Pro-stem-cell-research yet pro-Christianity?

[Esternial]

Christians (or any religious group) don't have a homogenous ideology. How people fill in their own religious beliefs is tied together with their personality. Like reading any book, different people can interpret different things from the Bible. I used to be Catholic and I only learnt lessons of love and tolerance from the Bible - it's hard to understand how some take away so much intolerance.

The problem here being taking the Bible as its own authority to be interpreted out of its context.

It's already impossible to frame the whole notion of being against stem cell research as a direct "law" from the Bible. If it is the word of God, it was still written by humans that interpreted and wrote down His word, humans that didn't know of any such technology. It is then again interpreted by its reader, so the uncertainty will always persist.

Laws should be clearly defined. You simply can't divine a law from the Bible - at most guidelines.

It's like finding a recipe for a pastry written in units that are no longer used nowadays. If one believes wholeheartedly they can make that pastry using that recipe, then the lapse in judgement lies with them, not the scripture.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

And when liberal Christians legitimize Christianity's continued prominence, its overall effects; as demonstrated by which states vote for whom; are prolonged.

Neither "Christianity causes votes for Trump" nor "whatever causes people to support Christianity causes people to vote for Trump" reflects well on Christianity.

It's more that our absolutely garbage political system forces certain people with particular principles to vote for Trump (even though he doesn't take it seriously anyway).

Nobody I know was thrilled to vote for Trump.

Even in highly-religious states, there are people who didn't vote at all. One could say they just disliked Clinton more, but they couldn't have equally disliked all the other options.

Actions speak louder than words.

And your point makes absolutely no sense. "Let's talk about Christian opposition to ESCR, but not talk about why they oppose ESCR"

Is that what the thread title says? Read the thread title again.

Embryonic stem cell research has already been discussed plenty on the Internet, (though evidently not enough if some people still think it comes from aborted fetuses) and progressivism vs. conservatism more so. Discussion of whether or not one can support both ESCR and the institution that has caused people to opposite it is comparatively rare. (I probably could've made it about progressive Christianity in general, as the same reasoning applies to it as pro-ESCR pro-Christian attitudes more specifically, but that too is relatively more common than what I had in mind.)

Yeah, I temporarily relented on it; begrudgingly; but my weakness on that does not make the case against this point in and of itself.

Next time, if you have a problem with a thread's premise, bring it up the first time. Don't wait until several days after.

[Union of Sovereign States and Republics]

In my opinion, this has the same roots as the debate over abortion. If you think that an embryo has rights, then in addition to opposing abortion, you probably are anti-stem cell research. This question is essentially “are there christians who are pro-choice?”

I'm pretty sure there are pro-choice Christians out there (I think there's one on this site as well who's on the forums a lot).

it's me!

[Hakons]

At that point the cells are simply medical waste and are going to be disposed of. There is no reason not to put them to good use.

Brave New World is a dystopia

Brave New World is a dystopia

Brave New World is a dystopia ect...

[Salus Maior]

Even in highly-religious states, there are people who didn't vote at all. One could say they just disliked Clinton more, but they couldn't have equally disliked all the other options.

Actions speak louder than words.

I know, that was me (and I may not vote in the next election either, frankly).

And sure, you could just say they could have picked someone else to vote for, like a write-in. But again, that's not how our system is framed. Nobody thinks that write-ins will win anyone an election, or third party candidates in general. It's honestly a joke that it's even an option.

Resources are funneled primarily into our two awful ruling parties, that's who everyone is going to vote for. And for people that want their vote to count, they're not going to throw it away on a third party. So, honestly I can't blame them if they grit their teeth and vote for someone they don't like because they saw the other side as unacceptable. If they do wrong in that, it's because our system and how it is corruptly framed forced that choice.

[Salus Maior]

The problem here being taking the Bible as its own authority to be interpreted out of its context.

It's already impossible to frame the whole notion of being against stem cell research as a direct "law" from the Bible. If it is the word of God, it was still written by humans that interpreted and wrote down His word, humans that didn't know of any such technology. It is then again interpreted by its reader, so the uncertainty will always persist.

Laws should be clearly defined. You simply can't divine a law from the Bible - at most guidelines.

It's like finding a recipe for a pastry written in units that are no longer used nowadays. If one believes wholeheartedly they can make that pastry using that recipe, then the lapse in judgement lies with them, not the scripture.

