Bush vetoes stem cell bill as promised

SInce you don't know exactly when, then it appears that you are saying that it is possible to end human life by harvesting the stems cells of an embryo. Well, since it is possible, I believe the best way to keep from ending this life is by not killing the embryo. I'd rather be safe than sorry.

 

No that is not what I am saying. I am saying we don't know when, BUT it is clear that it is sometime later than these blastocytes that will be destroyed anyway. I understand conservatism when things are in doubt. I would be against it on a 3-month old embryo for example. But the first few days after conception? It is obvious that this is not a baby, but a mass of cells with potential given the right circumstances. These "lives" will be ending one way or the other. They will never become babies.

Given the right circumstances an egg can become a chicken or can be my breakfast. Given the right circumstances, crude oil can become a plastic bottle. It isn't one yet.

 

Quote:
You still haven't answered my question: When does life begin? If not at conception, then when?

The debate of all time. Does God create the soul at His choosing? Is the soul automatically "installed" at human consumation? If God creates the soul at each birth, then God is the author of sin, because we teach that all men are born in sin and trespasses. I have been unable in my lifetime to come up with a perfect answer to the question, so I leave it with God.

That leaves us with reason to determine what is the best scientific solution in the interest of humanity without violating the Lord.

Why do we accept the miracles of medicine such as pencillan, which literally saved millions of lives? The polio vaccine, which again eradicated the agony of millions,,,especially youth? Why do we accept the implantation of hearts and other vital organs when they come from a "legally" dead person...depending on whether that person is actually "dead"?

It reminds me of that mythical debate the Jesuits supposedly had about how many demons (or angels..depending on which you read) could dance on the head of a pin?

What a chimera is man. What a contradiction... Pascal

Cheers,

Jim

 

Exactly. Scripture does not support the fact that life begins at conception. That is conjecture and opinion, not supported by observation. I understand some hold that opinion, but there is no basis other than emotion, at least not from either scripture or science. I also understand that in Copernicus' day, most held the opinion that the Sun revolved around the Earth, some as a matter of faith. They were wrong and scientific advancement occurred anyway.

 

I think that there since there are other ways to get stem cells - adult, umbilical cord blood, both I've heard have had good results - that the research should be done in these areas. If others feel it is fine to kill the unborn for their research, then let them support it with their own money - not tax $$'s. There is no law against the research. The only thing the law says is that governemnt $$'s won't fund it.

 

So, if it IS murder, it is okay as long as it is privately funded?

 

No, to me it is murder and it is not OK. But all Pres. Bush vitoed was the government funding of the research. I still think it's wrong to end any innocent human life - it's murder.

 

Websters dictionary, Conception:

The Holy Bible, 1Tim. 6:13

Life begins when you conceive. It is a shame some only value life when it comes to look exactly like them! People who choose to ignore this simply do so in order to clear their conscience. There are other ways and knowledge will lead to helping people, versus stem cell research. If morality is to be thrown out for science, then who is to stop them from experimenting in rasing the dead? Or as I stated earlier, using the aborted or soon to be aborted? As they are going to the trash bend anyhow, right! This is how some would see it.

I have news. We are all going to pass on one day and most all will have a disease or illness! It is better to go with dignity and a good conscience.raying:



The first part of the above verse says,

 

Ralph,

Giant-sized fonts do not make your argument valid.
Your quotes don't address the issue. Of course, God gives life, that is not in question in this discussion. Bugs are alive. Sperm cells are alive, but die by the millions. You need to address why you believe human life begins at conception. Again, I maintain there is no scriptural or scientific basis for this notion.

 

Ecc 11:5 As thou knowest not what [is] the way of the spirit, [nor] how the bones [do grow] in the womb of her that is with child: even so thou knowest not the works of God who maketh all.


Why mess with what we do not know?
To me personally, IV is just as wrong as abortion, not because i do not think childless couples deserve children, but because it is messing with life itself, and only God should be in charge of begining and ending a child's life.
He gives us guides for the end, artificially, of an adult life, but of a child in the womb? Show me what Bible writer says a babe in the womb is just a bunch of cells, a thing to be used up and chucked like a jug of milk.
As for when life begins, well Jerimiah says it for me
Jer 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, [and] I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

So even before I was conceived, God knew me. That being the case, when I think my life actually began doesn't matter, no one had the right to end me before I began but God.
As for President Bush, he got it right. I think there may yet be hope for him. I like him, but he does aggrivate me on some things!

 

This is not in doubt either, but it doesn't say that life begins when an ovum is penetrated by a sperm.

If man were meant to fly, God would have given us wings.

