A month ago I wrote a post stating Fred Thompson had disqualified as one of my presidential primary picks for opposing a human life amendment or federal intervention if need be of disabled killing.

Now Mitt Romney has disqualified himself for supporting human embryonic stem cell research.

I'm so disappointed, because I was trying hard to give this pro-life convert the benefit of the doubt. Turns out he's not completely converted. A December 5 interview with Katie Couric on CBS News went like this....

Couric: So are you opposed to stem cell research?

Romney: No, I'm very much in favor of stem cell research, but in a way which I believe is moral and ethical. And creating new embryos through embryo farming or through cloning, I find to be unethical and I would not pursue that course of stem cell research.

Couric: So what kind of embryos - embryos that are created for procreation and then would be discarded? Are those the ones that you feel are perfectly fine from which to cull cells for stem cell research?

Romney: Yes, those embryos that are referred to commonly as surplus embryos from in-vitro fertilization. Those embryos, I hope, could be available for adoption for people who would like to adopt embryos. But if a parent decides they would want to donate one of those embryos for purposes of research, in my view, that's acceptable. It should not be made against the law. I wouldn't finance that with government money because it represents a moral challenge for a lot of people and I think we're better investing in places where the prospects are much better. And I think that's something like something known as alter-nuclear transfer where you create new embryo, like, entities, but they're not human embryos. And you can take stem cells from those.

No. A parent cannot authorize killing a child. A parent cannot donate his/her living child for scientific experimentation.

Romney understood this when discussing abortion earlier in the interview. He just needed to apply that logic to human embryo experimentation:

Couric: What's the biggest mistake you've ever made? How did you recognize it and what did you do to change course?

Romney: Well, I think from the political perspective, the biggest mistake I made was believing that my personal disagreement with abortion and my view that abortion was wrong, that somehow I could accommodate my personal view that abortion was wrong with a public view that other people should be able to make up their own mind, and the government wouldn't play a role. That, in my view, was a mistake....

Couric: You said you have personal views toward abortion but felt that in the public arena, another position could exist. What is wrong with that? What's wrong with having a personal view and feeling that it's the right of individuals to make these difficult choices?

Romney: Well, what I recognized is that in a civilized society that there has to be a respect for the sanctity of life - that if you put that aside, if you say, "We're gonna start creating life and then destroying it," you're, in effect, playing God. And I think a civilized society has certain rules of conduct that it live by and one of those is to respect the sanctity of life.

I don't get Romney's disconnect, but he has disconnected. And he has disqualified himself.

That leaves pretty much leaves Mike Huckabee. I really like Duncan Hunter, but he's not getting any traction.

[HT: Lifenews.com]

Yay Mike Huckabee!!

This was disappointing, but I think Romney's still going to win. Either him or Giuliani.

he should have been out so long ago. He's such a moron.

The problem with Romney from the beginning was not his religion but his flip-flopping on the life issue.

This interview confirms that he is not really pro-life at all.

Great speechwriter, lousy candidate...

Romney has been so rich for so long that he can't relate to those who are regular folks. Huckabee grew up pretty poor, so I think that is why he cares more about people's struggles with health care. I recently heard that his kids all went to public school. So that helps him connect with people who have to depend on the public school system for their kids education.

I wonder if any of the other candidates kids are or were in public school. Romney's and Clinton's didn't. I think the really rich look at education in terms of what kind of workers will be needed for the economy and industry. This view has merit, but it is a different angle. Romney and Clinton seem like outsiders looking in at education and health care rather than folks who are or have been intimately affected and to some extent at the mercy of the system.

I don't know about Obama, Edwards and Giuliani. Were their kids in public school?

Yes, those embryos that are referred to commonly as surplus embryos from in-vitro fertilization. Those embryos, I hope, could be available for adoption for people who would like to adopt embryos. But if a parent decides they would want to donate one of those embryos for purposes of research, in my view, that's acceptable. It should not be made against the law.

OK, now I (some what) understand why y'all are against IVF, but is not going to be made illegal. Now with that said, there are still going to be embryos left over. Why not let one of two things happen?
(1) let another reproductvely challenged couple adopt the embryos or;
(2) let them be used for stem cell research.

If y'all wouldnt bicker some much about this stuff, glorious things could happen. Hell, in a couple of years I could need embryos from another woman b/c there is a chance I might not be able to have my own biological children. Not to mention stem cells could find a cure to many life crippling diseases that kill off our society each year..

Just words to ponder on...

^ Above post (Posted by: Anonymous at December 7, 2007 5:08 PM) was from me...

Doesn't that mean that Romney's stance on ESCR is essentially the same as President Bush's? Bush is against a complete ban on ESCR, but is also against using tax dollars to pay for it.

Midnite, embryonic stem cell research is currently 100% legal in America. President Bush is against a ban on embryonic stem cell research. You are free to experiment on human embryos as much as you want.

You just have to use your own money. You can't use pro-lifers' money. That is the issue at hand, not the legality of the research.

Ah, thanks for that tid bit John. Didnt know it was legal, for some reason I thought is was illegal (or is that cloning)?

The brain is rotting from studying for final exams last week. Please excuse any dumb, illogical or crazy remarks I make until next Friday...

Certain types of cloning are illegal, yes.

The problem is that a lot of people seem to think that Bush has banned embryonic stem cell research outright. They don't realize that he's taken what is actually a moderate position. Jill is upset that Romney refuses to take a purely pro-life position on ESCR and instead merely opposes federal funding for it, but that is pretty much the same thing Bush has done for the past seven years. And yet Bush has been completely lambasted in the media and by ESCR advocates for allegedly placing a "ban" on this supposedly life-saving research.

Since there have been NO advancements in the area of embryonic stem cell research I don't know why they just don't give it up altogether.

It's like a certain group just wants there to be embryonic research because to disqualify it would be like saying there was something morally wrong with it and hence abortion as well. They keep testing and researching and coming up with nothing, whereas HUGE strides are being made with adult stem cells.

Midnite, embryonic stem cell research is currently 100% legal in America. President Bush is against a ban on embryonic stem cell research. You are free to experiment on human embryos as much as you want.

You just have to use your own money. You can't use pro-lifers' money. That is the issue at hand, not the legality of the research.

Posted by: John Lewandowski at December 7, 2007 5:15 PM
.............................................

I wonder how many PL would refuse treatment developed through such research?

I wonder how many PL would refuse treatment developed through such research?