Yeah, the Church is what sets doctrine, not the Bible in and of itself.

That's how it's always been in Christianity. The Bible is borne from that tradition and compiled by the Church's authority.

And besides, embryonic stem cell research is the only form of it that has ethical objections attached to it. It's not all stem cell research.

[Greater Catarapania]

It's more that our absolutely garbage political system forces certain people with particular principles to vote for Trump (even though he doesn't take it seriously anyway).

Nobody I know was thrilled to vote for Trump.

Even in highly-religious states, there are people who didn't vote at all. One could say they just disliked Clinton more, but they couldn't have equally disliked all the other options.

Actions speak louder than words.

So you'd rather they let Clinton into office and suffer through 4 more years of the status quo? With nigh on a million dead to abortion each year, that's gonna be a tough sell.

And your point makes absolutely no sense. "Let's talk about Christian opposition to ESCR, but not talk about why they oppose ESCR"

Is that what the thread title says? Read the thread title again.

The fact that you even juxtapose stem cell research and Christianity shows that you recognize that, to some extent, there is a tension between the two. Without the tension, the question posed makes no sense. And without a discussion of the reason behind that tension, no understanding of the matter will be forthcoming.

Embryonic stem cell research has already been discussed plenty on the Internet, (though evidently not enough if some people still think it comes from aborted fetuses)

The conservative mind makes no moral distinction between a newborn infant, a fetus, an embryo, and a zygote, though it fully understands the scientific distinctions. They're all different stages of the same thing: immature person. Do you seriously think that the argument "oh, it's not even a fetus yet, don't worry," would fail to change minds because of scientific ignorance? We're not idiots, thank you very much.

Discussion of whether or not one can support both ESCR and the institution that has caused people to opposite it is comparatively rare.

Because it's a red herring. The answer is yes. Let's move on to something important, like whether either should be supported in the first place.

Yeah, I temporarily relented on it; begrudgingly; but my weakness on that does not make the case against this point in and of itself.

Next time, if you have a problem with a thread's premise, bring it up the first time. Don't wait until several days after.

I think that my first few comments on this thread, which took advantage of your "relenting," said plenty about my view of the limitation. What was it you said earlier? "Actions speak louder than words?" Well, what I'm saying now, I did before. I spoke my peace earlier in the thread, and by your lights, I might as well have been typing in all caps.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Even in highly-religious states, there are people who didn't vote at all. One could say they just disliked Clinton more, but they couldn't have equally disliked all the other options.

Actions speak louder than words.

I know, that was me (and I may not vote in the next election either, frankly).

And sure, you could just say they could have picked someone else to vote for, like a write-in. But again, that's not how our system is framed. Nobody thinks that write-ins will win anyone an election, or third party candidates in general. It's honestly a joke that it's even an option.

Resources are funneled primarily into our two awful ruling parties, that's who everyone is going to vote for. And for people that want their vote to count, they're not going to throw it away on a third party. So, honestly I can't blame them if they grit their teeth and vote for someone they don't like because they saw the other side as unacceptable. If they do wrong in that, it's because our system and how it is corruptly framed forced that choice.

So what are you proposing, that Americans just give up? Because that's what "not voting at all" constitutes.

Find something to do about it. The rest of the world is growing tired of Americans' excuses.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

So you'd rather they let Clinton into office and suffer through 4 more years of the status quo? With nigh on a million dead to abortion each year, that's gonna be a tough sell.

And did Trump outlaw abortion? No?

The conservative mind makes no moral distinction between a newborn infant, a fetus, an embryo, and a zygote

If that were the case, anti-stem-cell research ads and editorial cartoons would never attempt to perpetuate the myth that stem cells come from fetuses.

They're all different stages of the same thing: immature person. Do you seriously think that the argument "oh, it's not even a fetus yet, don't worry," would fail to change minds because of scientific ignorance? We're not idiots, thank you very much.

You wanna bet? Do you recall the point raised earlier about in-vitro fertilization getting fewer objections than abortion?

Because it's a red herring. The answer is yes. Let's move on to something important, like whether either should be supported in the first place.

It's my thread, not yours.

Don't flatter yourself, by the way. I wouldn't even be relenting on this if not for the fact that almost everyone else is almost as far off topic. It's just pragmatism at this point.

