Stem Cell Battle Begins in Georgia

The Georgia House and Senate bills are both un-Constitutional, in that they are in direct contravention of Rowe V Wade.

Anyone foolishly trying to enforce those bills as law is committing a felony crime.

Sooo.. You're gonna imprison the mother who decides one child was enough after all and she doesn't need those frozen clumps of cells?

Does this mean that any well-meaning mother who has allows a fertility clinic to dispose of her un-needed frozen cell clumps must face trial and prison?

What if the next "hurricane Katrina" happens and the cell-clumps are lost regardless? Do you improison the fertility clinic doctors and nurses?

What are you going to do with the MILLIONS of unwanted cell clusters frozen in nitrogen, on the shelf all over the country TODAY?

THE FACT THAT THEY CAN BE FROZEN AND UN-FROZEN PROVES THEY ARE NOT ALIVE - JUST AN ELECTRO-CHEMICAL REACTION-STAGE CLUMP OF CELLS.

Who will adopt these cell clumps? Who will take over when the couple seeking children no longer need them?

...There aren't enough parents to adopt the actual living children who need adoptive families and loving parents TODAY in America.

The hypocrisy, ideological madness, and un-scientific legislating of Georgian legislators and their evangelical lobby/campaign coffers is DISGUSTING.

...Not to mention the blatantly unconstitutional melding of Church and Government these efforts belie...

WHEN WILL SOUTHERNERS ELECT INTELLIGENT OFFICIALS INSTEAD OF "BUBBA IN A SUIT", or an unaccredited street corner preacher, or a bug exterminator (Trent Lott), etc ???

I assume that if alzheimers, diabetes, and other diseases are soon found to be curable through stem cell therapy, that most Georgian's will refused to be cured due to their moral objections?

Should these treatments even be offered to those who fought so hard againsts these cures being discovered?

Should hypocrites at least have to go to the end of the waiting list?

Why can't we just say that the line here (where life begins) is wide and of varying shades of grey? One can make a personal decision where their line is, but can not make that decision for others or all of society. Then, we can allow people to make a personal decision to give an extra embryo up to scientific research or give them up to adoption.

By logical extension of this legislation, a fertilized zygote is a person. Thus, if the zygote fails to implant in the uterine wall, murder has occurred.
One could then argue that millions of women are murderers every year in the US, when they prevent implantation through intrauterine devices. Furthermore, one of the mechanisms of birth control pills is to thin the uterine lining so that even if ovulation occurs implantation usually won't.
Actually, untold millions of fertilized zygotes fail to implant every year due to natural processes (but these are not known to anyone and menses follow). Maybe all of these are humans, too?

Georgia is now known as the Maroon State.

What will happen if scientist eventually learn to clone humans from an arbitrary cell taken from the body? Will it become illegal to spit in some states?

I think the stem cell embryo issue is only one front of a much larger battle, a battle which can be reduced down to a clash between naturalism versus theism. Either we're the result of purely natural causes, which gives people the right to make subjective evaluations of every situation, or we are the result of actions taken by a Creator. There's really not a lot of gray area to argue here. You can take a centrist stance, but what is the foundation of that position? Which camp do you reside in? You really only have the two choices, and any stance you take for or against the issue must be grounded in one or the other.

I think that the best position for naturalists is think like like bio-ethiciist Pete Singer. Singer believes that we are nothing more than part of an unbroken chain of primates, so we shouldn't get in a huff and elevate ourselves above the natural order or adopt any residual theistic influences. In keeping with that idea, he believes women should be able to kill their babies up to 28 days after birth, and since nature doesn't have any use for the infirm, handicapped or aged, why should we? If you can't accept the extremes of his position, which happen to be a very well thought-out position grounded in an unflinching naturalistic worldview, then you need to reexamine your worldview, which makes no demand that life be treated with any special care. And if you're in the theistic camp, and believe that life is precious, then I encourage you to stand your ground, but at the same time come to a better definition of when life begins, and then be consistent across the board. I happen to find Singer's worldview rather frightening, and it's a world I certainly don't want to live in. I think that if we believe we must protect life (and I believe we do), then we need to come up with a concise definition (imperfect as it may be) and learn to live with it.

The debate isn't going away, and vilifying the beliefs of the other side can hardly be considered part of a healthy debate to solve the problem.