ANY pro-lifer would. Besides the fact that NO real treatment has ever been developed through this type of research (if you've kept up with the times, you might have noticed that that adult stem cells are where the true treatment lies for diseases), and that this type of research (embryonic) always ends a human life (which all pro-lifers are against), any that has been tried has resulted in massive tumors or other problems when tested on lab rats. There's plenty of reasons that a pro-lifer would refuse treatment developed through this type of research.

me ....

I wonder how many PL would refuse treatment developed through such research?

Posted by: Sally at December 7, 2007 5:49 PM

I would. I have refused vaccinations for my children because most (if not all) were developed or have embryonic cells. (Mary can probably help on this, but there is an issue with them.) And I opted to get vaccines from Japan that didn't use this method. It takes a lot of effort but is worth it, you have to find a doctor that is cooperative and then get the vaccines and be within a certain distance of the delivery area.

I was lucky that my kids got their vaccines before my doctor retired. If their current doctor won't give them the boosters they need I'll find another.

Any experiment you can think of doing with induced pluripotent cells is also worth doing on embryonic stem cells.

It is a mistake to let fundamentalists dictate science policy.

I would. I have refused vaccinations for my children because most (if not all) were developed or have embryonic cells.

Me too, Kristen!

I would refuse treatment.

Mitt Romney is too plastic and fake anyway.

Jill said, "That leaves pretty much leaves Mike Huckabee. I really like Duncan Hunter, but he's not getting any traction."

And Ron Paul, who is the most pro-life of them all. I just don't get it. Ron Paul authored a bill that would demolish Roe and declare a baby as human from the moment of conception and that's not pro-life enough? We're going to not even consider him because he wants to pull our young men and women out a the unGodly, unConstitutional, undeclared war in Iraq? Where are your priorities? Where is the understanding of the Constitution, not to mention the Bible? Michael Peroutka ran for President in 2004 and Christians wouldn't support him because he had the same stance on Iraq. But Michael had pledged to end abortion his very first day in office! http://www.peroutka2004.com/schedule/index.php?action=itemview&event_id=189. Where were the true pro-lifers then? And where are they now?

During IVF, multiple eggs are fertilized for implantation into the uterus. Not all eggs are implanted... usually only one or two will be. That could leave... 4-16 fertilized eggs left over. Fact is, these fertilized eggs (which you can call "life"), are usually discarded afterward. At least with stem cell research, these cells could be used to help preserve the lives of others.

Of all the eggs fertilized for IVF, few to none will be picked up by other couples wanting to create their own children.

But, I guess, if you'd rather just discard those "babies" rather than use them to help other lives ... that must be the preferred choice of pro-lifers against stem cell research.

Nice choice.

IVF doesn't *have* to produce more embryos than are implanted. In other countries (such as Germany and Italy I think, but I'd have to look it up to be sure) it's illegal to create "excess" embryos.

Right on, Vickie. That's exactly how I feel.

Jen R, IVF is very expensive and the rate of failure is high. In the case that the two implanted embryos "die" and don't grow to full term, those extra embryos are available for the couple to try again. I'm pretty sure most couples would opt for "extra" rather than going through the additional expense and length of time it takes to prepare the donor for another egg extraction.

Not to mention, I don't know a whole hell of a lot of donors who would be willing to go through the drug treatments again just because the couple decided they only wanted two eggs, not enough in case something went wrong with the first pair.

Right, but my point is that people opt for "extra"; it's not a requirement.

I'm hoping that advances in freezing eggs will eliminate the incentive to create "extra" embryos, since the eggs could be extracted all at once but only fertilized when they're going to be implanted.

Now Mitt Romney has disqualified himself for supporting human embryonic stem cell research"

Isn't that what he said his conversion was all about??? LOSER!

Yes, Jen R, that sounds appealing, and I agree. It would be nice if embryos could be frozen until the next couple wants/needs them.

However, take into consideration that the large majority of people opting for IVF are, if I may be frank, selfish, in that they want a child of their own genetics. Otherwise, why wouldn't they just adopt?

So why would another couple doing IVF "adopt" someone else's embryo? Why not just create their own?

Besides, an egg can only be frozen for so long before its likelyhood of becoming a successful full-term baby decreases.

So yes, your ideas are idealistic, and if we lived in a perfect society, that would be a great idea! But unfortunately, that idea is not based in reality. So again, I'd rather see those embryos being used to learn more about our own bodies in the hopes that cures for otherwise chronic/terminal illnesses could be found.

I wonder how many PL would refuse treatment developed through such research?

ANY pro-lifer would. Besides the fact that NO real treatment has ever been developed through this type of research (if you've kept up with the times, you might have noticed that that adult stem cells are where the true treatment lies for diseases), and that this type of research (embryonic) always ends a human life (which all pro-lifers are against), any that has been tried has resulted in massive tumors or other problems when tested on lab rats. There's plenty of reasons that a pro-lifer would refuse treatment developed through this type of research.

Posted by: Bethany at December 7, 2007 6:01 PM
......................................................

Hey Bethany, if you had kept up with the news, you would know that reprogramming human skin cells is the new thing.
Although stem cell research continues and scientists know better than to consult you as to when a breakthrough may or may not occur.
I can hear you right now telling your paraplegic child: "No honey, you can't have that cure because mommy doesn't like how it was discovered'. 'Mommy cares more about dead embryos than she cares about you ever leading a normal life.'

SoMG, can you show me where in the Bible it states that embryonic stem cell research is bad?

My church, the Roman Catholic Church, has only opposed the destruction of human embryos since 19th century scientists discovered that a new life begins at fertilization. Oddly enough, their point of view is based on science, not on the Gospels or anything else in the Bible.

Again, as I said, embryonic stem cell research is not illegal. You are free to experiment on human embryos as much as you want, including those "left over" from IVF. What you can't do is spend the money of pro-lifers on it. It's very interesting that you demand that our money be spent on it, though. It kind of contradicts that whole "pro-choice" thing.

Sally, do the ends always justify the means?

I wonder how many PL would refuse treatment developed through such research?

Posted by: Sally at December 7, 2007 5:49 PM

I would. I have refused vaccinations for my children because most (if not all) were developed or have embryonic cells. (Mary can probably help on this, but there is an issue with them.) And I opted to get vaccines from Japan that didn't use this method. It takes a lot of effort but is worth it, you have to find a doctor that is cooperative and then get the vaccines and be within a certain distance of the delivery area.