[Salus Maior]

I know, that was me (and I may not vote in the next election either, frankly).

And sure, you could just say they could have picked someone else to vote for, like a write-in. But again, that's not how our system is framed. Nobody thinks that write-ins will win anyone an election, or third party candidates in general. It's honestly a joke that it's even an option.

Resources are funneled primarily into our two awful ruling parties, that's who everyone is going to vote for. And for people that want their vote to count, they're not going to throw it away on a third party. So, honestly I can't blame them if they grit their teeth and vote for someone they don't like because they saw the other side as unacceptable. If they do wrong in that, it's because our system and how it is corruptly framed forced that choice.

So what are you proposing, that Americans just give up? Because that's what "not voting at all" constitutes.

Find something to do about it. The rest of the world is growing tired of Americans' excuses.

I'm saying the political system needs to be reformed. The two-party and winner-takes-all system needs to be dumped, and we need to switch to a multiparty system.

Until that point, I'm not going to play the Democrats' and Republicans' game.

[Greater Catarapania]

So you'd rather they let Clinton into office and suffer through 4 more years of the status quo? With nigh on a million dead to abortion each year, that's gonna be a tough sell.

And did Trump outlaw abortion? No?

He got some alright guys on the court. That's more than Clinton would have done.

Of course, he's also a playboy, and thus part of the problem our nation has faced since at least the sixties. Which is why I personally didn't vote for Mr. "Grab-em-by-the-pussy." "He's not quite as bad as Clinton" is about the best that could be said of him from a Christian perspective.

The conservative mind makes no moral distinction between a newborn infant, a fetus, an embryo, and a zygote

If that were the case, anti-stem-cell research ads and editorial cartoons would never attempt to perpetuate the myth that stem cells come from fetuses.

The cartoon uses an already born baby. How does that "perpetuate the myth that stem cells come from fetuses"?

They're all different stages of the same thing: immature person. Do you seriously think that the argument "oh, it's not even a fetus yet, don't worry," would fail to change minds because of scientific ignorance? We're not idiots, thank you very much.

You wanna bet? Do you recall the point raised earlier about in-vitro fertilization getting fewer objections than abortion?

Do you want to discuss lack of knowledge about different stages of development, lack of knowledge about the dark side of particular medical practices, or just lack of knowledge more generally? Because that last one's a little broad to have anything useful to say about. The first one is what I thought we were talking about. The second one seems to be a sticking point for you for some reason.

Because it's a red herring. The answer is yes. Let's move on to something important, like whether either should be supported in the first place.

It's my thread, not yours.

Well, there's your answer. Yes, a (non-Catholic) Christian can consistently support stem cell research, potentially for the same reason as other Christians oppose it, if they adopt a definition of "person" based on occurrent properties rather than substantial continuity.

Thread over? Move on to something more useful?

[Nuroblav]

I'm pretty sure there are pro-choice Christians out there (I think there's one on this site as well who's on the forums a lot).

it's me!

There was someone else as well I think...

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

He got some alright guys on the court. That's more than Clinton would have done.

Of course, he's also a playboy, and thus part of the problem our nation has faced since at least the sixties. Which is why I personally didn't vote for Mr. "Grab-em-by-the-pussy." "He's not quite as bad as Clinton" is about the best that could be said of him from a Christian perspective.

And yet, in states where Christianity is supposedly popular, many elected not to vote at all when they could've voted for some alternative to both and forced the issue.

Also, what of the primaries? Trump was up against more than a dozen rivals, many of whom don't "grab 'em by the pussy." (That we know of.) How come Christianity wasn't effective in motivating people to vote against him during the primaries?

The cartoon uses an already born baby. How does that "perpetuate the myth that stem cells come from fetuses"?

It's not obvious?

Embyronic stem cells: Formed in a lab or formed from in vitro fertilization; which is more popularly supported than abortion, by the way; either way, no pregnancy, and in turn no fetus, was involved.

Newborn baby: Formed in the womb throughout the process of pregnancy. Pregnancy was involved, making it plainly distinct from the process for forming embryonic stem cells.

A person who calls a newborn baby a waste of potential embryonic stem cells is implying that those stem cells could have come from aborting the fetus during pregnancy. This would not actually provide embryonic stem cells, making the statement scientifically inaccurate. This suggests either ignorance on the cartoonist's part to the difference mentioned above, and/or intent to make others ignorant about it.

