Bush proves he's not the brightest -- again.

[billvon 2,476]

>You know the kid isn't loved as much and that's going to be pretty damn
>tough for him to stomach why he was born solely for body parts.
Is it easier to be born knowing you weren't wanted at all?
-bill von

[TheMarshMan1 0]

Think of it this way: the kid (Adam) was born so that his sister's life could be saved. I dunno about you, but I think it'd be pretty damn cool to be born to save someone elses life.
"If I could be like that, I would give anything, just to live one day, in those shoes..."

[PLFXpert 0]

Quuuaaade, Quuuaaade, start the reactor....Haven't had time to read all this, as there are a hundred pages. Often when science has developed, it is intended for good purposes. However, in quite a few cases, it causes more harm than good.
My standings: I'm pro-choice but I'm not a fan of abortion. I just feel a women should have the choice.
I'm not for stem-cell research and I'm especially not for human cloning. The world is overpopulated as it is. I'm an organ donor. When I die, I want everything useful to another person taken from me and the rest burned and thrown out of an airplane. I think more people need to donate. I don't think organs should be cloned. If anyone needs a kidney out there, I'll donate one of mine.
If someone I loved deeply needed an organ and the last resort was to clone one, I still wouldn't be for it, even though I know I've never been put in that position and obviously couldn't say for 100% sure, I'm 99% sure I still wouldn't be for it. Death is a natural process. It will one day happen to all of us. Personally, I'm not worried about it. When it happens, it happens and although I'd morn my loved one deeply, I'd know in my heart it was their time and I'll see them again one day(those are my beliefs, anyways.)
There is a line that is crosse, in my mind, with cloning. I support people donating to those who need but I do not support cloning to save a person's life.
Hasn't anyone read "Brave New World?" I used to think that book was extreme but as the days go on, it become more and more plausible. I"m not for it.
PS. I still think the title of this thread is accurate, though
Much love and blue skies,
Carrie http://www.geocities.com/skydivegrl20/

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Here's a question to ponder:
How could someone consider abortion when there are so many very loving couples in America (and the world) that are trying so very hard to have a child but can't so they put their names on an adoption waiting list? Why not give the kid a chance and make some loving couple into a caring and loving family?

Because of the puritanical background of this nation. Any idea the shunning, embarassment, ridicule, and contempt an unwed mother, especially a teenage one, receives in many parts of this country? And this from some of the same people who are vehemently opposed to abortion.
This isn't directed at you at all, Dave. You seem like a caring person who just wants the best done, and base that on your religious beliefs. I don't see anything wrong with that, in fact that's a good thing. My brother-in-law and his family are all very devout catholic, but never push their beliefs on anyone or criticize anyone, they're just good, kind people.
But their exists a large segment of our society (and most other societies) made up of religious fanatics who use religion as a tool to make themselves more important than they really are. They take scripture and dogma and use it to explain what's unexplainable because they fear the unknown. These people persecute others based on their non-belief in what they claim is the truth.
The big question I have to ask is, how does anyone have the right to tell someone who doesn't believe in god, and doesn't believe that a fetus is a human that they are wrong? Prove it. You can quote body organs this and brain waves that, but there really is no way to prove it. And without proving that, the only way to outlaw abortion or stem cell research, or anything else, is by imposing your belief on someone else on whom it will have a profoundly greater effect than on yourself.
Think about this key point....there is no proof one way or the other. One party believes it is protecting the innocent. The other party believes it is protecting their individual rights. Both of these sides base their stance on belief. The only fair and equitable thing to do is to allow the party who is effected to make the decision. Someone else having an abortion does not effect you physically, financially, or socially. But forcing someone to carry a fetus to term and have a baby definitely effects them in many many ways.
Again, I understand that people think they are protecting the innocent. But again, that's a belief, not a fact. Until you can prove it without a doubt, stay out of other people's business and don't try to impose your beliefs on others.
I also take offense to some of the so called "caring" people on here talking about what "abortionists" believe. I'm not an "abortionist". I've never performed an abortion, I've never impregnated anyone, and never talked anyone into, assisted in, or observed an abortion.
In fact, this issue effects me not one bit. I'm not a woman, I don't have any children, and never will (willingly or unwillingly), nor do I want any. But I feel strongly about it all the same because I have witnessed the emotional and tragic damage that anti-abortion advocates and other self-righteous religioso have inflicted upon people I've known and cared about. These were people with families and histories and friends, and not fetuses, that were damaged and one driven to suicide by these so called "protectors of the innocent".
cielos azules y cerveza fría
-Kevin

