Politicizing Faith and Life

As caring humans, we do what we can to save all. If we fail to save all, we at least did what we could. But first we dialed 911.

Dilemma scenarios can go on and on and are a bit strange as it can result in who to save type tough questions that normally never arise, Mom or Dad, Brother or Sister, Old or Young, Muslim or Atheist, Catholic or Jew and on and on.

What if there is a power failure, and the embryos start to thaw out?

Will they have to be immediately implanted in the nearest women, to keep them from dying?

CCNL wrote: "You will not find a human embryo in a burning house because they are kept in cryonic facilities with all kinds of safeguards against fire and theft. "

---------------------------------------

OK. Let's say there is a time bomb set to off in a fertility clinic with embryos and there is also a newborn inside. You only have time to save one, which one do you save and why?

Isn't this fun!

And the old "burning house and who to save delimma" is trotted out yet one more time!!!

The basics once again:

You will not find a human embryo in a burning house because they are kept in cryonic facilities with all kinds of safeguards against fire and theft.

"The human embryo is the most pristine state of life, the genesis of us all thereby he or she should be protected and respected like any newly born."

---------------------------------

CCNL,

If there were an embryo and a new born baby in a burning house and you could only save one before the house collapsed, which one would you save? And why?

Once again for those that have the ability to read and understand:

The human embryo is the most pristine state of life, the genesis of us all thereby he or she should be protected and respected like any newly born.

"embryo: In humans, the prefetal product of conception from implantation through the eighth week of development." answers.com

"The Visible Embryo is a visual guide through fetal development from fertilization through pregnancy to birth. As the most profound physiologic changes occur in the "first trimester" of pregnancy, these Carnegie stages are given prominence on the birth spiral.

The shape and location of embryonic interal structures and how they relate and are connected to each other is essential to understanding human development. Medical professionals create a mental picture of this process in order to determine how well the fetus is progressing. It is also the basis of knowing how and when errors in development occur and if a possibility exists for a corrective intervention."

"It is equally important for expectant parents to understand the relationship of these internal structures and how their infant develops through pregnancy."
http://www.visembryo.com/baby/
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic-art/185610/2919/Development-of-the-human-embryo

"The term embryo applies to the earliest form of life, produced when an egg (female reproductive cell) is fertilized by a sperm (male reproductive cell; semen). The fertilized egg is called a zygote.

Shortly after fertilization, the zygote begins to grow and develop. It divides to form two cells, then four, then eight, and so on. As the zygote and its daughter cells divide, they start to become specialized, meaning they begin to take on characteristic structures and functions that will be needed in the adult plant or animal.
An embryo is a living organism, like a full-grown rose bush, frog, or human.

It has the same needs—food, oxygen, warmth, and protection—that the adult organism has. These needs are provided for in a variety of ways by different kinds of organisms."

Embryonic development
434 x 254 - 14k - jpg
www.scienceclarified.com
Day 6: Embryo implants in the uterus ...
409 x 306 - 26k - jpg
www.solutionsphc.com

Spencer said:

"life never begins..."

I have never heard anyone say that before, but upon reading it, I think you are EXACTLY right!

This is an excellent point.

Cal Thomas's argument collapses immediately when he claims to understand (and pass on to us of lesser intelligence) the commands of a nonexistent supernatural being, namely god. Could any attempt to deal with a serious subject be more pathetic?

When does life begin? At birth or at conception? In fact biologists understand that life never begins, because each stage in the development of an adult human proceeds continuously from an earlier stage. From a legal standpoint, however, it is necessary to clearly define a beginning, and a definition of N weeks from conception is probably the best we can do.

Regarding Paganplace's response to my initial comment:

"Just for some clarity, here, the practice you're referring to isn't a general one in Hindu daily life: you're referring to a specific temple: the rats *there* are cared for and given free run of the place for very specific and meaningful reasons. You've got to be careful about projecting certain assumptions onto other cultures."

Please re-read my comment. The sentence questioning whether Cal would accept Hindu religious values in politics and the next asking whether he would honor the demands of some hypothetical rat-honoring sect were two separate questions. I wasn't referring to any specific practice in any religion at all, and I'm not implying *any* Hindus honor rats (whether or not any do), much less *all* of them. I guess my writing could be clearer, but I think you're the one projecting assumptions.