Do you want to discuss lack of knowledge about different stages of development, lack of knowledge about the dark side of particular medical practices, or just lack of knowledge more generally? Because that last one's a little broad to have anything useful to say about. The first one is what I thought we were talking about. The second one seems to be a sticking point for you for some reason.

Well, yeah. If people are so somehow that ignorant either about in-vitro fertilization or about embryonic stem cell research, yet object to the latter and/or abortion on "life begins at conception" grounds, that discredits them, and in turn, their opinions.

Well, there's your answer. Yes, a (non-Catholic) Christian can consistently support stem cell research, potentially for the same reason as other Christians oppose it, if they adopt a definition of "person" based on occurrent properties rather than substantial continuity.

Thread over? Move on to something more useful?

Not yet. That still leaves behind the question of whether or not continued support for Christianity constitutes tapping the same well that gave us opposition to embryonic stem cell research in the first place.

[Greater Catarapania]

He got some alright guys on the court. That's more than Clinton would have done.

Of course, he's also a playboy, and thus part of the problem our nation has faced since at least the sixties. Which is why I personally didn't vote for Mr. "Grab-em-by-the-pussy." "He's not quite as bad as Clinton" is about the best that could be said of him from a Christian perspective.

And yet, in states where Christianity is supposedly popular, many elected not to vote at all when they could've voted for some alternative to both and forced the issue.

There were no real alternatives. America has two parties. Nobody else has a real chance at power. We don't have the structures required to get enough people behind one alternative candidate to "force the issue" in the manner you suggest.

Also, what of the primaries? Trump was up against more than a dozen rivals, many of whom don't "grab 'em by the pussy." (That we know of.) How come Christianity wasn't effective in motivating people to vote against him during the primaries?

Don't ask me. I voted for Rubio.

The cartoon uses an already born baby. How does that "perpetuate the myth that stem cells come from fetuses"?

It's not obvious?

Embyronic stem cells: Formed in a lab or formed from in vitro fertilization; which is more popularly supported than abortion, by the way; either way, no pregnancy, and in turn no fetus, was involved.

But human organisms (ie, the embryos) were, which is the point of the cartoon. The embryo and the baby are just two stages of the same thing in our eyes. We're continually baffled by how few people can see that fact. The old man in the cartoon subverts this by operating under the continuity paradigm, yet still complaining about the "waste of stem cells."

To clarify, pro-life doesn't limit itself to pregnancy. What concerns us is ensuring that the lives of our fellow human beings are not cut short, and we extend that status to every organism in the species Homo sapiens. If there was a way to do that without mucking about with pregnancy, many of us would support it, at least in the current cultural climate. If the choice is between growing a baby in a vat and discarding an embryo, I at any rate would pick the vat-baby option. But we don't have the technology yet, so it's a moot point.

Do you want to discuss lack of knowledge about different stages of development, lack of knowledge about the dark side of particular medical practices, or just lack of knowledge more generally? Because that last one's a little broad to have anything useful to say about. The first one is what I thought we were talking about. The second one seems to be a sticking point for you for some reason.

Well, yeah. If people are so somehow that ignorant either about in-vitro fertilization or about embryonic stem cell research, yet object to the latter and/or abortion on "life begins at conception" grounds, that discredits them, and in turn, their opinions.

To be fair, the people offering the in-vitro fertilization services don't exactly advertise the fact that they discard embryos. It isn't common knowledge the way embryonic stem cell research involving destruction of embryos is. If it were common knowledge, you'd see the same level of opposition to IVF as you do to ESCR.

Well, there's your answer. Yes, a (non-Catholic) Christian can consistently support stem cell research, potentially for the same reason as other Christians oppose it, if they adopt a definition of "person" based on occurrent properties rather than substantial continuity.

Thread over? Move on to something more useful?

Not yet. That still leaves behind the question of whether or not continued support for Christianity constitutes tapping the same well that gave us opposition to embryonic stem cell research in the first place.

Yes, as that "well" is essentially "concern for all persons, no matter how small or immature."

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

There were no real alternatives. America has two parties. Nobody else has a real chance at power. We don't have the structures required to get enough people behind one alternative candidate to "force the issue" in the manner you suggest.