I was lucky that my kids got their vaccines before my doctor retired. If their current doctor won't give them the boosters they need I'll find another.

Posted by: Kristen at December 7, 2007 6:09 PM
............................................................

You need Mary to tell you which vaccinations you have refused your children to receive?

I would refuse treatment.

Posted by: Carrie at December 7, 2007 6:20 PM
...................................

You would rather become a burden upon society than allow a cure?

Sally, do the ends always justify the means?

Posted by: John Lewandowski at December 7, 2007 8:28 PM
......................................

Ask Nancy Reagan John. When faced with horrific disease, the insignifigant existance of an embryo gets put into perspective.

Hey Bethany, if you had kept up with the news, you would know that reprogramming human skin cells is the new thing.
Although stem cell research continues and scientists know better than to consult you as to when a breakthrough may or may not occur.
I can hear you right now telling your paraplegic child: "No honey, you can't have that cure because mommy doesn't like how it was discovered'. 'Mommy cares more about dead embryos than she cares about you ever leading a normal life.'
Chances are, if my child was a paraplegic, I'd be curing my child with adult stem cells...and I wouldn't need to apologize:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46546

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/05/050510193918.htm

http://www.blogicus.com/archives/stem_cells_help_paraplegic_progress_after_accident.php

Ask Nancy Reagan John. When faced with horrific disease, the insignificant existence of an embryo gets put into perspective.

Yeah, and the embryos really helped, hmm?...

Adult Stem Cell Discoveries Could Treat Alzheimer’s and Blindness

ORLANDO/ GWANGJU, February 14, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A research team led by University of Central Florida professor Kiminobu Sugaya has discovered a compound related to DNA that could improve the results of stem cell treatments for Alzheimer’s patients. The research team found that treating bone marrow cells with the compound made adult stem cells more likely to turn into brain cells in experiments with rats.

The findings are to be published in the March edition of Restorative Neurology and Neuroscience journal. Professor Kiminobu Sugaya said, “By using a patient’s own stem cells instead of embryonic stem cells, we’re able to avoid the ethical concerns many people have about stem cell research.”

In research with embryonic stem cells, experiments with human patients have caused serious and permanent medical side effects. Dr. Sugaya said of his research, “We also don’t have to worry about the immune system rejecting the new cells.” In the same experiments, Dr. Sugaya’s team found that the compound, called bromodeoxyuridine, was useful in coaxing stem cells to turn into retinal cells, a discovery that could help to treat blindness.

In related news, researchers at South Korea’s Chosun university may have found a way to help the blind see with adult stem cell treatments. Professor Song Chang-hun told reporters Friday that he is asking the government for funds to further research into treating retinitis pigmentosa (RP), an irreversible degenerative disease that causes blindness in adults. Dr. Chang-hun said, “We plan to isolate stem cells from umbilical cord blood and inject them into retinal cells.”

RP is a disease of the eye that begins by blocking the eye’s ability to pick up light and is sometimes called, ‘tunnel vision’ because it starts by hampering peripheral vision. Approximately 1.5 million people suffer from RP around the world.

Check out LifeSiteNews’ very extensive stem cell page for more news:
http://www.lifesite.net/features/stemcellembryo/index.html

You would rather become a burden upon society than allow a cure?

Show me the cures, then let's talk.

Bethany-

You go girl!

Kristen-

I was totally unaware that vaccinations were made using human embryo's...that is a very interesting point. I really don't know if I would refuse my child a vaccine for that reason alone, though. But it's something to ponder.

**On another note...I've been MIA for a couple days...Gabriella got the stomach flu and then gave it to me..but luckily that is only a 24-hour thing so we are feeling much better now!**

Hey Bethany, if you had kept up with the news, you would know that reprogramming human skin cells is the new thing.
Although stem cell research continues and scientists know better than to consult you as to when a breakthrough may or may not occur.
I can hear you right now telling your paraplegic child: "No honey, you can't have that cure because mommy doesn't like how it was discovered'. 'Mommy cares more about dead embryos than she cares about you ever leading a normal life.'
Chances are, if my child was a paraplegic, I'd be curing my child with adult stem cells...and I wouldn't need to apologize:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46546

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/05/050510193918.htm

http://www.blogicus.com/archives/stem_cells_help_paraplegic_progress_after_accident.php

Posted by: Bethany at December 7, 2007 8:41 PM
.......................................

You are out of touch. Your PL links are a couple years old. Don't read the news? This article was published yesterday:
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/2007/1944796.htm

Ask Nancy Reagan John. When faced with horrific disease, the insignificant existence of an embryo gets put into perspective.

Yeah, and the embryos really helped, hmm?...

Adult Stem Cell Discoveries Could Treat Alzheimer’s and Blindness

ORLANDO/ GWANGJU, February 14, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A research team led by University of Central Florida professor Kiminobu Sugaya has discovered a compound related to DNA that could improve the results of stem cell treatments for Alzheimer’s patients. The research team found that treating bone marrow cells with the compound made adult stem cells more likely to turn into brain cells in experiments with rats.

The findings are to be published in the March edition of Restorative Neurology and Neuroscience journal. Professor Kiminobu Sugaya said, “By using a patient’s own stem cells instead of embryonic stem cells, we’re able to avoid the ethical concerns many people have about stem cell research.”

In research with embryonic stem cells, experiments with human patients have caused serious and permanent medical side effects. Dr. Sugaya said of his research, “We also don’t have to worry about the immune system rejecting the new cells.” In the same experiments, Dr. Sugaya’s team found that the compound, called bromodeoxyuridine, was useful in coaxing stem cells to turn into retinal cells, a discovery that could help to treat blindness.

In related news, researchers at South Korea’s Chosun university may have found a way to help the blind see with adult stem cell treatments. Professor Song Chang-hun told reporters Friday that he is asking the government for funds to further research into treating retinitis pigmentosa (RP), an irreversible degenerative disease that causes blindness in adults. Dr. Chang-hun said, “We plan to isolate stem cells from umbilical cord blood and inject them into retinal cells.”

RP is a disease of the eye that begins by blocking the eye’s ability to pick up light and is sometimes called, ‘tunnel vision’ because it starts by hampering peripheral vision. Approximately 1.5 million people suffer from RP around the world.

Check out LifeSiteNews’ very extensive stem cell page for more news:
http://www.lifesite.net/features/stemcellembryo/index.html

Posted by: Bethany at December 7, 2007 8:45 PM
.............................

Wow Bethany! Two years ago and still no cure? I don't go to religious web sites for their bias on science news.