One other thing. Even though I'm a Christian, I get very frustrated with some prominent vocal Christians who talk about protecting life, but then take a very shallow view of which life to protect. Either all life is sacred, or none of it is. You can't speak out in defense of embryos and fetuses and then turn right around and support war, or turn your back on entire populations suffering from genocide, starvation and other oppression. If you truly think life is sacred, then your respect for life must stretch from the baby crib to Baghdad to Darfur and back. Anything less is hypocrisy.

Well I guess this answers the fire in a fertility clinic question. If there is such a fire, firemen will be required to save the 10,000 frozen embryos before any nurses, doctors or patients.

It also means a doctor cannot repair an ectopic pregnancy since it involves killing an embryo. Too bad for those women. And no more D&C's after a rape. Guess the woman should have had the rapist use a condom.

And I guess we'll need to call the coroner and CSI for each miscarriage. I hope GA is up to changing the policies of its police departments and rescue services.

I can hear the GA legislature now touting how a fire in a fertility clinic ended with 10,000 babies saved and only a few "others" dead.

I'm also waiting for the first test case, a couple that has a complete family and is not allowed to destroy the remaining embryos. Will they take them across state lines and dispose of them? Will the police come and take them and put them into their own cryogenic tanks? There are 400,000 frozen embryos and only about 80 have been donated in this country. As usual, no one in GA is thinking with a brain.

Bevjim1,
"As usual, no one in GA is thinking with a brain."

Sadly, you are right. I live in this benighted state, and am starting to wonder why. Maybe I could move to some more reasonable place, like Northwest Pakistan, or maybe scenic Darfur, or lovely Burma.

I also wonder that if I decide to adopt an embryo, where is the embryo orphanage, and can I visit the embryos and choose the one I like the most? And if the poor thing dies, is an autopsy possible? And do they already have names?

So they want people to believe there is no difference between a blastocyst and a 5-year old? If one of these legislators had to choose one form of life over the other to save from a burning building, do you mean to tell me they would really have to agonize over which one to choose?

If they can't tell the difference, they are either too stupid or too stupefied by ideology to carry on their own business, let alone the peoples'.

The GA legislation's actions, if successful, will further increase the murkiness of this issue. If an embryo is a person, then the moment of conception becomes the seminal point in an individual’s life. So what? Well, this point in time should replace the moment of birth as the marker for legal issues associated with age, e.g., when someone is born, their age should be calculated from the moment of conception, which means most people would be nine months old, or so, when birthed. The "or so" is significant because, unlike the moment of birth, the moment of conception, unless done invitro is more difficult to pinpoint. Oh, and invitro fertilization further complicates the issue. If the non-implanted embryo is a person, with its life beginning at the moment of fertilization, then a birthed individual could be being quite ancient when born; since life begins at conception, then the new "person" should begin to age at the moment the egg is fertilized, continuing to age while it resides in the petri dish, or do we want to link age to the development and maturation of the blastula into a fetus and on to birth, having everyone’s age clock set at birth? But if we do this, then we come back to associating the inception of a person with birth, not conception, reaffirming the primacy of birth over conception. Bother. One example, while trivial, points to other issues that may develop with this new concept: would an American birthed in the confines of the U.S. be still be eligible to become president if they were conceived during a trip to Cancun? Would we still use the birth date as the discriminator for such issues? If so, why? If conception becomes the new start of life for a person, shouldn't the Constitution be amended to state that to become president one would have had to have been conceived in the United States? What is the significance of birth in such issues if the embryo is a person with full civil rights? Birth just becomes a later, trivial moment of passage in a person's life. I am sure that many more such conundrums will arise given a little thought.

Oh, goody! It's about time the most moral among us started saving these CHILDREN! (Those who doubt the supreme morality of the inhabitants of the Southern States should read the crimes statistics: By far, more murders, rapes, other crimes of violence and burglaries per capita than other sections of the nation--I guess they've taken Leviticus to heart).
The question is, can I go down to my local fertility clinic and pick up a few of these little critters? I mean since it will be against the law to destroy them yet no one has a use for them, can I, like, show up with a bucket of dry ice and take them home?
And what do I do with them then? I mean, I've never raised a 128-cell blastocyst. Do they have to get their shots? What about feeding them? Will Gerber baby food suffice? If so, do I use a pipette to feed the little suckers? Are they vulnerable to blastocyst Petri Dish Syndrome? If the litter bundles of joy should die under my care, will I be tried for murder and meet the hangman's noose?
Seriously, folks, what we really need here is to actually realize the breaking up of our Union into Confederate and other States; let the South be what it wants to be through ignorance, hypocrisy, bigotry, false morality and ethics. The Mason/Dixon line and the western edge of Texas would be the appropriate borders.
Let them stew and then drown in their own stupidity.

