Obama has a lot of nerve proposing this!

[Book_of_Mormon_Warrior]

If only it were so simple. I'll refer you to this post that I wrote about the Mexico City Policy several months ago.

Just two highlights...USAID cannot be used to pay for abortions, even with the Mexico City Policy rescinded. MCP forbade money to organizations who merely discussed abortion as an option. Again, the money could not be used to pay for the abortion anyway.

Second, under the Mexico City Policy, more abortions were being performed than when the Policy was rescinded. So you can either talk about abortion and have fewer of them, or you can keep quiet and have more abortions.

According to your own post the reasons for more abortions is because fewer contraceptives were given out. Here's a solution... Instead of being so gung-ho to have abortion as part of the "advice", the groups denied funding could agree to only speak of the other things and thus get back funding so they can hand out contraceptives.

You're likely to meet mixed results in your appeal to an lds group about the supposed immorality of stem-cell research. The Church has no position on the issue, and does not currently take the position that stem-cells can be equated with human life.

Embryonic Stem-cell Research - LDS Newsroom

Then I am saddened, if the LDS church can't recognize that creating a human life for the express purpose of destroying it is immoral, then inspiration must be lacking. God will not stand idly by as we play creator and then destroyer of human life. Wait for judgments to fall upon us.

One thing I forgot to mention is this policy redirects funding from adult stem-cell research, which has actually yielded results without killing human life, to ESSR. Can you explain how this is acceptable?

Yet another one-sided representation...Obama rescinded Bush's version of the rule, which was poorly written and exceptionally vague. I would agree that the consience rule should be rewritten, but Bush's version of the rule is probably worse than no rule at all. Check out what I had to say on this issue here.

Please explain what you feel is vague and needs to be changed. Do you feel it is ever acceptable to force someone to participate in abortion against their moral objections?

So thank you for demonstrating the problem with reactionary politics. It fails to comprehend the complexities of reality and usually makes matters worse than they were to begin.

I see you are well studied on liberal hyperbole. This has nothing to do with politics, but the sacredness of human life. Some things just don't succumb well to moral relativism. Some things are black and white... Protecting the most innocent amoung us is one of those things.

[FunkyTown]

I see you are well studied on liberal hyperbole. This has nothing to do with politics, but the sacredness of human life. Some things just don't succumb well to moral relativism. Some things are black and white... Protecting the most innocent amoung us is one of those things.

I want to tell you that I agree with you, BoMW. You're right: Some things like the protection of the youngest among us is vital and is not black and white. If you believe that the Stem Cells represent human life, I applaud you standing up for what you believe.

However, I should point out that many times while still assembled of stem cells, many pregnancies are spontaneously aborted - Oftentimes without someone being aware their pregnant. See Signs and Symptoms of Miscarriage (Spontaneous Abortion) for the statistic that anywhere from 20-50 percent of pregnancies result in this.

If something is purely stem cells, does it have a soul? What if those cells, not conceived in the normal way but grown specifically for their development in that way, could save many lives?

I'm not saying you're wrong - You're right. We need to protect children, but MOE is right in that it is a complex issue. Stroke victims, cancer victims and brain damaged people have shown remarkable recovery with the use of stem cells.

[Book_of_Mormon_Warrior]

I want to tell you that I agree with you, BoMW. You're right: Some things like the protection of the youngest among us is vital and is not black and white. If you believe that the Stem Cells represent human life, I applaud you standing up for what you believe.

However, I should point out that many times while still assembled of stem cells, many pregnancies are spontaneously aborted - Oftentimes without someone being aware their pregnant. See Signs and Symptoms of Miscarriage (Spontaneous Abortion) for the statistic that anywhere from 20-50 percent of pregnancies result in this.

If something is purely stem cells, does it have a soul? What if those cells, not conceived in the normal way but grown specifically for their development in that way, could save many lives?

I'm not saying you're wrong - You're right. We need to protect children, but MOE is right in that it is a complex issue. Stroke victims, cancer victims and brain damaged people have shown remarkable recovery with the use of stem cells.