[TheMarshMan1 0]

Carrie....you just put my thoughts into words almost exactly. Great minds must really think alike, eh?
"If I could be like that, I would give anything, just to live one day, in those shoes..."

[ChromeBoy 0]

That ultimate fantasy of the couch potato may become a reality some day, according to researchers who have found the chemical pathways that muscle cells use to build strength and endurance.
With this basic knowledge in hand, it now may be possible to develop a pill that pumps up muscle cells without all that exercise, said Dr. R. Sanders Williams, dean of the Duke University of School of Medicine and senior author of a study appearing Friday in the journal Science.
Does this mean sedentary people could build muscle by taking pills?
"That may be one of the possibilities," said Williams, but the main target of the research is to promote the health of people with heart disease or other conditions that keep them from doing enough exercise.
"This could lead to drugs that will let people get the health benefits of regular exercise, even if they cannot exercise," said Williams. This could help patients with heart or lung disease, or lower the risk of Type II diabetes, for instance.
"It is possible it could become a drug of abuse because it would enhance the performance of athletes," he said.
In the study, Williams and colleagues at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas created a group of mice with genes that made a surplus of a protein called calmodulin-dependent protein kinase, or CaMK. When this protein is activated, it and another protein, calcineurin, trigger the physical changes that muscle cells undergo after intense exercise.
Williams said mice with a high level of CaMK developed more mitochondria in muscle cells and saw an increase of a type of cell called the "slow twitch" muscle. These are muscle cells that power sustained activity, such as that required by marathon runners.
For "fast twitch" muscles, which provide a burst of strength for a short period of time, there was an increase in the number of mitochondria.
The researchers found that mice with high levels of CaMK developed the same healthy muscle cells as mice that did exercise.
"The effect increases more of the slow twitch muscles, but it also increases the number of mitochondia in the fast twitch muscle cells," he said. "That is very similar to what happens in very intense training."
Mitochondria are structures inside a cell that provide energy by metabolizing oxygen and nutrition. Cells with many mitochondria can produce more work over a longer time. Physical training increases the number of mitochondria in muscle cells.
Williams said a drug that would trigger the CaMK muscle signaling pathway has not been found, but now that there is a specific target it should made the development easier.
"Pharmaceutical companies are very good at that," he said.
Dr. Keshav Singh of Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine said the paper by Williams and his group is an "important advancement in understanding the mechanism that creates more mitochondria in muscles."
"Since levels of mitochondrial proteins decrease with normal aging, this study may also help develop therapies to increase the physical endurance in the aged," said Singh, who is a mitochondria researcher at Hopkins.
Copyright 2002 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

[billvon 2,476]

>I don't understand how growing a new life for the specific purpose of killing it and
> using its cells can possibly be a good thing, regardless of how nobly those cells
> may be used.
We do this now, in more limited capacities. For example, we remove T-cells, culture them, and reinject them into a person's body for the express purpose of killing off a cancer. In other words, we create new life, then use it before it dies to help stop cancer. (White blood cells are certainly alive, but the cultured ones do eventually die.) Cloning research would do that on a much larger scale - in the above case, we could grow the white blood cells from scratch, from a donated egg and the patient's own DNA.
>Does everybody here NOT agree that killing one life to help another is generally a
> bad thing?
Case in point -
Someone in the hospital is brain dead and his family would like him to be an organ donor. There are four people whose lives would be saved by his organs. Option 1 is to take him off life support then use his organs to save the other four people. Option 2 is to take him off life support, let his body rot the normal way, and let the other four people die. Are you really arguing that option 2 is morally better?
-bill von

[billvon 2,476]

