::shrug:: it was years ago, and really, the point is not my personal disruption
but rather that this does not work for anyone, neither of the parents, nor the
children it allegedly benefits. And it is a federal issue - it's a federal
system. The court order is in Maryland but it does not disappe
On 7/20/06, Chesty Puller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Or not kill the baby to begin with. If you prevent people from
benefitting
> from an evil act, they probably won't do it.
Just one thing for a baby to do...
GET IN MY BELLY!
~
> Dana wrote:
> I had to write them several very haughty letters asking them to please not
> help me any more
Well, that's kind of my motto with all government services, but I'm
sorry you had to go through all of that. I'm sure that the break-up
and dealing with kids was enough without that.
Th
I don't think he is the cause of the problem, but he certainly hasn't fixed it
-- have you heard anything about child support in the last six years? It is a
federal responsibility to some extent at least, since my MD court order would
theoretically be enforced by Texas or New Mexico or wherever
> Dana wrote:
> it's usually billed as parents taking responsibility for their children.
::DING!:: Divorced parents ... child support = money paid to parent
from other parent ... I get it! Guess I'm really out of the loop on
that cause the term "child support" is a dusty one in my head. It
sound
Apparently you prefer wrong-headed certitude to awareness of real scientific
ambiguities ::shrug::
As for the child support enforcement, it's usually billed as parents taking
responsibility for their children. Is that liberal do-goodism these days? It's
so hard to keep track of the latest wierd
> Dana wrote:
> based on child support enforcement alone.
But what is "child support enforcement"? It sounds like some type of
liberal do-gooder government program that I would definitely hate.
> but there's little point in arguing with words you've put in his mouth.
>
I'm just repeating what I
um I don't need a link to know what a parent is, thanks. Especially one
selected by someone childless, who's been known to say that abortion is the
responsible choice :)
My point is that if Bush actually believed what you say he does I could have
all sort of fun accusig him of hypocrisy, ba
> Dana wrote:
> I'll believe that when there's a rational child support system in this
> country :)
>
What the hell is a "child support system"? Is that what I call
"parents"? Of course there's also "family" too.
Read the story of this guy to learn about them:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aud
I'll believe that when there's a rational child support system in this country
:)
>(2.) If you fertilize an egg, no matter where, you're responsible for
>that life until he/she is 18.
~|
Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarterl
> Dana wrote:
> well then, that position, as stated by you, is rather silly.
The Bush position, at least, seems the most consistent:
(1.) Life begins at fertilization.
(2.) If you fertilize an egg, no matter where, you're responsible for
that life until he/she is 18.
(3.) If you purposely create
well then, that position, as stated by you, is rather silly. No point in
arguing it if nobody is defnding it.
>> Dana wrote:
>> However, your position leads to the contention that all ova have a right to
>> be born
>
>It's not my position, it's just a position that I am clarifying so
>that I can
> Dana wrote:
> However, your position leads to the contention that all ova have a right to
> be born
It's not my position, it's just a position that I am clarifying so
that I can understand the issues. And that position would say that
all embryos (i.e., *fertilized* eggs), not all ova, are huma
sorry, I can't agree. First of all, if we are talking test tubes, there are no
possibly conflicting rights of the mother. So the issue is purely whether we
have cells or a human life. I say that at five or six days it's a few cells,
but I can see how people might feel otherwise.
My position al
> Dana wrote:
> I didn't say anything about abortion.
I'm saying there's no logical difference between an egg fertilized in
the womb or in a test tube. If you purposely decide not to take that
embryo to term it could be argued that it's been "aborted". If you
are opposed to abortion, then any ha
I didn't say anything about abortion. At five days you aren't talking about
abortion, you know, just a failure to implant. And if you are going to say it's
a human life when it's fertilized, then gee... would't that make it the
responsibility of women to stay pregnant at all times? And to avoid
> Sam wrote:
> The extra embryo are available in case you
> want more kids a few years later, stuck in a custody fight or people
> just don't know what to do with them.
>
Right, so if we follow the argument to it's logical legal conclusion
it would be that a couple shouldn't be able to do that. T
My understanding is they take a bunch of eggs and fertilize them. A
percentage of them take, then they insert them into the womb and some
of them take. They used to insert a dozen fertilized eggs hoping 1 or
2 would take. That's why you hear about people having octoplits (sp?).
Now they go in and s
On 7/21/06, Gruss Gott wrote:
> Wouldn't that be make Bush's policy murder then? That is, isn't he
> allowing viable embryos to be destroyed for research - or at least not
> brought to term which would be the same thing, right?
No. He said these 88 or whatever number, embyos have already been
de
> Dana wrote:
> I can't bring myself to see research with five-day embryos as the beginning
> of the end
It definitely would be. Once you start purposely aborting viable life
for parts, you're basically evil.
> would God have given us science if he did not want us to make use of it?