A disproportionate slice of the third-party attention was on Jill Stein and Gary Johnson. It could've happened.

In a democracy, it's up to everyone. The rest of the first world has their shit together.

Don't ask me. I voted for Rubio.

And yet, a near-majority of Republican voters; most of whom are Christians; voted for Trump over all the other options. Does that not reflect poorly on Christianity?

But human organisms (ie, the embryos) were, which is the point of the cartoon. The embryo and the baby are just two stages of the same thing in our eyes.

No, they're not. They're from inherently divergent pathways. Given the misconception's commonality it's reasonable to presume it plays a key role in this debate.

To be fair, the people offering the in-vitro fertilization services don't exactly advertise the fact that they discard embryos.

Doesn't matter. If one is to put discarding embryos on the level of murder, one owes it to the supposed victims to get the facts.

It isn't common knowledge the way embryonic stem cell research involving destruction of embryos is. If it were common knowledge, you'd see the same level of opposition to IVF as you do to ESCR.

Not necessarily. This article makes the case for IVF being more supported than abortion in particular because it doesn't "challenge the expectation that women want to be mothers." It's not entirely certain either way, but that's the point; there's no reasonable claim of certainty to what would've happened in the absence of that ignorance. It's just as possible that some of the opposition to ESCR; which isn't as opposed as abortion as it is; might be from people who think it comes from aborted fetuses and mind it more for that reason than for "life begins at conception" reasons.

[Greater Catarapania]

There were no real alternatives. America has two parties. Nobody else has a real chance at power. We don't have the structures required to get enough people behind one alternative candidate to "force the issue" in the manner you suggest.

A disproportionate slice of the third-party attention was on Jill Stein and Gary Johnson. It could've happened.

Neither of whom would have attempted to implement pro-life policies to even the meagre extent Trump did.

In a democracy, it's up to everyone. The rest of the first world has their shit together.

From the perspective of an Evangelical, that statement is simply false. The rest of the first world is complacent about the moral mess they've gotten themselves into. We won't let America forget the problems of progressivism like Europe has.

Don't ask me. I voted for Rubio.

And yet, a near-majority of Republican voters; most of whom are Christians; voted for Trump over all the other options. Does that not reflect poorly on Christianity?

Of republicans who attended Church services weekly, 57% were skeptical of/opposed to Trump during the primaries. Doesn't that reflect well upon Christianity?

It's only after he got the nomination that we began to begrudgingly accept him, and even then, many of us never warmed up to him. I, for one, was in denial - going so far as to write in Marco Rubio's name on the ballot in the general elections.

But human organisms (ie, the embryos) were, which is the point of the cartoon. The embryo and the baby are just two stages of the same thing in our eyes.

No, they're not. They're from inherently divergent pathways.

Really? What do you mean "divergent pathways?" Sure, the embryo in a test tube will die if kept away from its natural habitat, but that's the case with most organisms. And if allowed to enter its natural habitat PRESTO! It winds up on the same developmental pathway it would have been on if it had been conceived there in the first place. Almost as if there's only one pathway that's being artificially interfered with, not a pair of divergent ones!

In what sense is the embryo not the same organism as the fetus it will grow into?

To be fair, the people offering the in-vitro fertilization services don't exactly advertise the fact that they discard embryos.

Doesn't matter. If one is to put discarding embryos on the level of murder, one owes it to the supposed victims to get the facts.

And if the facts are being hidden, and one doesn't know that there are facts to hide?

It isn't common knowledge the way embryonic stem cell research involving destruction of embryos is. If it were common knowledge, you'd see the same level of opposition to IVF as you do to ESCR.

Not necessarily. This article makes the case for IVF being more supported than abortion in particular because it doesn't "challenge the expectation that women want to be mothers."

Well that's just BS. As I said earlier, what concerns us is ensuring that the lives of our fellow human beings are not cut short, and we extend that status to every organism in the species Homo sapiens. If there was a way to do that without mucking about with pregnancy, many of us would support it, at least in the current cultural climate. If the choice is between growing a baby in a vat and discarding an embryo, I at any rate would pick the vat-baby option. But we don't have the technology yet, so it's a moot point.

