"If this book doesn't change the world, we're all screwed"*

[Jeff Higgins]

"Open minded"??? I suppose to a guy like you, Bonker. But then again, you quit seeking enlightenment long ago. All you are after now is affirmation, to the point where Dawkin's rantings even seem "open minded".

[widebody911]

Originally posted by sammyg2
I am amazed at how effort you people put into trying to discredit religious faith. Why is that?

Because you religious nutjobs have infiltrated the government and are slowly but surely trying to implement a theocracy.

[kang]

Originally posted by widebody911
Because you religious nutjobs have infiltrated the government and are slowly but surely trying to implement a theocracy.

Not just that. The religious nutjobs are trying to block stem cell research. I might need the results of that research in 30 or 40 years!

They are also trying to block a woman’s right to choose. They are trying to teach non-scientific explanations of the world in science classes. They would have every child utter the words “under god” every morning in school.

Etc, etc.

[jluetjen]

Originally posted by kang
Not just that. The religious nutjobs are trying to block stem cell research. I might need the results of that research in 30 or 40 years!

I'm sorry to hear about your potential need. But why can't you understand that some people don't believe that it right to kill one human existance to save another. It should be fairly obvious to most people that there is a serious moral question here, and not just a dogmatic decision that everything that doctors or scientist can do must by definition be an improvement in our existance. And by the way, anti-abortion advocates are not blocking stem cell research, only that research that destroys embryos in the process.*

They are also trying to block a woman’s right to choose. They are trying to teach non-scientific explanations of the world in science classes. They would have every child utter the words “under god” every morning in school.

Etc, etc.

Which "Right" is that? I understand that the "pro-abortion" supporters argue that according to the Roe decision, most laws against abortion violated a constitutional right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Personally, I don't follow the logic of that from this text:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Personally, I don't understand how this clause gives a person the right to terminate a viable fetus that is capable of existance outside of it's mother. Having two daughters, I can tell you that there is no magical transformation in the charactor of the individual which happens when they pass through the birth canal. During the last trimester, both of my daughters exhibited behaviour within the womb (specific periods of activity or sleep, hiccups, responses to stimuli) which was remarkably consistant with the person that we shared our house with 2 days after the birth. But then that is to be expected since the person who was in the womb was the same person who I was holding a day later -- merely their environment had changed.

It's a scientific fact (supported by countless studies, films, examinations, etc) that during the 3rd trimester a fetus has the structure of a human and reactions of a human. Where does the constitution say that that person's life can be terminated at the will of their parent? That logic would suggest that it should be legal for a parent to terminate a child at least up until the age of majority. (I know that some of us have occasionally been tempted! ) Since it is not legal for a parent to commit such a horrendous act, I don't see why it suddenly become their right to do this prior cutting of the umbilical chord.

I'm not saying that abortion rights supports are stupid. They're not. But I do respectfully disagree with their claim to the right to terminate viable fetuses. I just believe that that action is as morally wrong as shooting a person for refusing to donate blood.

*PS: By the way, there are a lot of people who occupy "the center" in this debate who are rarely heard from. Personally I don't have an issue with the use of left over embryos from artificial fertalization process for stem cell research. In my mind that is just as clear as the belief that late-term abortions are just plain wrong. I do profess to being very ambivelant when it comes to situations with later 1st term and 2nd term abortions. I'm expecting that many will disagree with me on all accounts.

[kang]

Originally posted by jluetjen
I'm sorry to hear about your potential need. But why can't you understand that some people don't believe that it right to kill one human existance to save another. It should be fairly obvious to most people that there is a serious moral question here, and not just a dogmatic decision that everything that doctors or scientist can do must by definition be an improvement in our existance.
[/B]

You would rather throw away an unused fetus from a fertility clinic rather than use it for research? That’s where they get stem cells from. Fetus’s that are on their way to the trash bin.

And I’m not going to take the bait on abortion.

Oh – sorry if I confused you. I said “might” need, in that as I get older, I might get some disease (that I don’t have now) that current stem cell research might have a cure for.

The same is true for all of us.

[jluetjen]

Kang, note a couple of additions that I added while you were writing your response.

As far as "taking the bait" on abortion, you were the person who brought it up.

[island911]

Originally posted by kang
Not just that. The religious nutjobs are trying to block stem cell research. ...

The "religious nutjobs" are NOT trying to block stem cell research. They are trying to block embryonic stem-cell research, of a fetus.

Why is it that the anti-religious nutjobs always mislead there?

[tobster1911]

Originally posted by kang
Not just that. The religious nutjobs are trying to block stem cell research. I might need the results of that research in 30 or 40 years!

I was not aware that I (collectively for those who you label as religious nutjobs) was keeping you from spending your money on any line of research you wanted. Nor was I aware of any laws prohibiting you from funding or preforming said research. What I don't really want is Government (read my money) funding something that I don't completely agree with. Why are you trying to force me to subsidise your personal desires?

They are also trying to block a woman’s right to choose.

Wrong, they are trying to defend the kids right to live. Who supports death here?