We both know that a spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) is a far cry from purposely creating a human life for the express purpose of destroying it. I don't see how you can even compare the two.

Yes, stem-cell are helping certain people... adult-stem cells, not embryonic stem-cells.

[bytor2112]

"Moe? You are wrong. You remind me of all those liberals at the university I used to go to who were every bit as wrong as you. I don't know why you bother trying to look at the facts with an unbiased eye. What could you possibly learn from that, knowing that only conservative Republicanism is the only sustainable political thought?"

Unbiased huh? Is anyone really ever unbiased? While I greatly support conservative politics and rarely agree with liberal thought......HONESTLY, Funky, using conservative and republican together is a serious oxymoron and I thought you would know better:D

[MarginOfError]

According to your own post the reasons for more abortions is because fewer contraceptives were given out. Here's a solution... Instead of being so gung-ho to have abortion as part of the "advice", the groups denied funding could agree to only speak of the other things and thus get back funding so they can hand out contraceptives.

You don't find it at all ironic that when given the liberty to discuss all of the options, including abortion, that these organizations actually perform fewer abortions? That seems to imply that these organizations do a good job talking people out of abortions. So yeah, let's not let them talk about it.

Then I am saddened, if the LDS church can't recognize that creating a human life for the express purpose of destroying it is immoral, then inspiration must be lacking. God will not stand idly by as we play creator and then destroyer of human life. Wait for judgments to fall upon us.

One thing I forgot to mention is this policy redirects funding from adult stem-cell research, which has actually yielded results without killing human life, to ESSR. Can you explain how this is acceptable?

The explanation is simple. There are many of us who do not feel a moral objection to embryonic stem-cell research. Without that moral objection, it is pretty simple to desire to discover what may be possible with this avenue of research. I have no problem with the fact that you do find it morally wrong, but you'll need to produce stronger arguments than, "I feel it is wrong" to persuade me. So far, I've seen no persuasive arguments from the evangelical camp.

Please explain what you feel is vague and needs to be changed. Do you feel it is ever acceptable to force someone to participate in abortion against their moral objections?

You're welcome to read the post to which I linked. But as a brief example, Bush's version of the conscience rule uses language vague enough that a scheduler could use the rule to refuse to schedule an IVF consultation because the institution destroys unused blastocysts, which the scheduler views as the immoral destruction of human life. Again, I'm not opposed to having a conscience rule--I am only opposed to having a poorly written conscience rule.

I see you are well studied on liberal hyperbole. This has nothing to do with politics, but the sacredness of human life. Some things just don't succumb well to moral relativism. Some things are black and white... Protecting the most innocent amoung us is one of those things.

I'm just as well studied on liberal hyperbole as I am on conservative hyperbole. Neither of which are grounded in reality. And that's the problem I have with both of them. Quite contrary to what you're accusing me of, I took the time to investigate the issues at hand from more than one angle before reaching my conclusions. We would all be better off if more people took the time to do the same.

[Book_of_Mormon_Warrior]

You don't find it at all ironic that when given the liberty to discuss all of the options, including abortion, that these organizations actually perform fewer abortions? That seems to imply that these organizations do a good job talking people out of abortions. So yeah, let's not let them talk about it

.

Or it could be that now freed from the fetters of public funding they more actively pushed abortion instead of other contraceptive methods?

The explanation is simple. There are many of us who do not feel a moral objection to embryonic stem-cell research. Without that moral objection, it is pretty simple to desire to discover what may be possible with this avenue of research. I have no problem with the fact that you do find it morally wrong, but you'll need to produce stronger arguments than, "I feel it is wrong" to persuade me. So far, I've seen no persuasive arguments from the evangelical camp.

You don't feel a moral objection to creating human life for the express purpose of killing it? That tells me more about you then anything.

You're welcome to read the post to which I linked. But as a brief example, Bush's version of the conscience rule uses language vague enough that a scheduler could use the rule to refuse to schedule an IVF consultation because the institution destroys unused blastocysts, which the scheduler views as the immoral destruction of human life. Again, I'm not opposed to having a conscience rule--I am only opposed to having a poorly written conscience rule

.