He also g
I think I agree... my original question was what the religious justification
is, but although I see the moral danger here I can't bring myself to see
research with five-day embryos as the beginning of the end. It is indeed a
slippery slope fallacy. Allow this and them wimmin will be sellin their
> RoMunn wrote:
> extra embryos from intro clinics are a different issue, but I agree
> that is the slippery slope.
>
This is where I don't get the logic: how do you have "extra" embryos?
If that's the case wouldn't you also have to abortions "extra"?
It would seem that you either believe that an
regardless of any religious questions, the whole idea of creating
embryos for research is horrible in a brave new world kind of way.
extra embryos from intro clinics are a different issue, but I agree
that is the slippery slope.
On 7/21/06, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No. The fear is scientis
>Oh come on, don't be retarded.
>
>Human life obviously has more value than a fucking spider or a nat.
>
>>
Not really many religions hold that all life is sacred. For instance, Jainist
monks carry a broom with them at all times to gently brush away insects etc so
that they will not be stepped o
>From a strict viewpoint, yes; which is why some suggest they need to be
brought to term in surrogates.
> -Original Message-
> From: Gruss Gott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, July 22, 2006 12:03 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: somebody help me on
> Nick wrote:
> Yes, however the law doesn't support that.
>
Wouldn't that be make Bush's policy murder then? That is, isn't he
allowing viable embryos to be destroyed for research - or at least not
brought to term which would be the same thing, right?
Wouldn't the position be that all of these
Yes, however the law doesn't support that.
> -Original Message-
> From: Gruss Gott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> So that's my question about the current lines of stem cells: didn't
> they come from fertilized eggs? Couple that had fertility problems
> and so tried to fertilize a bunch of
> gMoney wrote:
> A very conservative religious point of view says that life begins at
> conception. An embryo is a fertilized egg. If you hold this view point, an
> embryo is therefore a life, and destroying it is tantamount to murder.
>
So that's my question about the current lines of stem cells
I thought they were using fetuses that were aborted anyway?
Nope, fetuses are too far developed. They want to use the extra zygotes that
are created, but not used for fertilization treatments. When invitro
fertilization is done, several zygotes are created to try and ensure at least a
couple
I'll buy that, thanks.
On 7/21/06, Michael Dinowitz wrote:
> then I'm all for it. We're talking cells, not people.
> want. God will make sure the right ones become people and the wrong ones
> become stem cells.
>
~|
Introducing t
unication is strictly
>prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify
>us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your
>computer.
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: G Money [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Friday, July 21, 2
I was just looking at that. I think it's the hormone that prevents
fertilization, as this was not the way it was explained to me a few years back.
But ya, looks like next-generation IUDs do prevent fertilization.
> I read it prevents fertilization:
>
> Both kinds of IUDs work by preventing spe
I read it prevents fertilization:
Both kinds of IUDs work by preventing sperm from joining with an egg
by affecting the way they move. The hormone in Mirena increases
effectiveness. It thickens cervical mucus, which provides a barrier
that prevents sperm from entering the uterus. It also prevents
lto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 21, 2006 2:37 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: somebody help me on this?
That's a strange threshold for life. Is the idea that the being could
survive separate from it's mother? Because that's not necessarily
truethe baby would die inside the inc
Oh come on, don't be retarded.
Human life obviously has more value than a fucking spider or a nat.
> -Original Message-
> From: Casey Dougall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, July 21, 2006 2:51 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: somebody help me on this
I kill every spider I encounter.terrifying little bastards.
On 7/21/06, Casey Dougall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Next time you kill a spider or a nat, consider it's life. If you kill a
> flee, you shouldn't have issues with any of this.
>
>
~~~
gt; Subject: Re: somebody help me on this?
>
> Next time you kill a spider or a nat, consider it's life. If you kill a
> flee, you shouldn't have issues with any of this.
>
>
~|
Introducing the Fusion Auth
intra-uterine device, a common form of birth control. It allows fertilization
but prevents implantation.
>Forgive my ignorance, I don't know what an IUD is.
>
>But in the fundamental religious viewpoint (which is what we are
>discussing), the embryo is both life, and *A* lifeso it's entitled
IUD prevents fertilization. We're talking post fertilization.
On 7/21/06, Dana Tierney wrote:
> It's life but it isn't *a* life yet, or every woman that uses an IUD is
> committing murder :) Of course, in the Catholic viewpoint I guess she is ;)
>
Next time you kill a spider or a nat, consider it's life. If you kill a
flee, you shouldn't have issues with any of this.
On 7/21/06, G Money <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Forgive my ignorance, I don't know what an IUD is.
>
> But in the fundamental religious viewpoint (which is what we are
>
Forgive my ignorance, I don't know what an IUD is.
But in the fundamental religious viewpoint (which is what we are
discussing), the embryo is both life, and *A* lifeso it's entitled to
all inherent rights thereof.
And yes, a devout Catholic would certainly hold that belief.
On 7/21/06, Dan
Message-
> From: Dana Tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, July 21, 2006 2:41 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: somebody help me on this?
