Just a short blog in support of the president. Being blessed with a Congress that is on "his side," the president has not had much need to use the veto option. Today he did. With such unrealistic promises of the benifits - still unrealized - congress passed a bill that would provide more availability of our tax dollars for embryonic stem cell research. Mr. Bush kept his promise and vetoed the bill.
He has come down on the most scientific definition of the beginning of life there is: the beginning of DNA restructuring into a NEW being. That is to say, "life begins at conception." Of course, that is a truism. For "conception" means "beginning." A more accurate definition is "life begins at fertilization." It's simple biology, folks.
Although the concept of allowing for termination before implantation has merit, it is still the taking of a human life. That life may possibibly becomes TWO lives in the interim as twinning can take place any time before implantation. Implantation is also the time when a rudimentary "brain" begins (a nervous system producing "brain waves"). But that is all within two weeks of fertilization, before most women know they are pregnant. It is "safer" therefore to insist that the point of unique personhood is "conception."
Let us focus on adult and umbelical cord stem cells. These have been PROVEN to produce good results.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Henry,
Thank you for your comment on my blog. I like your site.
This is an important communication for me, so important, Henry, that I am going to make it my next post. I will leave your name out of it, but forgive me for going public with this.
I’m not a libertarian, as you define me, as I believe in government intervention, and even “big government,” with such things as the environment, food and drug safety, defense, and support for science. I am libertarian, as you say, on some issues. I don’t want the government in my personal business. I want them out of my bedroom and morals.
What you are is a right-wing, conservative, fundamentalist Christian. What I don’t like about fundamentalists, of any religion, and about most organized religions, is their intolerance. I don’t like people having the gall to think they have a direct pipeline to God and that I don’t. I don’t respect anyone who is not open to God speaking to them now, right now, and instead relying on what people a long time ago said about God speaking to them.
I also do not like fundamentalists because of their moral certainty. They consider their values as “facts.” As you say, it is a “fact” to you that a unique human life begins at conception. I know that even the Catholic church has a long-standing debate about the moment when the human soul enters the body. Some say it’s at conception; others say it’s at birth; and still others say it happens somewhere in-between.
The fundamentalist Muslim “knows” that Allah wants him to blow up women and children; the fundamentalist Jew is certain that Yahweh has set aside Ha Aretz for the Jews; and the fundamentalist Christian has been told by God that anyone who doesn’t believe in Jesus Christ is going to hell. Fundamentalism has caused jihads, the blowing up of mosques, the Inquisition, and 9/11.
If you are religious, I respect you very much, as long as you respect me. I know that you are trying to listen to God, trying to live a good life, and struggling to be decent to your fellow human beings. These are all good. I stop respecting you when you believe God is talking to you and not me, that you are better than me because of your beliefs, or that God is telling you to hurt me.
Religion has been a force for great good in the world, and great evil. The evil, in my opinion, always comes from the fundamentalists. The good comes from people struggling to know the truth, straining to know what God wants, in humility. My advice for you is: yes, listen to what is written in the Bible, heed the teachings of your church, but don’t turn a deaf ear to what is happening at this moment. God is talking to you now. Do you hear Him? Is He speaking just to you? Or is He talking to me too?
Thanks again, Henry, for your comment, and God bless you.
Rock
Thank you Henry for your reply to my comments. I couldn't track it down on my site or yours, but it must be somewhere besides the email, or maybe not. Anyway, thanks.
I think some of your reply just proves my points, but we'll disagree on that. I'm not going to go into a point for point, as I'm not trying to convince you or change your mind. I wanted to say how I feel and see things and I did.
You were ultimately very kind in your reply even though some of your opinions I find harsh. Still, you have a right to your vision of things.
As you did with me, I wish you all the best, and may God be with you.
Rock
The following is the text of an email response to Rock's first response. Originally, I wasn't going to post it here, but his response above seems to justify this exchange here.
---
Thank you, Rock, for visiting my site. Please fill free to comment on the other posts I have made. In fact, in the archives, you will find "I passed the religion test." Click on the link and see where you fit in. If you will note, I score over 50% in the Emergent/Postmodern and Neo orthodox camps. I am not you regular "right-wing" guy.
