Does Bush think God's irrational?

[jasong]

This stem cell research garbage is driving me absolutely nuts. Bush is preventing research that could save lives. Not only that, but if you dig deep enough, you see some extreme hypocrisy(sp?) in his actions. What I want to know is why he seems to think he's respecting life when stored embryos(I think they're mostly produced for reproductive attempts) are destroyed every day by their owners? Some of these people have even tried to DONATE the embryos instead of destroying them, but apparently letting them degrade through thawing isn't the same as what researchers want to do with them.

While we're on the subject embryonic research I've discovered another reason that I don't want to become a Catholic. I don't know the details, but apparently, a few months back a researcher came up with an idea to appease the Catholic church about embryonic research. According to the article, the Catholic church doesn't care what you do with the embryos just so long as you make so it's not even remotely possible for it to start the process of becoming a human being. Basically, what would happen, is the researchers would intentionally make the embryo behave as if it were a type of cancer(IMO), and grow stem cells that way. Taken to it's limit, apparently you could make a headless body with all it's organs, and still not get the Catholic Church(as opposed to actual Catholics) offended. Am I the only one that thinks this is a stupid stance?

[edorajh]

You are far from being the only one that thinks this is a stupid stance.

But, I don't think this is a stupid stance. Catholic Church is very consistent in its position about sanctity of human life from its conception to its end. I think this position should be universal position of every humanist, regarding of faith or the lack of it.

[garo]

edorajh,
Many humanists do not share that position and I do not see it as at all obvious that every humanist should consider life as sacred from the moment of conception. The Catholic Church also has a ban on contraception and divorce (more or less). It also thinks that the purpose of marriage is to procreate.

So while I agree that their stance has been consistent, I don't agree that their stance must be shared by humanists.

[edorajh]

garo,

I'm aware that many humanists do not share that position about human life. It is just my opinion that they should. But I do understand your position that Catholic Church's stance (and I think other Christian denominations share this stance) doesn't have to be shared by humanists.

I think that every humanist believe in dignity and worth of every human. Now, the question that stir a lot of discussion is when human life really starts. Is it the point of fertilization? Some other point in the prebirth development? Birth itself? Tough question. But the fact is that zygote itself contains unique genetic code of a new individual. It's not genetic code of parents, but unique new one. I believe that's the reason I feel very uncomfortable with the idea of destroying any human entity from the moment of fertilization to the moment of birth.

I hope a much more attention will be given to the question of real start of human life. Secular humanists shouldn't approach this issue dogmatically. Humanism should be free of dogmas of any kind, and should be open to questioning of any assumptions including its own. I hope that the reason why many humanists do not share position that human life starts at the point of conception is not the fact that such position mainly comes from theists.

[garo]

I definitely do not think a position should be rejected just because it comes from theists. Death penalty for example is a case where the Catholic Church (now) and humanists are in agreement. In any case, I do not claim to speak on behalf of all humanists.

Different people have different definitions on when life begins. Fertilization, implantation, fetal viabitlity are all possible answers. There are several threads dealing with this already so I will leave this be.

[mfgoode]

Originally Posted by garo

I definitely do not think a position should be rejected just because it comes from theists. Death penalty for example is a case where the Catholic Church (now) and humanists are in agreement. In any case, I do not claim to speak on behalf of all humanists.

Different people have different definitions on when life begins. Fertilization, implantation, fetal viabitlity are all possible answers. There are several threads dealing with this already so I will leave this be.

The catholic Church has always taught that procreation should stem from and within the sanctity of marriage. Any relationship outside marriage is deemed a sin. Then also the sexual act should be motivated for the purpose of producing a child.
Now my question is that once the wife is pregnant the couple can still enjoy sex to promote love between the two. But what happens when the woman
enters menopause and there is no motive except to promote love ?
This becomes a philosophy of pleasure for pleasure's sake then why all the hullabaloo of unmarried couples enjoying themselves outside the bonds of marriage? Isn't this double standards?

And what about masturbation? The R.C. says no motive therefore sin! They even call it sex abuse!
What about nature being so abundant that it can afford a colossal wastage in a boys life by giving him night emissions night after night?
At this age in question many a lad learns by the elders to repress the involuntary act somehow and invariably ends up later in life at a psychiatrists
clinic.
My best friend was told that if he ejaculates he loses millions of sperm cells and it is detrimental to good health. It played on his mind until he was forced to take counselling. Up to date he is still a misfit but he was taught that, and it made a deep impression in his psyche.
These are some of the questions I ponder upon and would like to have the correct answers!
Mally

[davar55]

Where to begin ...

First of all, I support stem cell research.
It is our best hope for scientific progress in fighting many diseases.

The issue of embryos determines where you stand on abortion.
I don't consider an embryo a human being until it is born.
So I am pro-Choice: abortion is the woman's perogative until delivery.

And religious arguments to the contrary, there are sound arguments
for denying all arguments based on religious beliefs in any knd of God.

-- davar55

[mfgoode]

Originally Posted by edorajh

You are far from being the only one that thinks this is a stupid stance.

But, I don't think this is a stupid stance. Catholic Church is very consistent in its position about sanctity of human life from its conception to its end. I think this position should be universal position of every humanist, regarding of faith or the lack of it.

Though I am not a practicing catholic, but a born again Christian, I believe in the sanctity of human life from conception to death.
I am all the way with you edorah.
Mally

[mfgoode]

Originally Posted by davar55

Where to begin ...

First of all, I support stem cell research.
It is our best hope for scientific progress in fighting many diseases.

The issue of embryos determines where you stand on abortion.
I don't consider an embryo a human being until it is born.
So I am pro-Choice: abortion is the woman's perogative until delivery.

And religious arguments to the contrary, there are sound arguments
for denying all arguments based on religious beliefs in any knd of God.

-- davar55

Let me ask you if you have ever at looked at a sperm cell under a microscope?
It has a head, body and evolutionary tail and is mobile. Mobility and self propulsion are the unmistakable signs of life.
Now have you ever seen an aborted fetus thats if it is whole and the abortionist has not cut into pieces for easier elimination? in the late stages of pregnancy?
Well take a look first and then make up your mind if abortion should be legal regardless of any reason for making it so.
It amounts to plain disgusting murder!
Mally