Trying again, apparently this 'new look' has a way of posts not working:

" suggested the bright line prohibiting the deliberate creation of human embryos solely for the instrumental purpose of research - a clear violation of the categorical imperative not to make a human life (even if only a potential human life) a means rather than an end.

"On this, Obama has nothing to say. He leaves it entirely to the scientists."

Entirely untrue, CCNL. He spoke on this explicitly. Removing Bush's ban on any-but-entirely-corporate-profit-based research on the grounds it was 'preserving human life,' (unless it was a corporation doing the 'killing') does *not* mean there weren't actual anti-cloning standards in place already.

Bruno55,

Where, exactly, does the Bible condemn abortion? Cite me chapter and verse.

Let me guess...you'll start with Jeremiah, and then take a few passages from Psalms, all the while pointedly ignoring Exodus?

Are posts going through here? Test.

Dear Cal,

I am a Jew. My faith tells me to oppose capital punishment because it destroys human life. It also tells me that a fetus is not counted as human life until it is born--prior to that, it is utterly physically dependent on and tied to the mother, so it is considered by the Talmud "as one of her limbs." One should never remove one's limb without serious consideration and cause, but a limb is not on the same level as the life of a human being.

That is not "fraud," self-created religion to suit my politics, or convenient, cherrypicking faith. It simply isn't YOUR faith. There is a big difference.

For the record, I find your religion's position as incomprehensible as you find mine, but I don't call yours "fraudulent!"

From Charles Krauthammer who writes for the Washington Post:

"President George W. Bush had restricted federal funding for embryonic stem cell research to cells derived from embryos that had already been destroyed (as of his speech of Aug. 9, 2001). While I favor moving that moral line to additionally permit the use of spare fertility-clinic embryos, President Obama replaced it with no line at all. He pointedly left open the creation of cloned - and noncloned sperm-and-egg-derived - human embryos solely for the purpose of dismemberment and use for parts.

I am not religious. I do not believe that personhood is conferred upon conception. But I also do not believe that a human embryo is the moral equivalent of a hangnail and deserves no more respect than an appendix. Moreover, given the protean power of embryonic manipulation, the temptation it presents to science, and the well-recorded human propensity for evil even in the pursuit of good, lines must be drawn.

I suggested the bright line prohibiting the deliberate creation of human embryos solely for the instrumental purpose of research - a clear violation of the categorical imperative not to make a human life (even if only a potential human life) a means rather than an end.

On this, Obama has nothing to say. He leaves it entirely to the scientists. This is more than moral abdication. It is acquiescence to the mystique of "science" and its inherent moral benevolence. How anyone as sophisticated as Obama can believe this within living memory of Mengele and Tuskegee and the fake (and coercive) South Korean stem cell research is hard to fathom."

This is one of the most hypocritical right-wing neochristian columns I have ever read. An intolerant evangelical pointing his twisted judgmental finger at others while claiming to be "Pro-life"

Right wing evangelicals cherry-pick their morals like they cherry-pick scriptures from Leviticus for their political agenda.
Their focus is on damning others for abortion and homosexuality, while they look the other way from pre-emptive war, capital punishment and while they battle child health care and education as "socialist" Their small and shallow god tells them unborn life is much more sacred for born life and inspires them to write politically motivated condemnations in the name of poor old Jesus. Cal is among their poster boys.

When will we be released from the tired idolatry of the (ir)religious right? Does this author have a cosistant ethic for life? OF COURSE NOT. Is he a pacifist or does he support the heresy of "just war." Study ethics my friend; as it is you just come off as an angry moron.

No one "supports" abortion; we just hate to make criminals out of our teenage girls. Jesus hung out with the prostitutes to offer His forgiveness, not judgement or jail time. As it has been famously said: 'Christianity is a great religion. It's time someone tried it.'

Cal Thomas is so consistently wrong on so many levels that it is difficult to know where to begin. He claims to KNOW what the will of God is, but of course he does not, he simply has a belief. Cal refers to "killing embryos" as an evil act - a claim that is absurd and irrational. Embryos are certainly living things, but they are not human. Cal laments the evils done by scientists but is silent about the huge amount of evil committed by religious people who KNEW that God wanted them to the evil act.