They are trying to teach non-scientific explanations of the world in science classes.

As apposed to teaching the scientifically based "alternatives lifestyle" of the other thread? How about a trade?

They would have every child utter the words “under god” every morning in school.

Oh no, the horror. I bet if they did not have to do this then whirled peas would follow shortly after. Better that they learn to cuss out their teachers....

[kang]

Again, with bold for emphasis:

You would rather throw away an unused fetus from a fertility clinic rather than use it for research? That’s where they get stem cells from. Fetus’s that are on their way to the trash bin.

[Jeff Higgins]

Island and tobster are both right on. The left is wholey unable to present its case concerning stem cell research or abortion without resorting to wild exagerations and pure fabrication.

Denying Federal funding, i.e. taxpayers' money, to support stem cell research is not "blocking". Clear thinking people know that; the shrill left-wing nutjobs that can't see anything happening without Federal funding (private enterprise? eee-villll...) cannot fathom how their interests can be forwarded in its absence. So they sit around wringing their hands and snivelling that the evil Christian Right has brow-beaten the Federal Government into "blocking" one of their pet projects.

These same left-wingnuts have succeeded, at least in their world, in creating the euphemism "right to choose" to take the place of "killing an unborn child". They have so clouded the argument with their incredibly cynical "when exactly does 'it' become 'human'" that they have lost sight of one very simple fact: Don't fuch with it and a baby is born. Any interference designed to keep that innevitable event from occuring ends a human life. Pretty damn simple. No religious principles required to figure that one out. Yet anyone who dares dissagree gets labeled an "intolerant religious nut job".

That has become the catch phrase used by the real whackos on the left to describe anyone that opposes them. It's been pretty effective, too, mainly because their audience so very much wants to believe it. It makes them feel so much better about their questionable habits and lack of morals; their entirely shallow, self-centered approach to life. Yup, let's murder babies now that don't fit my lifestyle. They're not babies yet, after all... Let's murder babies now so I can possibly live longer in the future; we're just throwing the spares in the bin right now anyway. The only ones who could possibly disaprove of such selfishness (or even call it such) must be a bunch of right-wing religious nut jobs anyway.

"It's my life; I can do what I want (stamping feet...). Fuch this innocent unborn child *****. I don't even wanna hear it. It could lower my self esteem..."

[island911]

Again, with bold for emphasis:


Why is it that the anti-religious nutjobs always mislead there?

[jluetjen]

Earlier I posted a link to an NPR podcast with Richard Dawkins. Here's the link to the interview with Francis Collins from back in August. I've listened to the Dawkins interview, but I'll reserve judgement until I listen to what Collins has to say.

Anyone else listen to the podcast(s)?

[scottmandue]

You guys need to get a hobby...

Christianity has been persecuted under threat of death for two thousand years and you think some guy publishing a book or a few posts on the Internet are going to make it go away.

America was founded on freedom of religion, you may want to take a look at counties that have tried to outlaw religion and see how things turned out.

[tabs]

This is what happens when U have a NICE Gawd...one of mercy and forgivness..now if U had the Gawd of the Old Testament, there would be none of this cr@p, cause a coupla lightening bolts would catch their attention and make for a nice attitude adjustment.

[jluetjen]

You know Tabs, for once I agree with you. The problem is that with the God of the OT, you'd have to measure up to his expectations AND be born to the right family in order to have a chance. Thankfully he decided to change his approach!

[nota]

I fail to see any real diffence in our religous nuts
and the tali-ban's both are hung up on sex, hate tv and movies, and want to censor everything in print, music, movies or on tv
support even more nuts leaders ect

other then the tali-ban does not want to end life on earth
and ours are planning the war that just may do that
as our nuts hope a final battle will bring back their son of god
in their very sick, evil, and down right dangerious END TIMES BS

[livi]

Thanks for the tip!

I was not aware he had come out with a new book.
Richard Dawkins is IMO one of most gifted persons today. His previous work is somewhat complicated to really understand, but highly interesting. Furthermore, I believe he is right. At least in his previous work. I regard his first book 'The selfish gene' as my Bible.

Should be great reading this new one!

[jluetjen]

So -- Did anyone else listen to both of the first-person interviews from NPR with Dawkins and Collins?

Before I throw out my own thoughts stemming from the interviews, I'd be interested in other people's responses. Or is everyone too busy shouting at each other to actually listen to the other side???

[wrcRS]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is interesting. This doesn't recognize a fetus until it is born, from that point on it is a citizen of the United States and has rights.

As for the book, sounds like an interesting read. As for the far reaching change I don't think that will happen, the basis of Christianity is faith that it is real. That is something each individual person must accept or deny all on their own.

[jluetjen]

Originally posted by wrcRS
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is interesting. This doesn't recognize a fetus until it is born, from that point on it is a citizen of the United States and has rights.

Yeah, I noticed the same thing. But whether the fetus is a citizen or not isn't germaine to the discussion. If that were the distinction, then it would legal to murder any non-citizens within our borders without cause, if a citizen deemed them to be an inconvenience for example.