Janitors should not have to clean up abortion scenes, the doctors can do it if they are so fired up to kill babies. And I am sure there are plenty of people on staff that think killing babies is fine that they could find someone to pencil in their appointment.

I'm just as well studied on liberal hyperbole as I am on conservative hyperbole. Neither of which are grounded in reality. And that's the problem I have with both of them. Quite contrary to what you're accusing me of, I took the time to investigate the issues at hand from more than one angle before reaching my conclusions. We would all be better off if more people took the time to do the same.

Could have fooled me since the only people I ever hear you argue against are conservatives. I am sorry I haven't taken the time to examine the finer points of moral relativism, so I can be socially acceptable to the liberal elitists and the politically correct crowd. But I think I'll continue to take a pass, in spite of my, apparently, socially unacceptable position.

Edited March 21, 2009 by Book_of_Mormon_Warrior

[LittleWyvern]

What is life? How can we define it? Can we define it? How can we know for sure when something is alive?

I think, before we drag ourselves further into the politics of stem cell research, we should discuss the philosophy of it.

[FunkyTown]

Unbiased huh? Is anyone really ever unbiased? While I greatly support conservative politics and rarely agree with liberal thought......HONESTLY, Funky, using conservative and republican together is a serious oxymoron and I thought you would know better:D

Hahah. Touche, Bytor. I know you're more Libertarian in your leanings. My bad. I guess I just fall for the hype when I hear the Republican Party march out the Conservative credo.

But you're right. I said 'Republican' when I should have said 'Conservative right'.

[MarginOfError]

Or it could be that now freed from the fetters of public funding they more actively pushed abortion instead of other contraceptive methods?

Do you have any idea how many condoms you can buy for the price of one abortion? Or how many months of birth control you can provide for the price of one abortion? Believe me, these organizations understand very well that preventing unwanted pregnancy is preferable to aborting them.

You don't feel a moral objection to creating human life for the express purpose of killing it? That tells me more about you then anything.

You don't know squat about me. I recommend you refrain from making judgments about my character.

Janitors should not have to clean up abortion scenes, the doctors can do it if they are so fired up to kill babies. And I am sure there are plenty of people on staff that think killing babies is fine that they could find someone to pencil in their appointment.

Yup, let's just bring the health care system to a crashing halt, cause it doesn't have enough problems as it is.

Could have fooled me since the only people I ever hear you argue against are conservatives.

Show me a liberal extremist on this board and I'll be happy to argue with them. Are you really going to complain to me about selection bias?

I am sorry I haven't taken the time to examine the finer points of moral relativism, so I can be socially acceptable to the liberal elitists and the politically correct crowd. But I think I'll continue to take a pass, in spite of my, apparently, socially unacceptable position.

I don't care what your opinion is. I only care that the issues are fairly represented. Let people be opposed to whatever they want, but let them do so with an informed decision. I'm so sorry that you confuse 'liberal elitism' and 'moral relativism' with thoughtful consideration.

[Book_of_Mormon_Warrior]

I have learned very much over the last couple of days and have gained a new insight into the thinking of the members of the LDS church. I wonder what the future holds for the organization considering what I have read. Should be interesting to watch.

[Wingnut]

I have learned very much over the last couple of days and have gained a new insight into the thinking of the members of the LDS church. I wonder what the future holds for the organization considering what I have read. Should be interesting to watch.

I hope this also includes the insight that members of the LDS Church are neither clones nor lemmings nor sheep. Each one thinks for him or herself, and votes according to his or her own conscience. Not every Mormon is a Republican or a conservative, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. How boring would it be if we were all the same?

[Book_of_Mormon_Warrior]

I hope this also includes the insight that members of the LDS Church are neither clones nor lemmings nor sheep. Each one thinks for him or herself, and votes according to his or her own conscience. Not every Mormon is a Republican or a conservative, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. How boring would it be if we were all the same?

Not exactly, but if that's how you want to take it, run with it.