Cal's is a fundamentalist mentality that will never recognize its weaknesses or its dangerous side, and he will never be able to rationally evaluate and or respect alternative views of the world.

P.S. along the lines of AshleyBone's comments:
I guess we'd better stop giving federal funding to cattle research. In fact, we should outlaw the eating of beef entirely. Didn't you know? Hindu's consider the Cow sacred. We wouldn't want to ignore their faith!

This is not an ends vs. means argument if you don't believe that killing an embryo is an act of evil.

Yes, an embryo is alive. So are skin cells that I lose every day. So is my appendix, but I wouldn't hesitate to loose it if it could save my life.

An embryo doesn't have a nervous system, it doesn't even have neurons. This is where science informs our ethical decisions. Science tells us that there is no chance that an embryo has any more awareness or capacity to feel pain than my appendix.

Unless you intend to start protesting appendectomies and skin transplants, you're not being morally consistent.

Obama sets reasonable rules, by preventing the cloning of humans. Once embryos are allowed to develop, a reasonable case could be made that they might be able to suffer, and this should be prevented.

Jehovah has the benefit of eternity. Hindsight and foresight are all the same to him. He should have thought this religion thing through a little better. Perhaps he enjoys all the strife, all the bloodshed performed in the name of whatever the god du jour.

After all, when he wanted to prove himself to the Pharoah, he wiped out all the first born of Egypt - people who had never heard of him. No justice there. The Passover, as it came to be known, is the seminal event in Judaism and Christianity. Two more religions founded in injustice and violence, on a scale that makes the Aztecs look like babysitters. No thanks.

The desire to be worshipped is all too human a trait. In fact, it seems to be a trait among chimpanzees too. Hmmmm.

I am sure that Cal Thomas does not have much idea what embryonic stem cell research is. That is ok, since it is a little complicated. But he should just keep quiet.

When people start arguing against science, their credibility goes way down.

Hi Paganplace!

kert1:
First, if you have legal proof that I have any 'victims,' run, don't walk, to the police and have me arrested and charged. If not, perhaps you should do unto me as you would have done unto yourself. Slander does not become you.

Second, you beg the follow-up question: Given your statement that God can put souls in heaven, how can you claim to know He isn't doing exactly that, using whatever means he wants, including embryos which naturally do not implant themselves in a uterine wall, miscarriages, and abortions? After all, God works in mysterious ways, right? Maybe some of those ways are ones He keeps as a mystery to you.

First of all, putting science before God and faith is a given. Any reasonable, patriatic american would rather die than have his country dictated by "the will" of god. Stem cell research is a necessary good fot the betterment of science and medicine. Ask any doctor. All in all Obama is just smart, unlike you. He understands what faith should be. it is there to help you thru your life, NOT DICTATE HOW YOU LIVE IT. If he didn't back stem cell research, I would be disgusted with my self for voting for him. Why don't you just go complain to your imaginary friend and see if he can help you get rid of Obama. haha.

Maybe Obama is not a person of faith.
Frankly he seems too smart and too inquisitive to settle for faithyism. I think he's faking it because - well...he's a politician after all...so he has to. Votes are everything.
Faith is for fools and Obama is no fool.

You know Cal, if your god hadn't created all of these diseases in the first place, we mortals wouldn't have to try to figure out how to fight them.
And if your god had made these couples fertile, who were using IVF in order to conceive, scientists wouldn't have the clumps of cells to work with.

Either believe in your all-powerful god or don't. But please, be consistent.

" bruce18

"Bravo, Cal. God gave us all life and its only his to take away."

Glad to hear you've realized you've no need for all those *firearms,* and *government coercions in the name of Jesus,* then.

Load off my mind, let me tell you.

I was starting to think you Christians had some kind of 'holy war' on your own minds, these past twenty years.

Silly me.

I was thinking of grilling up some pork chops, maybe icing up a few beers, you in the neighborhood, ....neighbor?

Now that there's no need for any 'wars' or nuffin.

Bravo, Cal. God gave us all life and its only his to take away. I am always amazed about our human ability to rationalize virtually all behavior.