>If someone I loved deeply needed an organ and the last resort was to clone one, I
> still wouldn't be for it, even though I know I've never been put in that position and
> obviously couldn't say for 100% sure, I'm 99% sure I still wouldn't be for it.
Many people agree with you. But, just as you are pro-choice but are generally against abortion, I would suggest that this is another instance of where someone might disagree morally - but should allow the person whose life it is to make that decision. Surely if you allow someone to kill a developing fetus at its 10th week of life, it is morally less of an issue if that same person uses his own DNA and a donated egg to make himself a new liver - even if it involves starting with something that looks like a blastocyst.
>Death
> is a natural process. It will one day happen to all of us.
I agree. But in the wild, pre-humans lived to about 35 before dying. Today we extend that dramatically with good medical care, housing, clean water and sanitary conditions for our food, to over twice that age. We do not accept that pneumonia should take a 15 year old girl just because "it was her time to go" - we treat her because we think that her right to life is more important. We use some pretty nasty treatments (chemo, radiation) to keep people alive, even though they are as far from natural as you can get.
Similarly, I do not believe that liver failure due to Hep C means "it's your time to go." It means you're sick. And if we can cure it, we should allow people to make their own decisions on the lengths they want to go to preserve their own lives. After all, it is their life, not ours.
-bill von

[skybytch 259]

Quote

If someone I loved deeply needed an organ and the last resort was to clone one, I still wouldn't be for it, even though I know I've never been put in that position and obviously couldn't say for 100% sure, I'm 99% sure I still wouldn't be for it. Death is a natural process. It will one day happen to all of us. Personally, I'm not worried about it. When it happens, it happens and although I'd morn my loved one deeply, I'd know in my heart it was their time and I'll see them again one day(those are my beliefs, anyways.)

Unless you've been through it you have no idea how tough it is to know that someone you love is going to die if they don't get an organ transplant. I do. My 35 year old cousin got new kidneys and a pancreas a few weeks ago and we were overjoyed - that meant a good chance he'll survive to see his son grow up. Unfortunately the kidneys aren't working...

You're really saying that if you were in my shoes and cloning from his own DNA could create two new kidneys that work for your cousin or other loved one you'd be willing to just say goodbye to him? Harsh.
pull & flare,
lisa

[FallingMarc 0]

Quote

We do this now, in more limited capacities. For example, we remove T-cells, culture them, and reinject them into a person's body for the express purpose of killing off a cancer. In other words, we create new life, then use it before it dies to help stop cancer.

There's a difference between culturing T-cells, and concieving a new life.

Quote

Someone in the hospital is brain dead and his family would like him to be an organ donor. There are four people whose lives would be saved by his organs. Option 1 is to take him off life support then use his organs to save the other four people. Option 2 is to take him off life support, let his body rot the normal way, and let the other four people die. Are you really arguing that option 2 is morally better?

Of course not. I said "killing one life in order to help another is generally a bad thing". If you look hard enough you can find an exeption to just about anything. I'm arguing that it is morally wrong to create a life, just for the purpose of killing it. This would be a life perfectly capable of growing up and becoming a human being, as opposed to one that is already, as you said, brain-dead.
Marc

[FallingMarc 0]

Quote

The big question I have to ask is, how does anyone have the right to tell someone who doesn't believe in god, and doesn't believe that a fetus is a human that they are wrong? Prove it. You can quote body organs this and brain waves that, but there really is no way to prove it. And without proving that, the only way to outlaw abortion or stem cell research, or anything else, is by imposing your belief on someone else on whom it will have a profoundly greater effect than on yourself.

Then so be it. I would rather have that belief imposed on someone, that they might have to carry a baby to term, or that they might not harvest fetal cells, than know that those people are imposing *their* beliefs on all the babies that get killed.
Marc

[PLFXpert 0]

Lisa,
As I said when I made the statement and I'll say again, I have not been in your shoes. I have no idea what that must feel like. Because the situation is so personal to you, it would seem like a personal attack if I said that I might, in your position, be willing to let go.
I stand by what I said before and I would not judge others who feel differently. If in your case your cousin decides to have kidneys cloned, so be it. I do not think less of anyone who would want to do so. I certainly can understand and sympathize.
There are many valid arguements from both sides. My opinions on this matter have nothing to do with religion. I am Christian but do not believe in a lot of the moral persecutions Christains place on others. I do my best not to judge. I feel that is Gods duty, not mine.