That being said, there might be some of us who don't look as deeply into IVF as we ought to because it fails to challenge our assumptions about the nature of the family the same way abortion does. But in such cases, what's going on is a lack of reason to be suspicious resulting in a lack of suspicion, not some kind of inconsistency or dishonesty.

It's not entirely certain either way, but that's the point; there's no reasonable claim of certainty to what would've happened in the absence of that ignorance. It's just as possible that some of the opposition to ESCR; which isn't as opposed as abortion as it is; might be from people who think it comes from aborted fetuses and mind it more for that reason than for "life begins at conception" reasons.

Who are you going to trust on the topic of pro-lifer principles? The pro-lifer telling you what being pro-life is about? Or the armchair psychologist engaging in Bulveristic bullshit?

[Katganistan]

Because surprise, surprise, people can support some things and not others.

Like loving pizza but hating buffalo chicken pizza.

Almost nothing in the world, especially people, can be looked at in terms of 100% supporting anything, 100% good or evil, et cetera.

This is more analogous to noticing the pizzeria gave you food poisoning almost every time you went in there, with reason to believe you're not the only one, and continuing to praise that same pizzeria.

Christianity is contaminated from the start by its own holy book's contradictions. It sets a precedent for eroding rational thought that just goes downhill from there.

If we were paying women to purposefully get pregnant to abort the embryo in order to harvest the stem cells, then no way José, I am completely against that sort of behavior.

Abortions are used for fetal tissue research, not embryonic stem cell research. Spreading the misconception that it comes from aborted fetuses... might cause people to oppose embryonic stem cell research who wouldn't otherwise.

However, the closest thing to the embryonic equivalent of what you describe would be cloning embryos in a lab to harvest the stem cells in circumstances where in-vitro fertilizations do not produce enough. Do you have a problem with that process?

. . .

EDIT: At the risk of sounding nosy... Kat, what made you think embryonic stem cells came from aborted fetuses?

I did not. I specifically said embryos.

Treatment for Ectopic pregnancies = removing an embryo. It's an abortion.

I don't much care about cloning embryos because at five days, it's just a clump of cells, not anything near sentience or personhood.

[Xmara]

This is more analogous to noticing the pizzeria gave you food poisoning almost every time you went in there, with reason to believe you're not the only one, and continuing to praise that same pizzeria.

Christianity is contaminated from the start by its own holy book's contradictions. It sets a precedent for eroding rational thought that just goes downhill from there.



Abortions are used for fetal tissue research, not embryonic stem cell research. Spreading the misconception that it comes from aborted fetuses... might cause people to oppose embryonic stem cell research who wouldn't otherwise.

However, the closest thing to the embryonic equivalent of what you describe would be cloning embryos in a lab to harvest the stem cells in circumstances where in-vitro fertilizations do not produce enough. Do you have a problem with that process?

. . .

EDIT: At the risk of sounding nosy... Kat, what made you think embryonic stem cells came from aborted fetuses?

I did not. I specifically said embryos.

Treatment for Ectopic pregnancies = removing an embryo. It's an abortion.

I don't much care about cloning embryos because at five days, it's just a clump of cells, not anything near sentience or personhood.

I’m beginning to think the OP is more interested in arguing semantics rather than the broader topic at hand.

[Geneviev]

There are Christians who are in favor of science based on their interpretation of the Bible. It doesn't say anything about stem cell research, so people will disagree.

[Wazz]

In my opinion, this has the same roots as the debate over abortion. If you think that an embryo has rights, then in addition to opposing abortion, you probably are anti-stem cell research. This question is essentially “are there christians who are pro-choice?”

The answer to that question is always going to be yes, because everyone's opinions on the matter is difference. However those individuals would be scarce.
I completely agree that the two topics have the same roots. It's essentially the same question, worded differently.

[Geneviev]

In my opinion, this has the same roots as the debate over abortion. If you think that an embryo has rights, then in addition to opposing abortion, you probably are anti-stem cell research. This question is essentially “are there christians who are pro-choice?”

The answer to that question is always going to be yes, because everyone's opinions on the matter is difference. However those individuals would be scarce.
I completely agree that the two topics have the same roots. It's essentially the same question, worded differently.

Pro-choice Christians are actually very common.