" kert1
"ThorsChild,
So is that what you tell your victims. Sorry for the harshness but I can't believe anyone would try to justify killing other humans. If God wants to put souls in Heaven, he surely can. It is never our job to do it ourselves."

Actually, I think that in your haste to defame someone, (as having 'victims? Really?) ...you missed the irony, there, Kert. Or maybe didn't care.

Obviously, that post was based on certain crazy premises presented here.

Thorschild is pretty obviously talking from a Heathen (Nordic) standpoint. Asking with irony if your God...if he's so dead-set against research, damns all those blastocysts that naturally don't come to 'fruition,' or so I read it.

Tellingly, btw:

"PaulTaylor1,
So we can perfect ourselves. Really. Haven't we tried that already. Those who have tried to perfect Humans failed miserably."

Actually, Kert, *you're* the one whose belief system claims humans must once and for all be perfect and have only one shot at it, forever.

Hence your fear. And, apparent dismissal of even putting the efort into *trying.*

You're more interested in *declaring* yourself perfect, than doing the work.

And that, I assure you, doesn't fly.

Sorry, thought I heard some pots banging over here. Is tea on? :)

ThorsChild,
So is that what you tell your victims. Sorry for the harshness but I can't believe anyone would try to justify killing other humans. If God wants to put souls in Heaven, he surely can. It is never our job to do it ourselves.

PaulTaylor1,
So we can perfect ourselves. Really. Haven't we tried that already. Those who have tried to perfect Humans failed miserably. They also didn't end human suffering they created it in unimaginable quantities. That whole master race thing didn't work out well. By the way, what do you intend to do with all the "imperfect humans".

Science is not God so don't treat it that way. We need to approach science with a sense of morality and respect for all mankind.

Mr. Thomas,

You label as anti-God those who don't have the exact same vision of God as the one that exists in your blackened, little brain. This is the same as a pimp accusing those who don't patronize his prostitutes of being anti-women.

One question: How does Cal know that God doesn't want the souls of those fetuses to join Him quicker? Wouldn't a quick trip to heaven for a pure soul be better than being forced to endure the (hell bent) risks of temptations and depravity supposedly imposed on it by an imperfect earthly body?

One can hope there is sufficient room in Mr. Thomas' faith, and in his heart, to harbor the surmised souls of the world's myriad human embryos that are buried each day in the rubbish dumps.

Mr. Thomas would forbid humankind its own promise of curing illusive and devastating diseases, injuries and defects, by means of the singular regenerative prospects of human embryo cells. He feels medical research lacks the proper respect for these tossed-out embryos.

We have to wonder if Mr. Thomas also lacks this reverence. He offers nothing for the countless embryos rejected, both by the body and by the mother, worldwide. And maybe, in all his self-purported understanding of the Omnipotent and Perfect Mind, God revealed little to him that would explain or compensate for the failings of divine creation. For it is true that mankind is highly vulnerable to the wars, diseases, maladies, defects, accidents, famines, self-abuse, as well as fetal miscarriages, that account for so much of our miseries.

Humankind has been given the brains, the resources and tools to perfect itself. Mr. Thomas, but maybe not God, would deny us that promise with regard to the rejected human embryo. And maybe that in itself is irreverence.

One can hope there is sufficient room in Mr. Thomas' faith, and in his heart, to harbor the surmised souls of the world's myriad human embryos that are buried each day in the rubbish dumps.

Mr. Thomas would forbid humankind its own promise of curing illusive and devastating diseases, injuries and defects, by means of the singular regenerative prospects of human embryo cells. He feels medical research lacks the proper respect for these tossed-out embryos.

We have to wonder if Mr. Thomas also lacks this reverence. He offers nothing for the countless embryos rejected, both by the body and by the mother, worldwide. And maybe, in all his self-purported understanding of the Omnipotent and Perfect Mind, God revealed little to him that would explain or compensate for the failings of divine creation. For it is true that mankind is highly vulnerable to the wars, diseases, maladies, defects, accidents, famines, self-abuse, as well as fetal miscarriages, that account for so much of our miseries.

Mankind has been given the brains, the resources and tools to perfect itself. Mr. Thomas, but maybe not God, would deny us that promise with regard to the rejected human embryo. And maybe that in itself is irreverence.