No, I don't think the Bible prohibits embryonic stem cell research. How could it? There was no embryonic stem cell research to prohibit when the Bible was written.

And I don't have a problem taking money from less-smart people and using it to fund research that makes us smarter as a species. This is why I'm not a Ron Paul supporter--I believe funding basic science is a legitimate role for the federal government and state government to play. That and the fact that I could never vote for a right-to-lifer rules him out for me.

Sally, I don't believe that people with disabilities are "burdens", so I don't agree with our point.

'.

Very well, SoMG. So you are, by definition, anti-choice. The slogan of "Don't like abortion? Don't have one" rings hollow when at the same time you demand that those "less-smart" pro-life people be forced to fund it and similar acts.

And you also failed to point out exactly how opposition to ESCR is "fundamentalist" as there is no prohibition of it in the Bible. Whence does this ideology come, if not from the Bible? I thought Protestants were, for the most part, practicers of the concept of "sola scriptura", meaning that they get all of their theology from the text of the Scriptures. Could this mean that the opposition to ESCR is not scriptural or necessarily religious, but rather is rooted in the scientific fact that a human life begins at the point of fertilization?

Hmm. I was just thinking how amusing it would be if George W Bush went on TV and said something like, "It's true that a lot of people don't want their money to pay for the Iraq War, but I believe that the less-smart people in this country have an obligation to help fund our troops."

You are out of touch. Your PL links are a couple years old. Don't read the news? This article was published yesterday:
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/2007/1944796.htm

Yesterday? I'm a little confused. Thought this month was December, not June. Hmm...

Wow Bethany! Two years ago and still no cure? I don't go to religious web sites for their bias on science news.

Are you saying the there have been cures- for ANY disease- found in Embryonic stem cells? Because, if so, I want to see the link, Sally. Let's see it.

So far, here are some of the diseases that Adult Stem Cells can ACTUALLY help:
Link source:
http://www.stemcellresearch.org/facts/treatments.htm

Cancers:
1. Brain Cancer
2. Retinoblastoma
3. Ovarian Cancer
4. Skin Cancer: Merkel Cell Carcinoma
5. Testicular Cancer
6. Tumors abdominal organs Lymphoma
7. Non-Hodgkin�s lymphoma
8. Hodgkin�s Lymphoma
9. Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia
10. Acute Myelogenous Leukemia
11. Chronic Myelogenous Leukemia
12. Juvenile Myelomonocytic Leukemia
13. Chronic Myelomonocytic Leukemia
14. Cancer of the lymph nodes: Angioimmunoblastic Lymphadenopathy
15. Multiple Myeloma
16. Myelodysplasia
17. Breast Cancer
18. Neuroblastoma
19. Renal Cell Carcinoma
20. Various Solid Tumors
21. Soft Tissue Sarcoma
22. Ewing�s Sarcoma
23. Waldenstrom�s macroglobulinemia
24. Hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis
25. POEMS syndrome
26. Myelofibrosis

Auto-Immune Diseases
27. Diabetes Type I (Juvenile)
28. Systemic Lupus
29. Sjogren�s Syndrome
30. Myasthenia
31. Autoimmune Cytopenia
32. Scleromyxedema
33. Scleroderma
34. Crohn�s Disease
35. Behcet�s Disease
36. Rheumatoid Arthritis
37. Juvenile Arthritis
38. Multiple Sclerosis
39. Polychondritis
40. Systemic Vasculitis
41. Alopecia Universalis
42. Buerger�s Disease

Cardiovascular
43. Acute Heart Damage
44. Chronic Coronary Artery Disease

Ocular
45. Corneal regeneration

Immunodeficiencies
46. Severe Combined Immunodeficiency Syndrome
47. X-linked Lymphoproliferative Syndrome
48. X-linked Hyper immunoglobulin M Syndrome

Neural Degenerative Diseases and Injuries
49. Parkinson�s Disease
50. Spinal Cord Injury
51. Stroke Damage

Anemias and Other Blood Conditions
52. Sickle Cell Anemia
53. Sideroblastic Anemia
54. Aplastic Anemia
55. Red Cell Aplasia
56. Amegakaryocytic Thrombocytopenia
57. Thalassemia
58. Primary Amyloidosis
59. Diamond Blackfan Anemia
60. Fanconi�s Anemia
61. Chronic Epstein-Barr Infection

Wounds and Injuries
62. Limb Gangrene
63. Surface Wound Healing
64. Jawbone Replacement
65. Skull Bone Repair

Other Metabolic Disorders
66. Hurler�s Syndrome
67. Osteogenesis Imperfecta
68. Krabbe Leukodystrophy
69. Osteopetrosis
70. Cerebral X-Linked Adrenoleukodystrophy

Liver Disease
71. Chronic Liver Failure
72. Liver Cirrhosis

Bladder Disease
73. End-Stage Bladder Disease

So far, here are the diseases that Embryonic Stem cells have been able to help:

NADA

You need Mary to tell you which vaccinations you have refused your children to receive?

Posted by: Sally at December 7, 2007 8:29 PM

You apparently have a problem understanding the written word. I said Mary could probably help with the information about how the vaccines are developed and what they use.

Elizabeth, you can get the vaccines through Japan so my kids have gotten all the vaccines they need. I think the only one you can't get is Chicken Pox but I didn't want my kids to have that one because I don't think it's been around long enough, and they were unsure how long it would last. Since chicken pox is so much worse when you're an adult I would rather the kids get them when they were young and build their own immunity. I've already heard about kids having to get a booster so I'm glad they didn't get it.

In Illinois it's become law that you have to get the chicken pox vaccine before kindergarten but you can refuse vaccines for religious reasons. I use the embryo factor to refuse, although even if I could get it I still wouldn't.

Katie Couric is a liberal snake, I'd like to see her ask questions like this to her fellow Democrats.

I knew Mitt was shakey on this, it's too bad.

Totally off subject:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=500430&in_page_id=1770

The story has a great ending, but how sad that the doctors wouldn't even help this poor baby until "she proved she was a fighter!"

Milehimama, I have just forwarded the story to Jill!! What a WONDERFUL story!!

And you also failed to point out exactly how opposition to ESCR is "fundamentalist" as there is no prohibition of it in the Bible. Whence does this ideology come, if not from the Bible? I thought Protestants were, for the most part, practicers of the concept of "sola scriptura", meaning that they get all of their theology from the text of the Scriptures. Could this mean that the opposition to ESCR is not scriptural or necessarily religious, but rather is rooted in the scientific fact that a human life begins at the point of fertilization?