The Georgia legislature, with a few exceptions, is made up of ignorant rednecks and equally ignorant blacknecks. What basis they have for determining the origins of life is beyond this resident of Savannah. If they took better care of real people one might understand giving them embryoes to adopt!

I'm ready for the fund-raisers for Churches to fund the new Embryo Orphanages. These embryos will have to be kept properly frozen forever (not cheap) and will certainly outlive their well-meaning benefactors. If a technician fails to maintain the equipment and "injury or death" result, I fully expect litigation for negligence or prosecution for assualt.

Fundamentalists...There comes a point when you really are arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

So should federal law supercede state law, or the other way around?

Should the medical marijuana laws of the state of California override Federal law? If you answer yes, then shouldn't these laws in Georgia also then have to supercede Federal law?
If you answer no, then shouldn't these laws in Georgia be unenforceable?

I doubt we'll find too many people who want consistency on whether or not state law or federal law should be supreme - everyone will just want their laws.

Hyjanks - if you want to talk about crime statistics, it would be the cities that are the problem, not the more rural areas. And coincedentally, the cities tend to have more African-Americans than the more rural areas. And African-Americans also statistically are more likely to be involved in crimes.

So Hyjanks, do you wish to go on record saying that not only is the Southern US less moral, but that black people are less moral? Or do you only wish to denigrate the minorities which are not protected by political correctness?

Should the medical marijuana laws of the state of California override Federal law? If you answer yes, then shouldn't these laws in Georgia also then have to supercede Federal law?
If you answer no, then shouldn't these laws in Georgia be unenforceable?

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

Yes on the first because the CA law does not violate the Constitution.

No on the second because the proposed Georgia law would violate the Constitution.

S_Heriger

You said, "The debate isn't going away, and vilifying the beliefs of the other side can hardly be considered part of a healthy debate to solve the problem."

But that is what you have done by suggewsting that people who support embryonic stem cell research believe women should be able to "kill their babies up to 28 days after birth"; and that we have no use for the "infirm, handicapped or aged..."

I believe in embryonic stem cell research, but I do not believe that mothers should be allowed to kill their babies, and I do not believe that the infirm, handicapped, or aged should be killed off, or gotten rid of, as you implied; and no one I know believes these things.

You just made up these beliefs and then projected them onto your opponents in this debate; your argument here is sneaky, deceptive, and slanderous, and it makes me very, very angry.

However, you closely touched on the truth near the end of your post, that it is the Conservative Christians, rather than liberals, who are more likely to give a cold shoulder to the suffereing of fully formed human beings, babies, the infirm, the handicapped, and the aged.

Having been born and raised in the South, I believe that I am entitle to say that there is something truely creepy about Southern culture and Southern people that would drive them to such extreme fool-hardiness.

What a bunch of hysteria. All the commentators on here need to chill out. So embryos can be adopted, what is wrong with that? If scientists want to experiement on embryos they can go somewhere else. Big deal. Besides using embryos isn't at the fore front of stem cell research anymore. You people need to educate yourselves. It appears you are just as upset about adoption for embryos, as people who oppose using embryos for science. There you go. Until Roe vs Wade unborn children were protected as humans.

Besty,

Under the proposed GA law, can a stem cell scientist adopt some of these embryos?

Just curious?

It is unclear whether or not the Georgia law is constitutional. One of the fundamental aspects of Roe v Wade was that the unborn child was inside the mother. An embryo is kept outside of the mother.

In Roe v Wade, the unborn child was deemed to be part of the mother's body, whereas an embryo is currently declared to be the mother's property (and in some states, its declared to be a person). In no case is an embryo declared to be part of a woman's body.

An interesting example is that a pet is considered to be property, but yet it still has rights as well. There are many shelters for abandoned pets, and these pets have some rights, although less than humans. Should an embryo have more, equal, or less rights than a pet?