To bevjims1,

I was going to post very specific comments to many of Cal's points -- but you did such an excellent job that there's no need.

Very well thought out post.

As a Christian, it is terrifying to me to think that conservatives like Cal Thomas want to install a theocracy in this country to be run by people who aren't capable of even the most basic critical thought.

Thomas writes: "According to the president, science, not faith, is to be primary, thus placing science ahead of God."

Actually, he's putting science ahead of your own personal (and sickeningly warped) definition of God. Let us all be very grateful.

"We have seen the horrors humankind has visited on itself when science becomes primary and sacrosanct (even though science has often been wrong)."

Oh really? Religion gave us the Crusades, the burning of "witches," wars, etc. Much religious motivated murder continues to this day. For example, ask Matthew Shepherd -- oh that's right. He was murdered because Gay people are believed to be an abomination to God.

I have absolutely no respect for you or any other closed-minded person, regardless of religion.

Imagine there's no heaven, It's easy if you try
No hell below us, Above us only sky
Imagine all the people, Living for today...
Imagine there's no countries, It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for, And no religion too
Imagine all the people, Living life in peace...
Imagine no posessions, I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger, In a brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people, Sharing all the world...
You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope some day you'll join us
And the world will be as one
"Imagine" John Lennon

Stand aside, Thomas. Your protracted rabbit's foot rubbing will not stand in the way of living, breathing people getting cures. You are not a scientist: you embody the antithesis of disciplined thought.

You are free to not avail yourself of the miracle cures that may ensue. Join the ranks of those who refuse transfusions on religious grounds. Whatever -- frankly I don't care what you do. Just stand aside or you'll be pushed aside, you smug charlatan. We're sick of your medieval babble.

Cal, you sanctimonius nincompoop! How dare you bring Mengele into the equation! You make me want to vomit!

Cal Thomas wrote:
"even though science has often been wrong"

Oh really? Please provide evidence for that statement.

kert1 wrote: "bevjims1, Can you actually support your own beliefs or are you only able to point out illeged problems you see in other beliefs?"

Both.

A HUGE logical fallacy is apparent in your piece. You claim Obama's faith is acknowledged when allowing for stem-cell research but obviously (purposefully) ignored when abortion is called into question.

You are assuming that all faiths (or at least Obama's) dictate that abortion is wrong. What makes you think someone's faith can't guide him/her to support abortion?

bevjims1,
Can you actually support your own beliefs or are you only able to point out illeged problems you see in other beliefs?

"According to the president, science, not faith, is to be primary, thus placing science ahead of God."

Ahead of your god, perhaps, Mr. Thomas, but your god isn't everybody's.

Science deals in evidence and replicatable research. It deals in things that can be proven by a preponderance of the evidence.

Faith is entirely personal, and yours cannot be proven to be valid. Nobody's can.

President Obama isn't infringing on your right to believe in anything you want to. He simply isn't going to continue the Bush-era policy of holding scientific progress hostage to individual, personal beliefs.

Cal wrote: "It's peculiar that President Obama sees himself as a "person of faith" when it comes to lifting restrictions on embryonic stem cell research, but he is an agnostic when it comes to abortion."

Maybe because the two are not the same thing in his mind.

Cal wrote: "Apparently, Obama's faith serves his politics and not the reverse."

Wow, did Cal Thomas just say that?

Cal wrote: "According to the president, science, not faith, is to be primary, thus placing science ahead of God."

When religion was primary and science secondary we had the "Dark Ages".

Cal wrote: "We have seen the horrors humankind has visited on itself when science becomes primary and sacrosanct (even though science has often been wrong)."

Often? How so? You look healthy for a man your age, an age few reached before science and medicine. Is it praying that keeps you healthy or is it medicine and science?

Cal wrote: "One thinks of Dr. Josef Mengele's experimentation on Jews, twins and all sorts of other people deemed by this medical scientist as being less than human and thus subject to his twisted scientific interpretations."

What do they say ... oh yes ... when you bring up the Nazis it means you have no argument. And you only brought up one example. Where else has science failed? And where was religion when the Nazi's were doing these terrible things? One only finds indifference or support for what the Nazis did from religion.

Cal wrote: "Politicians love to use faith when it is convenient and ignore it when it isn't."

So do some columnists.