Quote

I agree. But in the wild, pre-humans lived to about 35 before dying. Today we extend that dramatically with good medical care, housing, clean water and sanitary conditions for our food, to over twice that age.

Yes, and if we keep going, eventually we'll live to be 3 times that age and so on. I believe there is a line crossed. I, personally, do not want to live to be 100, and I certainly don't want a bunch of other centenarians lying around using up the resources so that future generations will be left with nothing. My opinion is the world is overpopulated. I don't support killing people but I don't support keeping them alive when naturally, they would die.(I'm speaking about extreme cases, not simple cases of pnemonia.) It may sound harsh but to me, it's not. To me, it's life. If i see a bug in my house, I catch it, not step on it, and put it outside. But if I saw a rabbit being attacked by a cat, I would not try to save the rabbit. I couldn't watch, mind you, but I'd realize that, that is nature, it happens. I'm not saying get rid of all medicines, etc. I'm just saying, in my mind, there should be a cutting-off point and for me, cloning is that point.
In your other example, taking someone off life support to save another, in my opinion is unfounded. The person would be dead if a doctor had not put them on a machine to perform all life's functions for them. I don't believe in life support, either. Let me die, dammit, don't let some machine live my life for me.
Much love and blue skies,
Carrie http://www.geocities.com/skydivegrl20/

[billvon 2,476]

>There's a difference between culturing T-cells, and concieving a new life.
So if you could modify an egg cell so it could not come to term no matter what, and used your own DNA to create a genetic duplicate cell mass, and used that mass (a mass that could not become a living human) to create white blood cells, that would be OK? If so, I agree - but that is precisely what Bush is coming out against (cloning in any form.)
>I'm arguing that it is morally wrong to create a life, just for the purpose of killing it.
I assume you mean human life here. (The statement isn't generally arguable when applied to cows, for example.) If that's the case, then the important question is - "what is a human life?" It certainly isn't a beating heart since, as you admit, a brain dead but otherwise alive human can be taken off life support without it being murder. It certainly isn't just the potential for life - if that's the case, everyone who decides to not have sex with someone is killing potential unborn babies. It certainly isn't just a fertilized egg - if that were true, two healthy people who have sex and use birth control are murderers. (IUD's guarantee that a fertilized egg cell is flushed by the body's normal rejection process.)
I propose that the presence of a human mind is the defining characteristic of a human being. If that's the case, a fertilized egg first begins showing signs of humanity around 8-12 weeks.
>This would be a life perfectly capable of growing up and becoming a human
> being, as opposed to one that is already, as you said, brain-dead.
Well, it's a matter of degree. Someone who is brain dead has a small (.1%?) chance of recovery. A fertilized egg cell has about a 40% chance of becoming a human. I agree that there's a difference, but it's one of degree, and is not a black and white issue.
-bill von

[Iflyme 0]

Quote

If our society does not diligently protect human life, no matter how helpless, then we will truly have stepped onto the "slippery slope."

Society does NOT "diligently protect" human life. Cigarettes, guns, highways, low hook turns -- how many human lives are given to these "convienences" each year??? Why should we not benefit from the incredible knowledge we are gaining from scientific research ?
I'm gonna read more of this great thread, and post some more!
"There's nothing new under the sun"

[Iflyme 0]

Quote

Most (God bless them) religious people may not require proof for the existence of God, but I believe in the Christian God because of the extensive proof of His existence

Well, this is most bizarre... please trot out your "extensive proof" and display it for the those of us who do not believe in the existance of ANY "god", Christian or otherwise.
"There's nothing new under the sun"

[TheMarshMan1 0]

Quote

Well, this is most bizarre... please trot out your "extensive proof" and display it for the those of us who do not believe in the existance of ANY "god", Christian or otherwise.

I almost made that request as well, but I figured it'd stir the pot up. But since you did, yeah, lets hear it.... "If I could be like that, I would give anything, just to live one day, in those shoes..."