Since property can indeed have rights, an embryo does not even need to be considered a person for it to have the right to not be killed, just as a dog cannot be killed.

If it is decided that the government cannot legislate what we do with our own property, that opens the door to overturn Michael Vick's conviction.

To: Danielinthelion's den

Of course there is something creepy about the South: it is evangelical fundamentalism, which seems to effect even Catholics in Savannah. This culture, however exotic and interesting to read about, is very unhealthy.

danielinlionsden
What a biased and unsupported statement
"However, you closely touched on the truth near the end of your post, that it is the Conservative Christians, rather than liberals, who are more likely to give a cold shoulder to the suffereing of fully formed human beings, babies, the infirm, the handicapped, and the aged."
Where is the proof in that?
You have no credibility.
For every "fact" you can claim to show your proof of this silly statement, anyone can show proof of just the opposite.
Do you even have a high school education?
Just wondering. And as a liberal, if you claim to be one, can you name one good thing you have done ....?

bevjs1
Sadly abortion is used primarily for birth control, not as you mention ecoptic pregnancies, etc. Abortion is on demand remember, and that is why it has disgusted so many people. Even people like Obama understand this. Abortion should be rare and used as the last resort. By dehumanizing an embryo and fetus, makes it all seem okay. Isn't that what so many on here are objecting to? Humanizing an unborn human? I have never had an abortion, but do know of women who have had them. In every case it was for an unwanted pregnancy, not for any medical reason. It does make all these women feel better to believe it was just a non human.
But many still feel they killed a baby and didn't realize how traumatic the whole experience would be. Others don't care and go on to have several abortions and use abortion as a form of birth control. That is pretty sad, don't you think?

csintala79
Gee the USA got along fine before Roe VS Wade and all the scenarios you mention in your post didn't occur then pre legal abortion so why would they occur now?
And for all you that think there are tons of children waiting to be adopted in the US now, just ask any couple trying to adopt how hard it is to find one. Many women choose to abort or keep their own babies. Actually the abortion rate is going down as many young women are choosing life for their children and keeping their babies. Probably half the people in the world were unplanned pregnancies. I don't know that as fact, but assume it is true.

Betsy

I said the truth; Conservative Christians love embryos because it is easy. It is easy to claim credit with God and Jesus for being deep and senstitive, if you love only the unborn.

It is difficult to feel empathy for the suffering of living human beings, and to follow the obligations to Jesus Christ to love your neighbor. It is easy to give a cold shoulder of unconcern, and even disdain.

Did it ever occur to you that the Conservative Christians may be the apostates, and the Liberal Christians the true and REAL ones?

The very notion that a clump of mindless human cells has a soul is beyond ridiculous!

DanielintheLionsDen
Still waiting for the proof of your statements.

Betsy3, you said,
"DanielintheLionsDen
Still waiting for the proof of your statements."

Try reading the Gospels. In case you have forgotten, or never knew, Christianity is about Christ - Jesus - and He is found only in the Gospels.

betsy3 wrote: "bevjs1, Sadly abortion is used primarily for birth control, not as you mention ecoptic pregnancies, etc. Abortion is on demand remember, and that is why it has disgusted so many people."

On demand during the first trimester. Anything after that is up to the states. And remember, abortion is not new. Its been around for millenia. What is new is safe abortion.

betsy3 wrote: "Abortion should be rare and used as the last resort."

I agree. But "should be used as a last resort" and making it illegal is a different thing. Very few people think abortion is just wonderful.

betsy3 wrote: "By dehumanizing an embryo and fetus, makes it all seem okay. Isn't that what so many on here are objecting to? Humanizing an unborn human?"

Well, yes. This question goes waaaaay back in time, even to when some in the church defined when a fetus became human with a soul. The church's dictate that ensoulment happens at conception will not make those of us who think with our own minds just give up the thought on the subject. For example, if ensoulment happens at conception, where does the second soul come from when that embryo splits into two embryos, making identical twins? That happens long after conception. Does the soul split too?

betsy3 wrote: "I have never had an abortion, but do know of women who have had them. In every case it was for an unwanted pregnancy, not for any medical reason. It does make all these women feel better to believe it was just a non human.