Cal wrote: "Numerous Democratic politicians oppose capital punishment for convicted murderers, but will do nothing to stop the capital punishment of the unborn, the most innocent and weakest among us."

And visa-versa for the Evangelicals. How can you talk about a culture of life then murder living breathing incarcerated people? Or is vengence a virtue?

Cal wrote: "It is a fraud perpetrated on the people and while some people may justify committing an evil act (killing embryos) for supposedly good ends (curing Parkinson's Disease and other ailments), God is not mocked and sees through even the most clever politician."

Ditto for the evangelicals supporting the death penalty, war, lies and negligence in government.

Cal wrote: "It ought to disturb all of us that the value of human life continues to decline nearly as fast as the stock market."

Yes, especially when we see christians flocking to the military, filling our prisons and supporting a president who lied and supported domestic spying and torture. Maybe those who think that their religion makes whatever they do right should actually read the bible and look at what they support: 100,000 dead Iraqis, 4000+ dead American soldiers, spying on Americans, torturing those in custody and a bankrupt nation due purely to negligence in governing. If you believe in Jesus, expect those questions to be asked in the afterlife.

Response to JACAVER

Millions of Old people in this country are lying around in nursing homes, sucking up needed resourses. Most will die within a year. There are 2 choices :

1. Let them die within a year.
2. Donate them to science for research into curing human diseases such as Parkinson's, etc.

Choose one of the above. It is that simple.

No it is not that simple. There are many choices in life and we need to make the right one.

Ashley:

"Cal, do you, as a Christian, want Hindu religious values to govern our political decision-making? Are you prepared to open your home to families of rats because some group of people somewhere believe rats are holy?"

Just for some clarity, here, the practice you're referring to isn't a general one in Hindu daily life: you're referring to a specific temple: the rats *there* are cared for and given free run of the place for very specific and meaningful reasons. You've got to be careful about projecting certain assumptions onto other cultures.

"We have seen the horrors humankind has visited on itself when science becomes primary and sacrosanct (even though science has often been wrong)."

This is again, right-wing religious ideology insisting that science is some kind of rival 'revealed faith.' Book-religion has often been wrong, ...very often, in fact, ...just about always wrong on anything relating to the realm of the scientifically-knowable, yet *does* insist it's 'primary and sacrosanct.'

Double-standard, much?

Science is a process of learning and verifying. It involves being 'wrong' from time to time: it's a tool and a process, not a faith.

" One thinks of Dr. Josef Mengele's experimentation on Jews, twins and all sorts of other people deemed by this medical scientist as being less than human and thus subject to his twisted scientific interpretations."

The ideology twisted the science: using scientific tools and cooking some data to try and lend credence a religious belief in others' inferiority is not *science.* Just like 'Intelligent Design' isn't science, it's a veneer of science for propaganda purposes.

there is a huge difference between scientific gains done with proper informed consent , mr. thomas if you care to look at the major drug companies you will see ample evidence of continuing expermintation upon the sick and the poor with out thier consent or even knowledge at times because thier doctors are giving them free samples to see what happens. this is the new method of discovery with ethics give them free med and steal thie information from them . treat humans like lab rats and monkeys. it happens every day inevery town.. from tuskeegee to the present it has been sanitized and with eloquent words which are ment to hide the truth of the matter. sometimes huge corperations use us for guinea pigs or lab rats. i would be more concerbned about genetic engineering of food stocks because when you put animal genes ito plants you really open pandoras box to illness. just google strawberrys freeze and and gene and you will see fish genes have been spliced into strwberrys for some time now what other animal trits have been inserted into plants and i would ask if any plant genes have been inserted into animal.. the interaction of genes within the same species would seem rather tame and mundane when considering the truth out there. that is why we need government and big business to allow the public to actually see what research is being conducted and what the results are. the reason we are still using oil instead of sunlight for fuel is only one example of the chains put upon civilization for our own good? i'm not saying all science is good or innocent mengele was a proper example of what can and has at times gone very wrong with scientific research thats why we fought a war and saccrofice so many lives.. so it could be done openly and ethically. when you don't have the open part society is cheat two ways by not having the very best available at the time and by dangeous avenues which are foolish to investigate. its like using active virus to split dna if they actually understood the underlying process they would not need the virus to split the material... there is a difference between russian roullette and carefull analysis that why they have level 3 and 4 biolabs when you don't know for sure you wont exterminate life trying to understand complicated things. stem cells were created by God non freeze strwberrys and other frnstein foods by man which battle is it that needs fighting mr. thomas. my father and brother are both resrch scientist and i am well educated althogh i'm an artist i do understand the argument. do you?