[billvon 2,476]

> I, personally, do not want to live to be 100, and I certainly don't want a bunch of
> other centenarians lying around . . .
I think you have every right to decide you don't want to live to 100 - but I'm not sure that it's OK to tell other people they can't.
> using up the resources so that future generations will be left with nothing. My
> opinion is the world is overpopulated.
I agree, but unless you plan on killing people off _before_ their reproductive age (i.e. 15 on) old people do very little to add to population pressures. It is that there are too many people, not that those people live too long. That's a separate problem that requires a separate solution.
>I don't support killing people but I don't support keeping them alive when
> naturally, they would die.(I'm speaking about extreme cases, not simple cases
> of pnemonia.)
Well, but see, it's very hard to draw that line. To my grandmother, penicillin was science fiction. There were no "simple cases of pneumonia" and, had she been treated for it in 1942, it would have been an extreme, experimental treatment. I'm sure there were people back then who claimed that you shouldn't meddle with god's will that way. In another 50 years, treating someone for leukemia with gene therapy, including a quickly cloned blood transfusion, may require no more than a few days in the hospital. Science and medicine moves on. In most cases they improve people's lives. I would not have wanted to stand in the way of sterile technique, or antibiotics, or anesthesia, because all of those things have made people's lives better - not just 100 year olds, but 20 and 30 year old mothers and sons and uncles. I would not want to stand in the way of the next advance either.
-bill von

[FallingMarc 0]

Quote

It certainly isn't just the potential for life - if that's the case, everyone who decides to not have sex with someone is killing potential unborn babies. It certainly isn't just a fertilized egg - if that were true, two healthy people who have sex and use birth control are murderers.

Just a minor point, as I know many of you will see this as meaningless and irrelevant... but the Roman Catholic Church teaches that contraception *is* a sin *because* it denies that potential child a chance, in addition to the whole "God created sex to give us a way to reproduce" thing...
I'm going to have to digest some of the rest of this for a while and get back to it. This is awesome...
Marc

[Sinkster 0]

Quote

Well, this is most bizarre... please trot out your "extensive proof" and display it for the those of us who do not believe in the existance of ANY "god", Christian or otherwise.

