC is that the average Joe does not know this and it is being deliberately hidden by the media to put pressure on advancing ESC funding. A couple years ago when I started looking into this, all I knew from the media and such was that GW was not willing to fund ESC research. I thought it must have been a hard stance to take since this research obviously has potential. It was only after I did research on my own that I found out about ASC research and the success they are having. ESC supporters are trying to advance their cause by invoking sympathy from people like Christopher Reeves and also by downgrading the advancement of ASC research. ESCs and ASCs are different options along a similar approach. Both have the same funding options. ASC research did have problems and still does, but it has advanced far beyond ESCs, under the same funding and research conditions. I'm not opposed to looking to the future, but when it is rather obvious that ASCs is far exceeding any success of ESCs and ESCs has serious ethical concerns, why should the government fund it? There is no ban and ESCs can continue to be studied, but there is no reason to do so with government money. Sorry, I just don't agree with you here. I agree with GW on this and agree with him on Creation as opposed to evolution and in no way do my beliefs ignore science. Its too big a subject to get into here though. I apologize, you did not say you support abortion. You did however say that "Bush has seen this issue through the lens of the abortion issue" and my point was simply that if anyone is seeing it through the abortion issue it is people like John Kerry. GW has scientific facts and successes to back him up - Kerry has potential and hope. But he does know giving in on this issue is a slip and gives ground to the pro-life side. I don't see anything about my perspective that is not optimistic toward the future.

Here are some articles you can read in the mean time, from the mainstream media that you probably didn't hear about: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/26/...ain619728.shtml http://cbsnewyork.com/healthwatch/health_s..._277115626.html http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBureaus....R20020325g.html http://www.nbc17.com/health/2949989/detail.html Here is ONE article that outlines success stories from adult stem cell research, with all the footnotes and bibliographies to satisfy even you: http://www.cqnet.com.au/~user/dancasey/Adu...ss%20story.html That is what I call "copy and paste".

If that is ONE article, go find it for me and print it here to prove me wrong. Before you make such an ignorant claim, you better have the facts to prove it. Did I pull ideas from other articles - you bet I did. The first half of the post was part of research I did on my own time (I'm not in college anymore). I didn't think TBD required footnotes and a bibliography! The second half of the post was all a response to the earlier post. What kind of response is this anyway? You know nothing about me - I have researched and looked into this subject a ton. Books, news, science journals, magazines, etc. I've looked into this from both sides, because to be honest with you, a couple years ago I didn't know anything about the issue. I continue to research it now, becuase it makes me angry that people are ignoring scientific facts. Do I have to state all my credentials so I don't get an idiotic response like this? I noticed you didn't even respond to the post or the subject matter at all. Instead of attacking my credibility, why don't you help me and everyone else interested in this subject and give some opinion or facts. Otherwise, lay off your flippant remarks.

Wow! No offense, but I hope you didn’t get graded on that speech because you present very little facts and several false statements. Here are some facts for you to think about adult stem cell research: Studies using non-embryonic stem cells, derived (ethically) from umbilical cord blood, bone marrow, brain tissue and fat, have moved well beyond theory to application. Clinical studies offer solid benefits to patients suffering from heart disease, blood disorders and other afflictions. Adult stem cells have already been used successfully with patients: to treat cartilage defects in children; restore vision to patients who were legally blind; relieve systemic lupus, multiple sclerosis, Parkinsons and rheumatoid arthritis; and to serve as an aid in numerous cancer treatments. A doctor in Portugal used adult stem cells to treat patients suffering paralysis after traumatic accidents. After this therapy, some of these patients, who at one point expected never to walk again, can now walk with the assistance of leg braces. In 2001 (yes, adult stem cells have success stories dating years back) umbilical cord stem cells completely cured a Sickle Cell patient. At the University of Pittsburgh, Dr. Andrew Yeager injected stem cells from the umbilical cord into a child with advanced Sickle Cell Anemia – a year later the sickle cells in his body had disappeared. Now let’s look at some facts about embryonic stem cell research that you failed to cover. How many humans have been treated by embryonic stem cells? Zero! Before human trials can even be safely undertaken researchers will have to overcome two serious difficulties that stand between patients and embryonic-cell regenerative medicine: 1) ES cells cause tumors, and 2) ES cells may be rejected by the immune system (use of human embryonic stem cells requires lifelong use of drugs to prevent rejection of the tissue). ES cells have yet to demonstrate a single human therapeutic benefit. The most recent studies in animals have shown ES cells to be unstable and unpredictable. Contrast those problems with adult stem cells. The use of a patient's own stem cells is preferable to using ES cells because it avoids the problem of the body rejecting cells other than its own. So far, adult-stem-cell therapy does not appear to cause tumors. Add to that the scientific results, proven on humans and this puts adult therapies years ahead of the game. So why are ES cells so hyped up? Since ES cells derive from the embryo, they are capable of forming all the tissues of the body. Therefore, researchers have long felt that human ES cells hold the greatest potential for treatment of degenerative diseases. This is hope and potential, but there have been minimal proven results. Even now, this one potential advantage – that ES cells are capable of forming all tissues of the body, is being matched by adult stem cell research. It has recently been shown that certain types of stem cells are not limited to producing cells for the tissue in which they reside. For instance, bone marrow stem cells can produce skeletal muscle, neural, cardiac muscle, and liver cells. Bone marrow stem cells can even migrate to these tissues via the circulatory system in response to tissue damage and begin producing cells of the appropriate tissue type. This is exactly why ES cell supporters have to use people like Ronald Reagan, Michael J. Fox and Christopher Reeves – they are appealing to hope and potential by seeking sympathy. They can’t show case after case of proven results because there are none! The vast amount of private funding of stem cell research is going into adult stem cells, because that is where the results are. Drug companies and venture capitalists do not want to take the risks associated with the use of ES cells in real patients. The only reason ES cell supporters are seeking governmental funding is because they can’t get enough in the private sector! There is hundreds of millions of dollars going into stem cell research, but because the majority is correctly going to the more scientifically valid research (adult stem cells), ES cell supporters need to find another financial supporter. That fact right there should say something to the general taxpayer – if anything, the government should fund adult stem cell research! Let me ask you something - when adult stem cells have proven, scientific results (on humans) and ES cell have minimal results and still have serious problems to overcome, which presidential candidate “does not believe in science”? It certainly seems to me that GW has science on his side, not Kerry. “Bush has seen this issue through the lens of the abortion issue, which is the wrongest way to look at it.” If anything, it is Kerry and people like you who are looking at this through the “lens of the abortion issue”. There is a moral and ethical alternative to ES cell therapy, one that has proven, scientific results and one that is years ahead of ES cell therapy. The reason you and others do not want to give up hope on ES cell research is very much related to abortion. If you concede that ES cell research has ethical problems and should not be federally funded, you are conceding to the pro-life viewpoint. ES cell research will lag further behind adult stem cell research as the months and years pass, but people like Kerry and other pro-choice people will not give in because by doing so they will cede ground to the pro-life side and that is not an option for them. “Sad that it took the passing of Christopher Reeve to put the spotlight on an issue that deserves more debate than 30 seconds. I hope it's talked about on Wed. b/c Bush is going to get schooled.” In the last debate, Kerry was asked why he supports ES cell research when thousands of proven therapies have happened with adult stem cells. Kerry completely ignored the reference to “proven” results of adult stem cell research because he can’t argue against that. Yet he did not come back with any proven results of ES cell research, because he can’t argue that either. All he emphasized were people like Christopher Reeves – trying to play up sympathy, not facts. All Kerry has on his side is sympathy, hope and potential – GW has science. So who is going to get schooled?