That there is life in the embryo is a no-brainer, for if not, nothing would have to be ‘aborted’.

Most IVF embryos are thrown out, now. Why is that preferable? And no one is talking about 'abortion'; any connection is purely in your mind, not real.

What does President Obama have as the object of his faith? His faith is obviously not in the Bible, nor does he view it as God’s revelation to man, for the Bible condemns abortion.

er, exactly what are you talking about? For example, the orthodox Jews in Israel who make ruling based on the Old Testament (the Hebrew Bible) said embryonic stem cell research was ok some time ago. And the only segment of American society against it appears to be right-wing evangelicals - only. So, again: what are you referring to?

What the President’s object of faith is, needs to be known, before an informed answer can be given.

No, it doesn't. He gave his religious views in passing; but as the head of the secular executive government of the United States - governed by our secular Constitution - his real reasons are secular: ie, good governance, based on Constitution, law, and morality.

Millions of human embryos are frozen in fertility clinics all over this country, when the parents no longer have use for them, they are discarded into the trash, at this time there are 2 choices :

1. Throw the embryos into the trash can.
2. Donate the embryos to science for research into curing human diseases such as Parkinson's, etc.

Choose one of the above. It is that simple.

In saying he believes “we have been given the capacity and will to pursue this research”, who does the President understand to be the giver of this "capacity and will"?

This question reflects the importance of determining who or what the standard or the authority is, for all who offer comments.
Is there an absolute standard for determining whether this is right or wrong?

The issue here involves the use of embryos in this study. Therefore, the taking of a human life for such study “ought not so to be”.

That there is life in the embryo is a no-brainer, for if not, nothing would have to be ‘aborted’.

What does President Obama have as the object of his faith? His faith is obviously not in the Bible, nor does he view it as God’s revelation to man, for the Bible condemns abortion.

Is his faith in the Koran? Does the Koran sanction abortion? If not, then upon what authority does the President cite as the "giver" to us for such research?

As far as his mentioning of having the ‘conscience’ to do so responsibly...the conscience cannot be not the guide, for the conscience can be deceived. A lie has the same effect upon a person as the truth if it is believed. We see this from Jacob in Genesis 37: 34-35, who mourned, believing as truth, the lie that his son Joseph was dead, and from the apostle Paul’s statement in Acts 23:1 that he had lived “in all good conscience before God, even though he murdered Christians, believing it at the time to be God’s will.

What the President’s object of faith is, needs to be known, before an informed answer can be given. Likewise the object of faith from those who respond needs to be considered before stones are cast at him.

The Bible provides for the sanctity of human life, and as such does not teach a double standard.

Mr. Thomas - It sounds like Obama's definition of "person of faith" is different from yours, thank goodness.

"Apparently, Obama's faith serves his politics and not the reverse."

Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, pot.

Also:
"According to the president, science, not faith, is to be primary, thus placing science ahead of God."

Absolutely. We should always value experimentation, empirical data, and reasoned analysis over faith. Faith has NO RELATIONSHIP TO REALITY. You can (and people do) believe anything. Cal, do you, as a Christian, want Hindu religious values to govern our political decision-making? Are you prepared to open your home to families of rats because some group of people somewhere believe rats are holy?

I think what you really mean is that moral decisions should be governed by YOUR values, which of course ultimately means your political ideology.

I was tempted to respond to your usual "Science caused the holocaust! LOL!" nonsense in kind: maybe bringing up why the SBC was founded, or asking what religion 99% of all those concentration camp guards practiced. But I'm more interested in pointing out that religions are human institutions, just like scientific research groups. They aren't good or evil, because they reflect the contradictions in human nature. They can be used to do things both wonderful and terrible. We should never look to religions or their shamans, mullahs, priestesses, bishops, and gurus with the unchallenged assumption that they will offer sound moral guidance.