It will always take at least some type of leap of faith to believe in God. In fact the Bible says "without faith it is impossible to please God." Nevertheless, like I said, there is a lot of proof out there for the existence of God. So, to give you an idea, here are some general proofs for the existence of God, but this is not meant to be an all inclusive list by any means. Thanks go to St. Thomas Aquinas for first pointing them out. =)
I answer that it can be proved in five ways that God exists.
The first and plainest is the method that proceeds from the point of view of motion. It is certain and in accord with experience, that things on earth undergo change. Now, everything that is moved is moved by something; nothing, indeed, is changed, except it is changed to something which it is in potentiality. Moreover, anything moves in accordance with something actually existing; change itself, is nothing else than to bring forth something from potentiality into actuality. Now, nothing can be brought from potentiality to actual existence except through something actually existing: thus heat in action, as fire, makes fire-wood, which is hot in potentiality, to be hot actually, and through this process, changes itself. The same thing cannot at the same time be actually and potentially the same thing, but only in regard to different things. What is actually hot cannot be at the same time potentially hot, but it is possible for it at the same time to be potentially cold. It is impossible, then, that anything should be both mover and the thing moved, in regard to the same thing and in the same way, or that it should move itself. Everything, therefore, is moved by something else. If, then, that by which it is moved, is also moved, this must be moved by something still different, and this, again, by something else. But this process cannot go on to infinity because there would not be any first mover, nor, because of this fact, anything else in motion, as the succeeding things would not move except because of what is moved by the first mover, just as a stick is not moved except through what is moved from the hand. Therefore it is necessary to go back to some first mover, which is itself moved by nothing---and this all men know as God.
The second proof is from the nature of the efficient cause. We find in our experience that there is a chain of causes: nor is it found possible for anything to be the efficient cause of itself, since it would have to exist before itself, which is impossible. Nor in the case of efficient causes can the chain go back indefinitely, because in all chains of efficient causes, the first is the cause of the middle, and these of the last, whether they be one or many. If the cause is removed, the effect is removed. Hence if there is not a first cause, there will not be a last, nor a middle. But if the chain were to go back infinitely, there would be no first cause, and thus no ultimate effect, nor middle causes, which is admittedly false. Hence we must presuppose some first efficient cause---which all call God.
The third proof is taken from the natures of the merely possible and necessary. We find that certain things either may or may not exist, since they are found to come into being and be destroyed, and in consequence potentially, either existent or non-existent. But it is impossible for all things that are of this character to exist eternally, because what may not exist, at length will not. If, then, all things were merely possible (mere accidents), eventually nothing among things would exist. If this is true, even now there would be nothing, because what does not exist, does not take its beginning except through something that does exist. If then nothing existed, it would be impossible for anything to begin, and there would now be nothing existing, which is admittedly false. Hence not all things are mere accidents, but there must be one necessarily existing being. Now every necessary thing either has a cause of its necessary existence, or has not. In the case of necessary things that have a cause for their necessary existence, the chain of causes cannot go back infinitely, just as not in the case of efficient causes, as proved. Hence there must be presupposed something necessarily existing through its own nature, not having a cause elsewhere but being itself the cause of the necessary existence of other things---which all call God.
The fourth proof arises from the degrees that are found in things. For there is found a greater and a less degree of goodness, truth, nobility, and the like. But more or less are terms spoken of various things as they approach in diverse ways toward something that is the greatest, just as in the case of hotter (more hot) which approaches nearer the greatest heat. There exists therefore something that is the truest, and best, and most noble, and in consequence, the greatest being. For what are the greatest truths are the greatest beings, as is said in the Metaphysics Bk. II. 2. What moreover is the greatest in its way, in another way is the cause of all things of its own kind (or genus); thus fire, which is the greatest heat, is the cause of all heat, as is said in the same book (cf. Plato and Aristotle). Therefore there exists something that is the cause of the existence of all things and of the goodness and of every perfection whatsoever---and this we call God.
The fifth proof arises from the ordering of things for we see that some things which lack reason, such as natural bodies, are operated in accordance with a plan. It appears from this that they are operated always or the more frequently in this same way the closer they follow what is the Highest; whence it is clear that they do not arrive at the result by chance but because of a purpose. The things, moreover, that do not have intelligence do not tend toward a result unless directed by some one knowing and intelligent; just as an arrow is sent by an archer. Therefore there is something intelligent by which all natural things are arranged in accordance with a plan---and this we call God.

[Iflyme 0]

Thank you, Sinkster, for taking the time to reply, but quite frankly, I do not find a single shred of what could be described as "proof" of the existance anywhere in your post.

Quote

Everything, therefore, is moved by something else. If, then, that by which it is moved, is also moved, this must be moved by something still different, and this, again, by something else.

Your text is rich in theological roundabout bafflegab -- but there is no proof.
After reading your post, I have a question for you: how old do you believe the earth is, and how was it formed?
"There's nothing new under the sun"

[quade 3]

Wow.
I leave for a few hours to make a few jumps (0:7:0) and look at what happens!
GREAT DEBATE!
Thanks to everyone for keeping this civil -- especially with such a difficult topic and multiple sub-topics.
Now, on to rebuttals.
Sinkster --
While St. Thomas was considered a very great thinker in his time, I do not accept his (in my opinion) fallacious arguments as proof of anything.
Please see;
Logic & Fallacies
and
Nizkor Project
quade
http://futurecam.com

[FallingILweenie 0]

I don't agree with the proofs myself, but i do believe in God in my own way....
...which leads me to bring up my biggest problem with the argument:
"...which all call God. "
That's a pretty absolute, all inclusive statement. In my opinion, it seems that anyone that DOESN'T believe in God, or even see God in the same way, disproves the argument because the conclusion infers that everyone (ALL-->everyone, right?) sees God in the same way.
Very interesting argument, and I dont think anyone here will change their beliefs or anything but it's still fun to discuss, even if just to learn a thing or two about how others think.
My biggest proof of the existence of God is how i feel when I skydive. I don't mean to cheapen or make the discussion any less serious....I do think that at those moments where you can claim that you are truly happy, it's at those moments where I have to believe that something somewhere created the wonderous things of the world, and gave me the ability to recognize it and enjoy it.
Blue skies
Tomas

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Then so be it. I would rather have that belief imposed on someone, that they might have to carry a baby to term, or that they might not harvest fetal cells, than know that those people are imposing *their* beliefs on all the babies that get killed.