You are define extremes, human versus non-human. Anyone who knows the development of a human from egg to birth knows there are many stages. An embryo has no brain, no heart, no blood, no memory, no nerves and no feelings.

betsy3 wrote: "But many still feel they killed a baby and didn't realize how traumatic the whole experience would be. Others don't care and go on to have several abortions and use abortion as a form of birth control. That is pretty sad, don't you think?"

I agree, but people do many things I do not agree with. The question is where do you draw the line in law. Are you really going to call a woman who has a D&C after a rape a murderer? Are you going to call an abortion to save the life of a mother murder? Its already happened by a bishop in Brazil. The supreme court has determined the line. Its at the end of the first trimester. You can decide whether you want that line pushed back to conception if you like. We are all free to make our own morality. But please do not try to take your religious dogma and force it on women through law. If some women believe it is a clump of cells, which is all science can determine it to be, then it is you who needs to convince women it is something else, not the state by codifying your religion's dictate into law.

Betsy said:

"Gee the USA got along fine before Roe VS Wade..."

That is not exactly true. What about all the women who died in illegal botched abortions? This is, in fact, the reason why abortion was made legal.

But are you aware of that? Do you care? No, you do not care. All you care about is trashing what you call "liberals." You call pro-choice the same as "baby-killing." But then, why shouldn't pro-life be called "Mommy-killing?" Because that is what it is.

You have every loophole in the world to wiggle out of your Christian obligations. That is what makes you a Conservative Christian hypocrite. But the simplicity of Christian love eludes you.

Being a Christian is more than showing off to God how sensitive you are over the issue of abortion. Who do you think you are fooling anyway? God?

Great! I can collect Social Security nine months earlier. Right, Georgia? What a bunch of twits. You guys in Ga. should stick to grits and fried onion rings and leave my eggs alone. How about all that sperm floating around the men's room floor outside the state senate...should that be murder too? Or should you just keep your religion in your pants?

Daniel - what portion of abortions are done where the mother's life is at risk?

They are not trying to show off for God. They are protecting life because they genuinely believe that God created life, and that destroying God's creation because it inconveniences you is not right.

You have zero understanding of how conservative Christians think. It's quite hypocritical of you to accuse someone else of "only caring about trashing" someone of the opposite political view. I've seen nothing but trashing of conservatives coming from you.

GabrielRockman,

Your belief in God is just your belief. You have every right to hold that belief. You do not have the right to legislate your beliefs on others nor does anyone else. Your personal motivations aside, that is what this is about. Georgians passing laws based strictly on religious opinion that contradict the relevant scientic facts and seek to impose a religious law on everyone else. If your religious opinions compel you follow certain religious laws, you are certainly free to do so without also compelling those who disagree.

Well said Freestinker. It really is a question of GA making religious edicts into secular law. Science does not support their position, only religion, christian specifically.

GabrielRockman,
If you feel a soul is in an embryo, then please feel free to try to save it. That is your right within the law. Start a charity to allow couples to donate their embryos to you for IVF transplants into infertile women, if IVF is allowed by your belief.

But please try to understand that your religious belief is just that, a belief. It is not a fact. You may treat it like a fact, but it is not a fact. Most people distinguish their beliefs from actual facts. Laws are based on facts.

Raising a religious belief to become a fact and then base a law on that is something everyone, including conservatives, should be very wary of. You only need to consider that many liberals follow Jesus' words to help others and be Good Samaritans. Many christian liberals would be happy to force that belief on you by taxing you at high rates to provide more community services, drug rehab, counciling, etc. Why is it only right to have religious beliefs placed into secular law when those beliefs are held by conservatives?

If an embryo is considered to be a person, does that mean that a woman whose pregnancy goes from one year to another can claim the embryo as a dependent on her taxes? How much is that going to cost the State of Georgia? I can see a whole lot of women deciding to get pregnant in December, so they can get a tax break! What about frozen embryos in IVF clinics? Are they now considered to be dependents? How are you going to get a SSN for them without a "Certificate of Live Birth"? Or, will Georgia now issue "Certificates of Conception" instead of birth certificates?

Jeeze, people... second order thinking isn't illegal yet. Although maybe it is in Georgia.

A few questions come to mind.

If I were to give birth to a child that I didn't want, I would have to sign papers relinquishing my parental rights in order to place it for adoption. Unless I were found to be an abusive parent, my child could not be placed for adoption without my consent.