You write:
"What you are is a right-wing, conservative, fundamentalist Christian. What I don’t like about fundamentalists, of any religion, and about most organized religions, is their intolerance."
Actually, I tested as "Reformed Evangelical" (79%) while only scoring a 71% as a Fundamentalist. It is true, as you can see in "about me," that I am a graduate of the premier Fundamentalist Christian School in the world. However, I was then, and still am, a Presbyterian. I am not "intolerant" of your views in that you have just as much a right to believe them as I do my views. However, you further write:
"I don’t like people having the gall to think they have a direct pipeline to God and that I don’t. I don’t respect anyone who is not open to God speaking to them now, right now, and instead relying on what people a long time ago said about God speaking to them."
Gall? According to my dictionary that is a (1) feeling of bitterness, or (3) outrageous insolence. I know that I harbor no ill feelings about those who believe differently than me, and I would hope that it is not arrogant to believe that God has spoken to His prophets and apostles in the Old and New Testament. That is the only "direct pipeline" I have to God as far as His "speaking" to me now. I am open to the idea that God sends special insight to people apart from the Bible, though I know that it cannot contradict what He has said there. I DO have a direct line to God in communicating TO Him, though, since I believe that he has sent His Holy Spirit to bond me and the rest of the church to Christ. That is what a true Christian is. As part of the "body of Christ" I literally am gifted to serve mankind better. That is SERVE, not force my beliefs on anyone.
You write:
"I also do not like fundamentalists because of their moral certainty. They consider their values as “facts.” As you say, it is a “fact” to you that a unique human life begins at conception."
Yes, I do have "moral certainty." I base that on the absolute truths of nature and of God. The example you give is indeed a FACT. I purposely couched my statement in terms to leave it beyond a doubt. The embryo IS human, and it IS alive (where "life" is an organism that takes in nourishment and grows through cell division). This is not a "value" judgment, but a scientific principle. You mention the soul as a synonym for "life," I believe. That is a valid use of the word, though it is not a scientific one.
Most believe that "soul" is not a measurable substance, and thus is beyond the reach of science. However, I believe the soul is basically energy. And there are two times, both of them very early, when this energy can be discerned. At the point of conception there is an electric spark (scientists use it when cloning animals). That could be the "ensoulment." The other time is as the neural cord first forms, soon after emplantation at about two weeks. This is the point beyond which "twinning" cannot occur and an individual has been determined. The option of "first breath" has some Biblical support, but it is not scientific and is used only as a justification for abortion these days.
You write:
"I stop respecting you when you believe God is talking to you and not me, that you are better than me because of your beliefs, or that God is telling you to hurt me."
It should not matter to you whether I believe God is "talking to you." If you believe that, and act upon it in an honorable way, then it will come to no harm. My belief system puts no greater value on one human being over another. We are ALL sinners, deserving eternal condemnation for our rebellion. It is ALL of God as to whom he saves out of such a condition. You may be, and most likely are, a "better" person than I am. It could be your temperment, or it could be your consistency to your beliefs, or whatever. I am bound for heaven ONLY because of God's grace. That is my belief. And no, God does not tell His people to "hurt" people. In Old Testament times it was necessary because of his judgment on wickedness. I cannot speak to His future plans, though indications are that He MAY use His people at the final judgement (though it is not a good likelyhood).
And finally, you wrote:
"The good comes from people struggling to know the truth, straining to know what God wants, in humility. My advice for you is: yes, listen to what is written in the Bible, heed the teachings of your church, but don’t turn a deaf ear to what is happening at this moment. God is talking to you now. Do you hear Him? Is He speaking just to you? Or is He talking to me too?"
I whole-heartedly agree. I do not know upon what authority you can state that "God is talking" to anyone in particular. The first condition for a person to be a child of God is humility. If more of those who claim a relationship with God would take Him seriously, there would be a whole lot MORE good accomplished. And if your reference to an "ear to what is happening" means that we must discern God's will from life's circumstances, I certainly agree there as well.
Thanks again for visiting my site. Respond to as many posts as you wish. The dialogue is healthy. Send your friends over (though I am not open to sharing links for exposure, at least not yet -- except for bestestblog, I guess).
---
Reader, judge for yourself if I am "harsh" in this response.
Post a Comment