[Luziyca]

I reckon they exist: a general rule of thumb is even if there are two things that completely contradict each other (i.e. you can't love Y if you love X, and you can't love X if you love Y), there will always be someone who will sincerely love those two things simultaneously.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Neither of whom would have attempted to implement pro-life policies to even the meagre extent Trump did.

You come across as a single-issue voter here.

But even if you are, does it not make you re-evaluate the position when the only "anti-abortion" candidate such voters could find who would be both able and willing to supposedly do something about it also happened to be a colossal hypocrite?

From the perspective of an Evangelical, that statement is simply false. The rest of the first world is complacent about the moral mess they've gotten themselves into. We won't let America forget the problems of progressivism like Europe has.

Again, the single-issue vote comes through here. The aspect of "life" that causes people to be indignant at actual murders is the starting of the set of experiences and emotions that people typically refer to when they refer to someone's life. When someone says "get a life" they're not saying "get a set of chromosomes formed by a sperm and egg joining." Of all the thresholds within pregnancy to pick, conception strikes me as frankly the most absurd.

Of republicans who attended Church services weekly

Does this prove they're more religious than the rest? What if they like their own interpretation of the Bible more than that of the church?

It's only after he got the nomination that we began to begrudgingly accept him, and even then, many of us never warmed up to him. I, for one, was in denial - going so far as to write in Marco Rubio's name on the ballot in the general elections.

Nevertheless, it's the Republican Party that created this monster, and it's the Republican Party that's defending him now.

Really? What do you mean "divergent pathways?" Sure, the embryo in a test tube will die if kept away from its natural habitat, but that's the case with most organisms. And if allowed to enter its natural habitat PRESTO!

A cloned embryo could be implanted into a uterus and become a fetus? I'm going to need a source on that one.

It winds up on the same developmental pathway it would have been on if it had been conceived there in the first place. Almost as if there's only one pathway that's being artificially interfered with, not a pair of divergent ones!

There's no such thing as "artificial." Everything artificial is natural, because it all has its roots in the natural world.

If this misconception has nothing to do with opposition to ESCR, how come you see popular shows perpetuating it?

And if the facts are being hidden, and one doesn't know that there are facts to hide?

Still their responsibility to check. Sitting back and making excuses for ignorance solves nothing.

Who are you going to trust on the topic of pro-lifer principles? The pro-lifer telling you what being pro-life is about? Or the armchair psychologist engaging in Bulveristic bullshit?

"Trust"? On the Internet?

I establish doubt when there is reason for doubt. I do this when the other side of the debate acts too sure of people's motives, and I do this when people act entitled to have others take their word for something. I'm not the hypocrite here; I'm the one pointing out the reality that we're not sure either way.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

This is more analogous to noticing the pizzeria gave you food poisoning almost every time you went in there, with reason to believe you're not the only one, and continuing to praise that same pizzeria.

Christianity is contaminated from the start by its own holy book's contradictions. It sets a precedent for eroding rational thought that just goes downhill from there.



Abortions are used for fetal tissue research, not embryonic stem cell research. Spreading the misconception that it comes from aborted fetuses... might cause people to oppose embryonic stem cell research who wouldn't otherwise.

However, the closest thing to the embryonic equivalent of what you describe would be cloning embryos in a lab to harvest the stem cells in circumstances where in-vitro fertilizations do not produce enough. Do you have a problem with that process?

. . .

EDIT: At the risk of sounding nosy... Kat, what made you think embryonic stem cells came from aborted fetuses?

I did not. I specifically said embryos.

Treatment for Ectopic pregnancies = removing an embryo. It's an abortion.

I don't much care about cloning embryos because at five days, it's just a clump of cells, not anything near sentience or personhood.

Every source I've come across in prior debates on this topic has claimed embryonic stem cells come exclusively from two sources; in-vitro fertilizations and cloned embryos. Do you have any source on ectopic pregnancies providing embryonic stem cells?

[Xmara]

I did not. I specifically said embryos.

Treatment for Ectopic pregnancies = removing an embryo. It's an abortion.

I don't much care about cloning embryos because at five days, it's just a clump of cells, not anything near sentience or personhood.

Every source I've come across in prior debates on this topic has claimed embryonic stem cells come exclusively from two sources; in-vitro fertilizations and cloned embryos. Do you have any source on ectopic pregnancies providing embryonic stem cells?

I’ve read Kat’s posts. Where are you getting any of that?