So if a couple has ten embryos frozen and decides they only want two children, can their frozen embryos (their children, according to GA), be placed for adoption without their consent?
Or will all couples who conceive using IVF be required to sign away their parental rights to any embryos they decide not to implant?
Since frozen embryos deteriorate over time, will there be a time limit within which a couple must implant all their embryos or they will default to placement for adoption?
What if no one adopts a frozen embryo before it deteriorates beyond viability? Will the couple from whose gametes it was created be subject to charges of child neglect? Negligent homicide?

Think of all the exciting applications of Georgia law defining embryos as people. HOV-2 lanes filled with pregnant drivers! Child tax credits starting 9 months early! I remember a few years ago, a 20 year old in South Carolina tried to argue his way out of an underage drinking arrest by arguing that life begins at conception, not birth -- maybe that kind of argument will fly now in GA? I'm sure creative Georgians will think of loads more great ideas.

Athena4 wrote: "If an embryo is considered to be a person, does that mean that a woman whose pregnancy goes from one year to another can claim the embryo as a dependent on her taxes?"

You Betcha! And lawyers, being what they are, I'm sure are getting ready to take full advantage of this. For example:

-Is cryogenic storage a medical cost your medical insurance must pick up for your dependent since not providing cryogenic storage will be lethal to the dependent?

-Will every miscarriage be investigated at the level of a post-born child who dies? If you have a miscarriage at 6 weeks will Horatio Caine show up on your doorstep with his csi kit and his "I will get you" stare?

-What will be the legal penalties for a woman who miscarries due to what doctors determine to be drinking, smoking, over exercising, not maintaining prenatal care or other causes which could be determined to be negligence? Negligent homocide?

-What happens when embryos are frozen and the couple divorces? Must the embryos remain frozen forever and support payments made to keep them frozen, until the GA government has them "adopted" out?

-How much taxpayer money will have to pay to support the orphaned frozen embryos of deadbeat parents who stop paying, for parents who are deceased, etc.

-What is GA's legal responsibility for these orphaned embryos? To maintain them in a frozen state (money) or to ensure they are implanted in women so they can be born (lots of money). Considering less than 1% of frozen embryos are donated to other women for implantation, its hard to see how GA will be able to find enough women to implant all the frozen embryos in so they can be born. Maybe it will pay women to gestate the embryos (lots more money) so these children can be born and moved into a regular orphanage (much more money).

I could go on...

GabrielRockman and Beth

All "conservatives" like you do is trash, trash, trash liberals. Then, when there is a push-back, you get all huffy and bent out of shape.

My words were clear; you misread them, probably on purpose. Before abortion was legal, pregnant women who did not want their babies died in illegal botched abortions.

Do you care? Would you care? As long as you do not know any of these women, and are not related to any of them, then, of course, you could not care.

I think I DO understand the motivations of Conservative Christians: it is to simulate GREAT passion over the killing of embryos, to do your duty to God, to show how good you are, to win you pass to Heaven, with the least amount of work. No empathy, no love, no regard for real human beings, just phoney tears for embryos, that have no bodies, no blood, not brain or mind, no memories or feelings, no personality, and no awareness of pleasure of pain, embryos that can be frozen indefinitely, then thawed out, (just like real people?)

Your grief for them is as fake as your Christianity.

"Will every miscarriage be investigated at the level of a post-born child who dies? If you have a miscarriage at 6 weeks will Horatio Caine show up on your doorstep with his csi kit and his "I will get you" stare?"

If he removes his sunglasses, you're toast. :D

#1 I am not a conservative
#2 I have never said that I support the two laws. I said it was debatable whether or not they were constitutional, but didn't even take a position there, much less state whether or not I agree with the laws.
#3 I have never stated a desire to legislate my religious beliefs on other people.
#4 I have not trashed liberals. I called another one a hypocrite for trashing conservatives, and accusing someone else of only trashing liberals, but I have made no other statements against liberals.

In fact, I support California's medical marijuana law, and oppose George's Embryo laws. From that small sample, one could incorrectly conclude that I am a liberal (I am neither liberal nor conservative).

I oppose California's medical marijuana law because I believe that the war on drugs can only be conducted by our federal government when interstate commerce is involved, and that absent of trafficking drugs across state lines, the federal government has no authority. The FDA should be abolished because the constitution gives the government no authority to regulate what we choose to put in our own bodies.