Excellent point, John!

@Bethany and Jill: This week in the Minnesota Daily (the University of Minnesota's newspaper) there was an article about how doctors at the U used a bone marrow transplant to help a baby with Tay-Sachs. The baby seems to be improving now that she has some blood with the missing HexA enzyme that causes her disease.

Here's the article:
http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2007/12/06/72164915

It's not terribly well written (as the Daily is an awful newspaper) but it has some links to more information on the girl and her treatment.

Thank you, Rae! I will forward the information to Jill right now! :)

Besides, an egg can only be frozen for so long before its likelyhood of becoming a successful full-term baby decreases.

Right now, it's not very feasible, but the techniques are getting better. There are limits on freezing embryos too, and anyway, how long would the eggs really need to be frozen? Most people aren't doing IVF for 10 years.

So yes, your ideas are idealistic, and if we lived in a perfect society, that would be a great idea!

I don't think we need to live in a perfect society, just a better one. :)

Hey Rae!

I actually did a small research project on an enzyme-based disease, and mine ended up being Tay-Sachs. Outside of the stem cell treatment, Tay-Sachs has shown it may be treated with enzyme replacement therapy- scientists in Japan have used yeast to produce the beta hexasaminidase enzyme that degrades the gangliosides that build up in lysosomes-the cause of the problem. I can see the bone marrow helping to an extent, but the vast majority of the enzyme would be needed in the developing brain, to break down the gangliosidic side products of neural development. The most severe damage occurs in the brain when the lysosomes swell and cause the neurons to die...so I'm interested in seeing how blood with the necessary enzyme could affect the brain. I thought beta-hexasaminidase was much to large to be transported through the cellular membranes, but I could be wrong. :D

Kristen,
Aside from the moral issues this also offers a strong case too...this is from my daughter's pediatrician's website...
http://www.homefirst.com/autism_dan_olmstead.html

@Lyssie: That's really interesting. I don't know everything about the treatment that little girl is receiving other than a bone marrow transplant but according to the article she is starting to produce the Hex-A enzyme.

I wish I knew a bit more about it, but from what the article said, it seems like they're trying a method that was attempted and failed 15 years ago, so why they're trying to do it again is beyond me. But hey, maybe it'll work this time around and give her a few more years with her dads.

Yeah...I don't know how the method would possibly work. She'd be able to remove the buildup of gangliosides in just the marrow/blood cells, because the enzyme is a lysosomal one. It's not supposed to leave a cell, which is also a question regarding the ERT. How it could be injected into the neural tissue and guaranteed to be absorbed into the lysosomes is baffling to me....there'd need to be some sort of signal applied to the enzyme to induce cells to bring it through the plasma membrane, after which the normal signal already on the enzyme would indicate to the cell to put it in the lysosome. Unless, of course, part of the disease is a receptor problem, which would add even more complexity to it. sadness. :(

Actually, the gangliosides are a by-product of neural development....so I really don't see a benefit by putting the enzyme in blood cells?

I might be missing something...so I dunno?

*shrugs*

Perhaps? I don't know. I know next to nothing about Tay-Sachs other than the fact that it causes neural degeneration to the point of death by age 5 and the whole cherry-red spots on the retina stuff.

I don't even know the full details of the treatment, all the news article said was it was a bone marrow transplant. But there are a lot of blood vessels in the brain which could carry the enzyme to the neurons it needs to be in? I don't know.

Rosie, yes I've heard about the link of autism to vaccines but not until after all but my last had all their shots.

It's terrible and autism is becoming so much more prevalent. I don't know if it's better diagnosis or the shots or both. The son of our good friend has autism but is pretty high functioning. I've never asked if they thought there was any correlation to the shots, but they have an older son that is fine so maybe they'd think not.

Fortunately, recent research strongly indicates that autism: a) is not becoming more prevalent, but is just being diagnosed a lot more; and b) is not caused by vaccines.

John L, lots of the beliefs held by christian fundamentalists have only dubious roots in the Bible.

The whole opposition to abortion is contrived. Nowhere in the Bible--Old Testament or New--does it say abortion is wrong.

SoMG, I�d like to know what bible you have read. Please see the following�

Exodus 21

22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,

Jacob and Esau were distinct individuals in the womb (Gen. 25:23; Rom. 9:11-12).

Jill, here's my take. At the very least, I think we should be able to ask that a presidential candidate be willing to use his authority as president to protect the innocent people in the country. Does that sound fair?

Now, how many republican presidential candidates are willing to do that? By my count, 3.

AlanKeyes.com
Tom Tancredo
Mike Huckabee

Alan Keyes made the strongest stance thus far, stating that a human life amendment is unnecessary because the constitution already protects the unborn when it mentions our posterity. He's right. He said, "My first priority would be to re-establish within the executive branch respect for and protection of the unalienable rights of the unborn children in the womb."

You won't find a stronger pro-life candidate. I'm not a one issue voter, and we shouldn't be. But the life issue needs to be our first issue. Huckabee may be good on pro-life issues, but he's terrible on other issues, which leaves me only supporting Keyes and Tancredo.

SoMG, a person who holds religious-based views which are not found in his or her holy book is by definition NOT a fundamentalist. He or she could potentially be a radical or an extremist, but not a fundamentalist.

Sometimes you'll hear the term "fundamentalist Catholic" used. Such a term makes no sense at all, considering that Catholicism is a combination of Sacred Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterial teaching. How is it possible to be a "fundamentalist" of the Catholic faith when the exact nature of Catholicism is in a constant state of flux? Every year we have new Saints. New holy days continue to be created, such as Divine Mercy Sunday, a very holy day for Catholics which was only made an official holy day a few years ago. Throughout the centuries, various Marian doctrines were made official and became celebrated through holy days of obligation - just yesterday we celebrated our belief that the Virgin Mary was born free from original sin by the grace of God. It just really makes no sense to call someone a "fundamentalist" Catholic, because such a person would be, by definition, a non-Catholic.

Anyway, as I said, Christian opposition to abortion is based on scientific fact and the support of justice and innocent life, not on the text of the Bible.

"Jill said, "That leaves pretty much leaves Mike Huckabee. I really like Duncan Hunter, but he's not getting any traction."
And Vickie said: "And Ron Paul, who is the most pro-life of them all. I just don't get it. Ron Paul authored a bill that would demolish Roe and declare a baby as human from the moment of conception and that's not pro-life enough? We're going to not even consider him because he wants to pull our young men and women out a the unGodly, unConstitutional, undeclared war in Iraq? Where are your priorities?..."

