I think the most astute observation I heard about the whole mess was that if we heard about an election in, say, Africa, or Central or South America, where one candidate won after he lost the popular vote, but won a disputed election in a province ruled by his own brother after the most powerful court - which was largely appointed when his father was in a position of power, and at least three of the judges had a demonstrated interest in seeing him win - reversed all of its own principles to hand him the election... well, virtually no one would disagree that the result was a sham.
But we're supposed to believe that Shrubby actually won? Peddle your snake oil elsewhere, my good man...
Well, should the government force you to pay for police or the fire department, if you never need it?
Yes, it should. Those are things that protect (or enhance) society as a whole, and you do benefit from having them, even if you never need them directly yourself.
One has to think of the big picture. Yeah, it sucks when the government winds up paying people to sit on their asses and do nothing but breed, but would you really prefer if those people sat around breeding, then had to break in your house and kill you to get the food to feed those kids? (Yeah, while it's easy to say they shouldn't have all those friggin' kids in the first place, there's no way anyone can stop them - unless you'd rather live in China, I guess.)
Well, it's really not that big a deal - it was years ago, and the miscarriage was very early on. If something were to happen to my child, who turns four in a couple of weeks, I honestly don't think I'd ever get over it. So I do think there's a big difference between an embryo (not even a fetus!) and a human child, from a moral, ethical, and certainly emotional point of view.
Really, the question is, what is the greater good? My wife's grandmother is dying of Alzheimer's. She's in good health otherwise, but mentally, she's almost completely gone. She can't really feed herself, she can no longer recognize her own children much of the time - it's just really sad. She has so much to give back to her family, and it's just really, really sad. If research that comes from embryos which will never be allowed to gestate anyway can develop treatments that will improve her quality of life, well, I fail to see how that's a bad thing.
Honestly, I almost agree with Shrub on this. My only objection is that it's stupid to ban using cells that will never be used to create a child for stem cell research. What a waste, and I don't think anyone can seriously argue that there's not scientific value going to waste there.
Well, under some circumstances, I'd agree with you. I'm not morally opposed to capital punishment, but the way it's done in the U.S. (especially in Texas and right here in the numerically-challenged state of Florida) is wrong, wrong, wrong.
Tell you what, if you're so opposed to "your tax dollars" subsidizing research, how about you just don't partake of any new drugs or therapies that result from it? After all, you wouldn't want to be a... hypocrite, would you?
Gotta love the right-wingers. They wants all the benefits, but don't want to pay any of the costs.
Anyone who suggests that 60 lines isn't enough doesn't really understand quite whats happening here. Everyone is trying to make it sound like they already have cured everything, but FedGov is stopping them from injecting them into everyone to cure their runny noses.
It still boggles my mind that we elected(or the supreme court selected) a president whose only accomplishment was having a daddy that was president. Dubya will be a one termer like his daddy, which provides me with some solace.
Having stolen the 2000 election, what makes you so sure he simply won't turn around and steal the 2004 one, too? Given the advantages to being the incumbent, it should actually be easier this time.
I'll believe there will be another free election in this country when I see it. I wish I had your optimism.
You are welcome to your belief that 4-5 cells do not constitue life, however, I'm sure you will feel different if you find your set to have a child and then it's lost during gestation. Those 4 or 5 cells become as real as any person and the loss felt is terrible. I pray your family never has to deal with that.
Well, as someone who *has* been through a first-trimester miscarriage *and* who has an actual child, let me tell you that losing a child would be thousands of times more devastating that losing a blastocyst.
You may think you're attached to an embryo-to-be, but losing a child after birth would be much, much worse.
Of course, that might conflict with your desire to impose your religious beliefs on me, but hey, that's the (pre-Scalia) American way.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the most astute observation I heard about the whole mess was that if we heard about an election in, say, Africa, or Central or South America, where one candidate won after he lost the popular vote, but won a disputed election in a province ruled by his own brother after the most powerful court - which was largely appointed when his father was in a position of power, and at least three of the judges had a demonstrated interest in seeing him win - reversed all of its own principles to hand him the election... well, virtually no one would disagree that the result was a sham.
But we're supposed to believe that Shrubby actually won? Peddle your snake oil elsewhere, my good man...
Yes, it should. Those are things that protect (or enhance) society as a whole, and you do benefit from having them, even if you never need them directly yourself.
One has to think of the big picture. Yeah, it sucks when the government winds up paying people to sit on their asses and do nothing but breed, but would you really prefer if those people sat around breeding, then had to break in your house and kill you to get the food to feed those kids? (Yeah, while it's easy to say they shouldn't have all those friggin' kids in the first place, there's no way anyone can stop them - unless you'd rather live in China, I guess.)
Really, the question is, what is the greater good? My wife's grandmother is dying of Alzheimer's. She's in good health otherwise, but mentally, she's almost completely gone. She can't really feed herself, she can no longer recognize her own children much of the time - it's just really sad. She has so much to give back to her family, and it's just really, really sad. If research that comes from embryos which will never be allowed to gestate anyway can develop treatments that will improve her quality of life, well, I fail to see how that's a bad thing.
Honestly, I almost agree with Shrub on this. My only objection is that it's stupid to ban using cells that will never be used to create a child for stem cell research. What a waste, and I don't think anyone can seriously argue that there's not scientific value going to waste there.
Well, under some circumstances, I'd agree with you. I'm not morally opposed to capital punishment, but the way it's done in the U.S. (especially in Texas and right here in the numerically-challenged state of Florida) is wrong, wrong, wrong.
Gotta love the right-wingers. They wants all the benefits, but don't want to pay any of the costs.
s/dem/the/;
Having stolen the 2000 election, what makes you so sure he simply won't turn around and steal the 2004 one, too? Given the advantages to being the incumbent, it should actually be easier this time.
I'll believe there will be another free election in this country when I see it. I wish I had your optimism.
"Save the cells! Kill the doctors!"
Well, as someone who *has* been through a first-trimester miscarriage *and* who has an actual child, let me tell you that losing a child would be thousands of times more devastating that losing a blastocyst.
You may think you're attached to an embryo-to-be, but losing a child after birth would be much, much worse.
Of course, that might conflict with your desire to impose your religious beliefs on me, but hey, that's the (pre-Scalia) American way.