As for the Georgia law, I think it is wrong to classify embryos as humans, although I do not dispute the state's right to do so. I am appalled that an embryo's rights are more similar to that of the pen on my desk than they are to the dog my parents own. There is outrage at disposing of unwanted dogs, but there is not as much outrage at disposing of possibly wanted embryos. If adopting embryos was legal, there would be similar demand to adopt embryos as there would be to adopt dogs from homeless shelters.

Daniel - you were right to put conservative in quotations when referring to me, because I am not a conservative at all. I've never claimed to be one, either.

Your disdain towards conservative Christians shows that you are incapable of becoming friends with them, and engaging in intelligent conversations with them. I feel that I understand conservative Christians better than you because most of my best friends are conservative Christians, and I attend church with mostly conservative Christians, and I have many conversations with them where I can understand where they are coming from. You are too closed minded to allow yourself to see something from their perspective and respectfully disagree.

Daniel - you are far more intolerant than most conservative Christians. You need to learn to be tolerant.

GabrielRockman wrote: "The FDA should be abolished because the constitution gives the government no authority to regulate what we choose to put in our own bodies."

Did you kow the Constitution gives Congress the right to make laws to provide for the general welfare of the United States (Article 1, Section 8)? That is what the FDA was created to do, by making our food and drugs not just safe but what they are advertised to be, or did you not get to read Sinclair's "The Jungle".

And the FDA does nothing to prevent you from putting whatever you want in your body. But it does prevent providers of food and drugs from making harmful products that they sell to you. If you want to eat dirt, you are correct that the FDA cannot stop you, nor will it try. But it will not allow a company to sell you dirt and call it a food or a drug. The constitution gives Congress the right to make a law against that, but you can freely eat dirt.

GabrielRockman wrote: "As for the Georgia law, I think it is wrong to classify embryos as humans, although I do not dispute the state's right to do so."

Really? Can GA also classify the cells in your forearm as potential humans? They are you know, given the right technology.

GabrielRockman wrote: "I am appalled that an embryo's rights are more similar to that of the pen on my desk than they are to the dog my parents own. There is outrage at disposing of unwanted dogs, but there is not as much outrage at disposing of possibly wanted embryos."

Well this is worth considering. Why aren't people outraged at the disposal of a clump of cells but get bent out of shape when a dog is neglected, abused or killed? Do people not understand, or do they actually understand the difference?

GabrielRockman wrote: "If adopting embryos was legal, there would be similar demand to adopt embryos as there would be to adopt dogs from homeless shelters."

Yes, and animal shelters euthenize animals every day and at the request of their owners. And people DO donate their embryos to couples who cannot have children.

The real question Gabriel is whether you think the state can control what is inside of you, something that is uniquely yours, something that you should have a right to care about, not the state. Are you a baby factory or are you a person? Is your kidney yours or can the state take it to help another person? What about your eggs or sperm? Can the state make you donate blood every other month? Can you legally have one of your kidneys removed and trashed even if it might help another (answer=yes). You have rights. GA is trying to take those rights away by saying that any frozen embryos that are yours can be taken by the state if you do not gestate them.

"One other thing. Even though I'm a Christian, I get very frustrated with some prominent vocal Christians who talk about protecting life, but then take a very shallow view of which life to protect. Either all life is sacred, or none of it is. You can't speak out in defense of embryos and fetuses and then turn right around and support war, or turn your back on entire populations suffering from genocide, starvation and other oppression. If you truly think life is sacred, then your respect for life must stretch from the baby crib to Baghdad to Darfur and back. Anything less is hypocrisy."

I couldn't have said it better myself! *clap clap* :)

What I don't understand is, everyone is okay with science doing tests on dogs, mice, rats, even apes--who are decidedly intelligent and culturally complex beings--yet they get all up in arms over a ball of cell that aren't even assigned a function yet... I do, however, find flaw with the comment about the fact that theses cells aren't alive, since they can bounce back froom being frozen. Of course they are alive, water bears have been known to survive the harsh environment of space, let alone freezing, are very much alive. I merely find it hypocritical that full born organisms are merely fodder for whatever test we choose, but a zygote isn't.

As for the entire "adopting fetus" fiasco here, do they have any idea how stupid that sounds...???