My Barack Wish List

[AeWingnut]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

You don't think stem cell research is necessary? I think you might want to learn a bit about it, your opinion might change.

I don't think embryonic stem cell research is necessary.

The reason I want to argue that sexual preference is not genetic is....

I am pro-life and if people can determine that their baby is going to be gay or something they may "choose" to kill "it"

[Riot]

Originally Posted by AeWingnut

I don't think embryonic stem cell research is necessary.

The reason I want to argue that sexual preference is not genetic is....

I am pro-life and if people can determine that their baby is going to be gay or something they may "choose" to kill "it"

Nobody mentioned embryonic stem cell research. We were discussing stem cell research. Why don't you think it's "necessary" ? (or you think stem cell is okay, but embryonic stem cell is not?) Obviously you must know the great promise stem cell research holds for human (and animal) health? And you don't think that is "necessary" ???

BTW - Sexual preference being genetic or not has nothing at all to do with anybody's opinion on abortion. One can argue abortion any way they wish, but won't remotely affect whether sexual preference is genetic or not.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by AeWingnut

I am pro-life and if people can determine that their baby is going to be gay or something they may "choose" to kill "it"

Now people can choose to "kill" their babies if they are going to have sickle cell anemia or cystic fibrosis. Where is the line drawn?

What about people who purposely fertilize eggs via in-vitro fertilization, then store them, then decide they don't want to implant them, so those fertilized eggs are just thrown away?

BTW, Bush says it's okay to throw these discarded fertilized eggs away, but not okay to use those discarded fertilized eggs for embryonic stem cell research.

Three situations, all involve the same thing (fertilized multi-celled but undifferentiated eggs) why should they be viewed differently?

These are not easy questions.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

http://tapespace.com/view/The_Christian_Gene

[SCUDSBROTHER]

http://tapespace.com/view/How_Not_To_Shoot_A_Gun


ONE FOR ZIG!!

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

http://tapespace.com/view/How_Not_To_Shoot_A_Gun


ONE FOR ZIG!!

so much for the cameraman at the end...luckily, i've never experienced any of that! maybe because i know what i'm doing.

[Riot]

Well done, Scuds!

[SCUDSBROTHER]

http://tapespace.com/view/Revenge_Of_The_Tuba_Player

Who hasn't wanted to do this?

[AeWingnut]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

http://tapespace.com/view/The_Christian_Gene

that's almost funny

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0kJHQpvgB8

[AeWingnut]

Originally Posted by Riot

Now people can choose to "kill" their babies if they are going to have sickle cell anemia or cystic fibrosis. Where is the line drawn?

What about people who purposely fertilize eggs via in-vitro fertilization, then store them, then decide they don't want to implant them, so those fertilized eggs are just thrown away?

BTW, Bush says it's okay to throw these discarded fertilized eggs away, but not okay to use those discarded fertilized eggs for embryonic stem cell research.

Three situations, all involve the same thing (fertilized multi-celled but undifferentiated eggs) why should they be viewed differently?

These are not easy questions.

Like I care what Bush says
he isn't a conservative