I agree with you Vickie, I'm totally for Ron Paul. ..frankly I don't understand how anyone on here who says they are "pro-life" would not support him. He is the ONLY truly pro-life (anti-war) candidate! Why in Gods good earth would someone want to vote for a Huckabee or Tancredo who aside from the anti-abortion stance is all for continuing this immoral war...and continue the killing...not very "pro-life" if you ask me. Ron Paul is the only candidate who truly values life enough to advocate for Peace and diplomacy. Please consider looking into this candidate.

Charles, neither of your quotations says that abortion is wrong.

Again, as I said, embryonic stem cell research is not illegal. You are free to experiment on human embryos as much as you want, including those "left over" from IVF. What you can't do is spend the money of pro-lifers on it. It's very interesting that you demand that our money be spent on it, though. It kind of contradicts that whole "pro-choice" thing.

Posted by: John Lewandowski at December 7, 2007 8:27 PM

_____________________________________________________

I believe funding basic science is a legitimate role for the federal government and state government to play.

Posted by: SoMG at December 7, 2007 11:46 PM

_____________________________________________________

I think people should be represented in gov't. If taxpayers don't want to pay for something, then the representatives are acting in good faith to refuse to fund it.

Those most vocally supporting embryonic stem cell research are those who will directly profit from the endeavor whether or not successful treatments are developed.

I read the article from the quote of the day explaining how the deans form California universities got on the stem cell agency board so they could direct the funds to their respective schools.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/12/07/BAOTTQ0JO.DTL&feed=rss.bayarea%22

"California's stem cell agency may toss out grant applications seeking millions of dollars for researchers at UCSF and other prestigious universities because they included letters of support from deans who also sit on the citizens' board that governs the $3 billion program."

It is all about the money.

Someone also mention IVF. And yes it is common practice when women get in vitro fertilization, for doctors to fertilize several eggs, so in case the first doesn't take they have others to try. So there are usually embryos left over from IVF that just get thrown away.
I guess it depends on one's view of when life begins as to whether or not destroying embryos from leftover IVF stocks is destruction of life or not. (there is a difference of opinions between major religion as to when life begins)

Charles, the first line you quoted specifically distinguishes between "her fruit depart[ing] from her" and "mischief". Conclusion: loss of the pregnancy does not count as mischief.

SoMG,

Please read it ALL, "And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life"

That is, if any "mischief" (e.g. abortion), the one should give thier own life for the one which they have taken.

No Charles, "mischief" clearly does not refer to the loss of the pregnancy, but rather to the injury to the woman.

The line is : "If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: ....."

Clearly, "mischief" refers to something OTHER than the "fruit depart[ing] from her" (abortion).

This is rather silly. SoMG continues to argue that there is no biblical prohibition on abortion. I agree! We're anti-abortion because of science, not because of Scripture. The pro-choice position is the one which is not based on science, ie, it states that because there are different religious beliefs about when life begins, we can't outlaw abortion.

Well, sure we can. We can outlaw abortion because it is a scientific fact that human life begins at fertilization. The Catholic Church did not declare all first trimester abortions to be homicide until science uncovered this fact, approximately 150 years ago.

So, sure, those of you who are pro-choice can look into the Old Testament, the New Testament, the Quran, or other holy books to find out when life supposedly begins. As for me, I'll just look in a Biology textbook.

John L, you wrote: "The pro-choice position is the one which is not based on science, ie, it states that because there are different religious beliefs about when life begins, we can't outlaw abortion. "

That's wrong. The pro-choice reason we cannot outlaw abortion is because forcing a woman to share the contents of her bloodstream with an unwanted fetus, and to undergo labor and delivery on behalf of an unwanted fetus, is an unacceptable violation of her personal freedom.

Religious beliefs about when life begins have nothing to do with it.

Abortion rights do not presuppose fetal inferiority, only maternal body-ownership.

Again, SoMG, please reread the entire section I quoted. Let me help.

22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her,

The fruit is the child by which the woman is caring for and the departure is the loss of life.

and yet no mischief follow:

This is the case that governs what happens if this was not intentional.

he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

Man's law will determine the punishment for a non intentional miscarriage.

23 And if any mischief follow,

This is the case that governs when the mischief is NOT by accident--intentional.

then thou shalt give life for life,

The punishment is one life for another if there was an intentional miscarriage (abortion).

Nicole, as a pro-lifer, I expected you to understand the difference between the guilty and the innocent. The war on terrorism is not immoral. I really don't want to debate that with you here though.

Ron Paul is not worthy of our support. He is unwilling to protect the innocent if elected president. That's unacceptable. If 1.5 million born children were being killed in America right now, you'd be disgusted to hear Ron Paul say that the states should decide the fate of those 1.5 million born children that are slaughtered each year.

An unborn baby is no more or no less a person than anyone born. It is evil for Ron Paul to say abortion should be decided by the states. If he's unwilling to defend the innocent from slaughter, he's not qualified to be our president, and not qualified for our support.

On a side note for you one-issue voters (it's wrong to be a one-issue voter), click the link below to hear Ron Paul explicitly supporting legalizing drugs, prostitution and gay marriage. Disgusting...

Oops, forgot the link...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wz80H5Su8AA

Charles, you have a strange idea of the meaning of the word "mischief". "If mischief follows" doesn't mean "if the miscarriage is caused on purpose." It means, if some harm comes to the woman, SEPARATELY from the miscarriage.

Charles, it's not intent that is "mischief" or not, it's harm to the woman. Premature birth caused by the battle would normally have meant a dead baby, and the woman's husband could get a fine levied on the men, with the judges concurring.

If the woman was hurt or killed, then "an eye for an eye," applied, i.e. "life for life."

How about in Genesis where Tamar was found to be pregnant, with twins no less, and since she was a widow they think she was a prostitute? Now old Judah, who was her father-in-law, says she should get burned alive because of that. Obviously there wasn't any positive value being put on the unborn there. Heck, Judah didn't even have people get on his case because of his verdict.

Then later on Judah feels differently about it because he finds out that HE was the dude responsible for Tamar being pregnant. Geez, nice guy....

Doug

SoMG, the pro-choice position necessarily ignores the scientific reality that the 'thing' being aborted is a human life. Absolutely.