First of all, that is not my belief or my argument. Secondly, I am not making the claim that a zygote is a "baby", so it is not up to me to disprove it. YOU have the burden of proof.

Speaks of a specific prophet, and still doesn't say when life begins. It says that God knew him before he was created. This speaks to God's foreknowledge, not to when human life begins.

The challenge remains unanswered, mainly because the Bible is silent on the subject. No scriptural or scientific evidence.

The fact also remains that I have more care and compassion for people who are suffering horrible diseases than I do for a mass of cells that can't feel, think, or even have any semblance of what we call humanity; and especially when they are going to be destroyed anyway.

 

Nice story, but it's not true. Mengele's experiments were of no scientific value and resulted in no good whatsoever. (linkie).

 

Well see here is my problem with that, YOU have not proved to me that you are right, why disprove something that has not been proved to me in the first place? It is only the scientists who wish to do such research and dehumanize a babe in the womb who made up such terms in the first place.

Ah but if God knows one "preborn" human it stands to reason He may know them all. He does after all know everything, I would not deny that includes babes in OR before the womb, that would limit his knowledge wouldn't it?

No its not, God often talks about the womb and the inhabitants there of, now if He speaks of them, they MUST be worthy of our consideration.
As i said, if we leave creating life to God, there will be no "mass of cells" "when they are going to be destroyed anyway."
I see a choice for me myself to be this, I can trust that God, who creared everything from nothing, or I can trust science, which may create, but can not create anything from nothing, and more often than not must destroy one thing to create another.
I will never answer to science, i will however one day answer to God.
I care about the folks who are ill, I know God does too, He can help them, I can comfort them.

 

Mactx, obviously you have never been in a logic class or formal debate. The person making a positive assertion bears the burden of proof. I can claim I own a talking carrot. It is not up to you to disprove it, but up to me to provide the evidence to support my claim. You claim a zygote is a baby. YOU have the burden of proof, not me.

How does this relate to when that blastocyte becomes a human being?

But when do they stop being a mass of undifferentiated cells and become a human being? The certainly don't have any of the qualities, but rather the potential to develop into one, given the right circumstances. We are talking about cells in a petrie dish that are going to be destroyed. Why not use them to relieve the suffering of hundreds of thousands of people who are already here and CAN feel.

When we answer to God, we will be accountable for not using the brains he gave us to figure out how his creation works to better the condition of our suffering fellow humans.

I am still waiting for any scripture that says a fertilized egg cell is a person.

 

As I am waiting for one to show it is not.
To believe God does not begin a life from the start I would have to then restudy evolution.
Until an evolutionist can show me how it is possible for one thing to evolve into another (in this case a lifeless blob into a human) and yet both continue to exist, I will no trust the science behind it.
Darwin says chimps became human, and yet we have chimps still, lifeless blobs of cells as you think them develop into humans, and then are no longer the first thing.
So those lifeless blobs must be human to begin with.

 

I also want to add how much I appreciate the respectful nature, for the most part, of this thread. This is one of those that can get out of control, so thanks to all who are keeping this one civilized.

 

So Mac, you are trying to take this into a evolution tangent? Well, Darwin did NOT say chimps became human. I didn't say blastocytes are lifeless, just that they are not human beings. Sperm are alive, eggs are alive, bugs are alive, sunflowers are alive. You need to get your facts straight before making such statements.

And let's please not hijack this into an evolution thread.

Thanks,
MP

PS...again. you are trying to shift the burden of proof. You can't do that, as I have shown you previously.

 

Sorry but I disagree. until some one can prove the cells created in a human female by cells from a human male are not human, I will not agree.
Make better sense? A human cell will not turn into something else it will always be a human cell, no matter what it ends up being called. It has dna that identifies it as human.

 

I understand what you are saying, but that is not in question. They are human cells, just as sperm cells, ova, liver cells, etc. are human cells. They have human DNA, chromosomes, RNA, etc. What they are not is a separate human being. They are the product of humans, but not developed into a new human. How many skin cells do you cast off in any given day?

 

I highlighted the Webster and then felt only proper to highlight the Bible even more. Had nothing to do with shouting out an answer. It also does not affect the validity in any way. The Bible stands. Also my quotes and argument go directly to the issue and addresses of others.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------






If there is no conception, then there is no life to be brought forth! If there is conception then there is life to be brought forth. Read the definition of conception or heed the following from the Bible.

Matt 1:18-21

An Angel came upon Mary to tell her that she would soon become pregnant! Which she did not understand how possible.
Luke 1:34-37

Human life begins at conception as specifically and indeed noted in the Bible. Please don't ignore scripture to suit a purpose. We should work and pray to find ways of helping others in Christ. Ralph