So you'd rather have your abstract belief imposed on someone who is a proven human being and possibly destroy their life?
Go back and read the rest of my post. What baby are you referring to? It's not a baby, it's a clump of cells, that's my belief. Prove me wrong. It can't be done.
Let's be honest here people...noone making this argument gives a damn about the sanctity of ALL life. Germs are alive, mold is alive, pretty much everything you eat was alive at one point. The real point here is human consciousness. And I just don't see how a growth of cells and organs inside of another human being with no experience and no history has a consciousness. It can't make moral choices, it is in effect a parasite. When rabbit populations in a warren are over crowded pregnant rabbits will reabsorb unborn fetuses back into their own body naturally. If you want to go the god root, that proves god instituted a natural process that destroys fetuses after they are conceived. I guess god is an "abortionist".
And if you still believe the fetus has a consciousness or sole or whatever. How do you know that sole isn't happier being where it is before it is ripped out of whatever paradise it was in before birth to be thrust into this world which may be a form of hell in comparison.
Let people make independent decisions on what effects them personally. Imposing a belief on anyone is wrong no matter what the context.
cielos azules y cerveza fría
-Kevin

[james1010 0]

" While St. Thomas was considered a very great thinker in his time, I do not accept his (in my opinion) fallacious arguments as proof of anything. "
I agree he's full of garb, allow me to try something a bit simpler and down to earth:
For example, consider the humanly incredible words of the Lord Jesus in the following prophecy.
"Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away" (Matthew 24:35).
The same claim was also recorded by two other gospel writers (Mark 13:31; Luke 21:33). It would be hard to miss!
But how could any mere man (if that's all He was) ever make such an outlandish prophecy? He must have been either mad or a king-sized deceiver! As far as human credentials were concerned, He seemingly had none. His supposed father was an ordinary carpenter, he had no formal education and had never held any kind of office; He had written no books or any other writings, so far as we know. He lived in the despised village of Nazareth and had never traveled to other lands. He had a few disciples, but they also were unlearned and unimpressive, and the political and religious leaders of the nation were plotting to silence Him before He could recruit any others. It seems absurd for such a man as this Jesus, from Nazareth, to presume to claim that His teachings would survive His own short life-span, let alone outlast heaven and earth.
But His words have, indeed, endured for well over nineteen centuries, and they are now known and taught all over the world. This is nothing less than an amazingly fulfilled prophecy. The earth is still here, of course, but looking more fragile every day, and there is no doubt remaining that the words of Christ will last at least as long as the earth remains.
The very fact of the life and teachings of this man called Jesus as recorded not only in the Bible, but by secular historians as well, is proof enough for me . . . He couldn't have been just a man.
James

[jfields 0]

James,
While I respect your religious beliefs, I feel they are just that, beliefs, rather than proofs. You are entitled to them, but forgive some of us if we don't acknowledge them as secular, provable facts. Likewise, I feel that much of the Bible is well-intention myth and fable, with a good moral. It is an instructional fairy tale, in a manner of speaking.
If "proof" is based on correctness of prediction, then I'd nominate Jules Verne and Leonardo da Vinci as equal "proof" of the secular nature of the universe. Jules Verne predicted atomic power, submarines, and lots of other things that have come to exist. da Vinci's drawings of science, invention and biology were omens of the future. He just painted religious scenes to pay the bills. In all honesty, I don't believe those fulfilled predictions prove anything either. Coincidence? Inevitable progress? Good insight? Lucky guessing? Probably all of the above. With the many billions of people that have lived on this planet since recorded history, the odds are that some made wild guesses about the future that came out right. The lucky ones just had theirs recorded.
Justin