If the pro-choice argument were based in science and not religion, it would be that the human life that is an embryo/fetus is worth less than nine months of inconvenience for the mother. If that was your argument, however, you wouldn't have nearly as much support for your cause. Certainly far fewer than 50% of Americans would support legal abortion if they understood that the embryo/fetus is a living human being which is intentionally put to death through abortion.

Neither is it scientific or logical to say that it's OK to kill someone just because, through no fault of their own, they are on your property. If a man is in a car accident and he and his car end up on your property, you can't just kill him in the name of property rights.

No, the pro-choice position is that the embryo/fetus is not a living being, or that it is not human, and that therefore it can be destroyed without consequence.

No John L, you've missed it again. The pro-choice position says that forcing a woman to grow a pregnancy she doesn't want, and to give birth to a baby she doesn't want, is an unacceptable violation of her personal freedom.

Whether or not the fetus is a "person" is entirely irrelevant. Body-ownership trumps the right to life, otherwise we'd force people to donate kidneys to save lives.

John L: the pro-choice position necessarily ignores the scientific reality that the 'thing' being aborted is a human life. Absolutely.

No. Absolutely not. Is it alive? Yes. Is it human? Yes. The argument remains.
.......

If the pro-choice argument were based in science and not religion, it would be that the human life that is an embryo/fetus is worth less than nine months of inconvenience for the mother. If that was your argument, however, you wouldn't have nearly as much support for your cause. Certainly far fewer than 50% of Americans would support legal abortion if they understood that the embryo/fetus is a living human being which is intentionally put to death through abortion.

It's not science that deals with perceived right/wrong/good/bad of abortion or not in the moral realm. It's also not merely the unborn that are under consideration. There is the pregnant woman, first and foremost, and it's that the unborn are inside the body of people that makes abortion so much different from other situations.
......

Neither is it scientific or logical to say that it's OK to kill someone just because, through no fault of their own, they are on your property. If a man is in a car accident and he and his car end up on your property, you can't just kill him in the name of property rights.

If he cuts a hole in you and crawls inside, or heck - if he even tries that trick, then you can probably kill him.
......

No, the pro-choice position is that the embryo/fetus is not a living being, or that it is not human, and that therefore it can be destroyed without consequence.

Well, that's your straw man, anyway.

Doug

We practically do force people not only to donate but also to die in the process.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/357/3/209?query=TOC

It is best to retrieve the liver less than 30 minutes after the withdrawal of life-sustaining measures; the kidneys and pancreas may often be recovered up to 60 minutes after such withdrawal.1 The extent of a patient's remaining circulatory and respiratory function may reveal whether death is likely to follow soon after extubation. If a patient does not die quickly enough to permit the recovery of organs, end-of-life care continues and any planned donation is canceled. At present, this may happen in up to 20% of cases.

Concerns were raised by a February 2006 case in San Luis Obispo, California, that was publicized earlier this year by the Los Angeles Times. Two transplant surgeons were allegedly in the same room with a potential donor, and one of the surgeons allegedly ordered massive doses of morphine and lorazepam in an attempt to hasten the patient's death and thereby obtain his organs more quickly. The patient did not die for several hours, and his organs were not recovered because they were no longer usable for transplantation. The case, which has been investigated by local law-enforcement authorities, is a sobering reminder that organ-donation efforts can go terribly wrong if appropriate procedures are not followed.

Typically, potential donors are wheeled to the operating room when they are still alive. With explicit consent, heparin — possibly along with other agents — is administered to maintain organ function. According to the 2005 Institute of Medicine conference, providing heparin at the time of withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment "is the current standard of care" because "the long-term survival of the transplanted organ may be at risk if thrombi impede circulation to the organ after reperfusion."1 Theoretically, heparin could hasten death by causing bleeding, but there is no evidence that it does so in practice. Some protocols also call for the advance placement of catheters in large arteries and veins to facilitate the rapid infusion of organ-preservation solutions after death.

Charles, you have a strange idea of the meaning of the word "mischief". "If mischief follows" doesn't mean "if the miscarriage is caused on purpose." It means, if some harm comes to the woman, SEPARATELY from the miscarriage.

SoMG,

Lookup the word strive, as used in the biblical reference: "to devote serious effort or energy" - Merriam-Webster.

The lookup the word mischief: "a specific injury or damage attributed to a particular agent; or cause or source of harm, evil, or irritation" Merriam-Webster.

Now, these verses answer this directly on point.

Thank you, Charles. :) Excellent points on the Scriptures' clear position against abortion.

How about in Genesis where Tamar was found to be pregnant, with twins no less, and since she was a widow they think she was a prostitute? Now old Judah, who was her father-in-law, says she should get burned alive because of that. Obviously there wasn't any positive value being put on the unborn there. Heck, Judah didn't even have people get on his case because of his verdict.
Then later on Judah feels differently about it because he finds out that HE was the dude responsible for Tamar being pregnant. Geez, nice guy....

Doug, surely you know that events which happened in the Bible were not all condoned by God. Unless it is clear that God condoned Judah's actions, then it is simply a story which we are to learn from.

What Judah did was wrong. No where does God ever condone his actions or thoughts in any way, does He?

Telling this story, and saying that this somehow proves that the unborn weren't viewed positively in the Bible, is like telling us the story of how Herod declared that all children under the age should be killed (when he wanted to kill Jesus who had been born at that time), to try to say that you think that means that God doesn't put any positive value on children two years and under. Obviously, this isn't the case. You're just taking a story out of it's context, and changing it's intended meaning.

If he cuts a hole in you and crawls inside, or heck - if he even tries that trick, then you can probably kill him.

Right, because that is exactly how babies are conceived: through the aggressive force of the unborn child, who with sinister intentions, wants to trick his poor innocent mother into carrying him or her for 9 months.

Unborn babies are so mean that way.

Bethany, both you and Charles are wrong. You do not seem to be able to read the lines from the Bible that you post. You think the phrase "if mischief follows" means the same as "if mischief is intended", and you do not seem to understand that the initial line "If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: ..." DISTINGUISHES the miscarriage from the mischief. Got that? They are two SEPARATE things. If you cannot read, I cannot help you.

The other line RTLs quote is "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you." But that line doesn't prohibit abortion because it does not refer to the time after you were formed in the womb, but rather to a time before conception.