>
> somewhere halfway through the second, I think, actually. Currently
> abortions after about the fifth month are pretty h
A very conservative religion point of view is 5-6 seconds.
Anything after the fertilization would be ending the life.
> -Original Message-
> From: Dana Tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, July 21, 2006 2:35 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: somebody
It was life that was created artificially, in a test tube, and will be
destroyed for science. I believe it has to do with creating human life
for the purpose of research.
Maybe they're also against creating extra embryos and destroying them,
which is why they want to get them adopted.
On 7/21/06,
It's life but it isn't *a* life yet, or every woman that uses an IUD is
committing murder :) Of course, in the Catholic viewpoint I guess she is ;)
>You don't? I certainly understand it, even if I might not agree with it:
>
>A very conservative religious point of view says that life begins at
>co
You don't? I certainly understand it, even if I might not agree with it:
A very conservative religious point of view says that life begins at
conception. An embryo is a fertilized egg. If you hold this view point, an
embryo is therefore a life, and destroying it is tantamount to murder.
On 7/21/0
mmediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your
>computer.
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Nick McClure [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Friday, July 21, 2006 2:28 PM
>To: CF-Community
>Subject: RE: somebody help me on this?
>
>So by the time they
That's a strange threshold for life. Is the idea that the being could
survive separate from it's mother? Because that's not necessarily
truethe baby would die inside the incubator without assistance from
other people.
A human child is almost completely dependant upon others for the first
sever
ok, embryo -- sloppy language on my part. If what you are saying is true I do
not understand the objection, even from a very conservative religious point of
view. Fifth or sixth day? Might as well worry about the cells they take in a
gyn exam.
>Embryo and fetus are two different things. An emb
puter.
-Original Message-
From: Nick McClure [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 21, 2006 2:28 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: somebody help me on this?
So by the time they are 12 years old?
> -Original Message-
> From: Scott Stewart [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent
So by the time they are 12 years old?
> -Original Message-
> From: Scott Stewart [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, July 21, 2006 2:27 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: RE: somebody help me on this?
>
> My belief is that life begins when it can be sustained out
Not that I'm aware of, but I guess they could be.
> -Original Message-
> From: Dana Tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, July 21, 2006 2:24 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: somebody help me on this?
>
> I thought they were using fetuses that wer
have received this communication in error, please notify
us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your
computer.
-Original Message-
From: Michael Dinowitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 21, 2006 5:15 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: somebody help me on
Embryo and fetus are two different things. An embryo becomes a fetus
at the end of eighth week after conception.
The embryos used for embryonic stem cell research are always created
in the lab and are destroyed on the 5th or 6th day of life, if you
want to call it that.
Fetus farming was just banne
I thought they were using fetuses that were aborted anyway?
>It isn't that it will cause others to get abortions, it is that the process
>to get at the stem cells is similar to abortion
~|
Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarter
From: Casey Dougall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, July 21, 2006 2:09 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: somebody help me on this?
>
> When does the embryo develop a soul? The sperm was alive, the egg was
> alive,
> the embryo is the combo, but what does that mea
It isn't that it will cause others to get abortions, it is that the process
to get at the stem cells is similar to abortion
> -Original Message-
> From: Dana Tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, July 21, 2006 2:08 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: some
My grandfather had his leg cut off due to diabities before he died. If that
could be cured by a few embryos that may or may not even develop into life,
then I'm all for it. We're talking cells, not people.
And if this is a religious issue it show pure lack of faith in God. If you
have faith tha
> Sent: Friday, July 21, 2006 1:52 PM
> > To: CF-Community
> > Subject: somebody help me on this?
> >
> > I have not said anything about stem cells because I've been busy and
> > because, to be honest, I did not exect any kind of legislation to ever
&
well I think there has to be a fetus that does not live in order for fetal
cells to be used, right? But the thinking is that stem cell research will cause
*more* abortions? Cause I don't quite see that. Or if it is simply that a fetus
is life and therefore you cannot use its parts then why are t
No. The fear is scientist will create life in vitro for the purpose of
destroying it to get the cells. They say there are 400,000 frozen
embryos, already fertilized, in storage. Bush wants to let people
adopt them. So far, under the snowflake program, 81 children have been
adopted and are now alive
ierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, July 21, 2006 1:52 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: somebody help me on this?
>
> I have not said anything about stem cells because I've been busy and
> because, to be honest, I did not exect any kind of legislation to ever
&g
I think the issue is that it's a form of abortion.
>I have not said anything about stem cells because I've been busy and
>because, to be honest, I did not exect any kind of legislation to ever pass
>to get to the veto stage.
>
> But here we are, andmy question is -- the opposition to stem cell
I have not said anything about stem cells because I've been busy and because,
to be honest, I did not exect any kind of legislation to ever pass to get to
the veto stage.
But here we are, andmy question is -- the opposition to stem cell research
comes from some secret conviction that if it is a
64 matches
Mail list logo