SoMG,

If they strive (define - to devote serious effort or energy) - to cause the child to die, then if any mischief follow (define - to come into existence or take place as a result or consequence of - as in "they are successful in thier strive")

If you cannot see this how this answers the question directly on point, I cannot help you.

So why write it so ambiguously? Why didn't the authors of the Bible just say, straight out, don't kill the baby in the womb?

SOMG, actually, I think that "fruit departs from her" does not necessarily indicate death. It simply means "child brought forth". Which means that the child may or may not have died through this event. The "if mischief follows" in my opinion, means that "if death follows" during the "fruit departing", which would mean, the baby and/or the woman dies during the process. Whatever life is shed, a life will be shed in return.

Either way, I believe the Bible is absolutely clear about it. It is not okay for an unborn child to be killed in the womb.

The other line RTLs quote is "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you." But that line doesn't prohibit abortion because it does not refer to the time after you were formed in the womb, but rather to a time before conception.

In Genesis 25, Rebecca's children struggled within her. This specifically addresses the fact that they are already babes in the womb:
"Gen 25:22
And the children struggled together within her; and she said, If [it be] so, why [am] I thus? And she went to enquire of the LORD."

In Luke 1:36, Elizabeth's child is specifically mentioned as her "son" before birth:
Luk 1:36
And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.

The word "son" HUIOS in Greek, (in the context of offspring of humans) always means that that person is separate- an individual- from it's parents.

" a son

1. rarely used for the young of animals
2. generally used of the offspring of men
3. in a restricted sense, the male offspring (one born by a father and of a mother)
4. in a wider sense, a descendant, one of the posterity of any one,
1. the children of Israel
2. sons of Abraham
5. used to describe one who depends on another or is his follower
1. a pupil
"
http://www.searchgodsword.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=5207

The word "son" in that above passage, is the same "son" that is in this passage:

"Mat 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son (HUIOS), and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins."

Women are still considered "mothers" when their child dies before being born:

Num 12:12
Let her not be as one dead, of whom the flesh is half consumed when he cometh out of his mother's womb.

Not only this, but time and time again, the Bible refers to "children" as a Blessing.

If God creates children as a "blessing" to their parents, does it make sense that He would desire their parents to refuse his blessing on them by killing it? If you were to want to "bless" someone, by giving them, say, a house, would you be equally happy if they chose to destroy their house as you would if they decided to enjoy and appreciate their house? How does this make sense? Yet, you expect God to be equally happy with us destroying what He has made CLEAR is a GIFT and a BLESSING to us!

3 Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward.

4 As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man; so are children of the youth.

5 Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them: they shall not be ashamed, but they shall speak with the enemies in the gate.

What do you imagine the word "blessing" means? If children were a curse, then God would have made that abundantly clear. Or even that children "could EVER" be a curse. But the Bible NEVER calls children a curse, under any circumstances. He always calls them a blessing. So this means that God intends for people to have children, because they are a gift to us from Him. See what I'm saying?

Here's another verse:

Pro 6:16 These six [things] doth the LORD hate: yea, seven [are] an abomination unto him:
Pro 6:17 A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,

The unborn obviously have blood. They are considered "children", "babes", and "sons" (and daughters) in the Bible. If one sheds their blood, they are an abomination to God, according to the Bible.

Luk 1:41 And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:

How would the babe leap in her womb for joy, if it was not an individual human being?

Here's another couple of verses:

Psa 106:37 Yea, they sacrificed their sons and their daughters unto devils,

Psa 106:38 And shed innocent blood, [even] the blood of their sons (HUIOS) and of their daughters, whom they sacrificed unto the idols of Canaan: and the land was polluted with blood.

If the unborn are defined as "sons", "children" and "babes" in the womb, then how do you imagine that this verse does not specifically address abortion as well as murder of older children? It obviously addresses any murder of innocent children, born or unborn.

Another point. If the unborn children were not individuals, God would have listed them as a part of the woman. "What was within the womb of the mother", or something to that effect. But God clearly calls them "children", "babes", "sons and daughters" time and time again in the Bible.
This, to me, makes it absolutely clear. If it doesn't for you, well, that's your problem. Your opinion really has no bearing on what the Bible actually says.

By the way, I am honestly curious. Why do you even care whether the Bible says it is okay or not? Would it actually make a difference to you if we could prove to you that the Bible is clearly against it?

Well I don't care very much about what the Bible says but I find it amusing that so many members of the right-to-life movement are so badly misinformed about what the Bible actually says.

I don't think anyone from the pro-life side who adheres to the teachings of the Bible has shown any such ignorance, SOMG.

However, I do find it kind of amusing that a person who doesn't care about the Bible deems himself a Theologian.

Bethany: Doug, surely you know that events which happened in the Bible were not all condoned by God. Unless it is clear that God condoned Judah's actions, then it is simply a story which we are to learn from.

What Judah did was wrong. No where does God ever condone his actions or thoughts in any way, does He?

We don't see it said that what Judah did was "wrong." Not saying that it was "ordered" or "condoned" by the biblical god, but if the story is true then it's indicative of how things were back then, as opposed to how some people want to paint things.
......

Telling this story, and saying that this somehow proves that the unborn weren't viewed positively in the Bible, is like telling us the story of how Herod declared that all children under the age should be killed (when he wanted to kill Jesus who had been born at that time), to try to say that you think that means that God doesn't put any positive value on children two years and under. Obviously, this isn't the case. You're just taking a story out of it's context, and changing it's intended meaning.

No, not changing it's meaning - just noting that in no way were the unborn always valued positively, and there are plenty of other instances where the biblical god did not want the unborn to live, though obviously they were "innocent."

"If he cuts a hole in you and crawls inside, or heck - if he even tries that trick, then you can probably kill him."

Bethany: Right, because that is exactly how babies are conceived: through the aggressive force of the unborn child, who with sinister intentions, wants to trick his poor innocent mother into carrying him or her for 9 months.

Unborn babies are so mean that way.

No, that has nothing to do with it. The point is that being inside the body of a person makes a huge difference.

SoMG: The other line RTLs quote is "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you." But that line doesn't prohibit abortion because it does not refer to the time after you were formed in the womb, but rather to a time before conception.

Indeed, and wasn't that for the prophet Jeremiah, in the first place? That wasn't for all pregnancies - the story is that this was a dude for which the biblical god had specific plans, while for quite a few pregnancies the biblical god did not want them to continue.

We don't see it said that what Judah did was "wrong." Not saying that it was "ordered" or "condoned" by the biblical god, but if the story is true then it's indicative of how things were back then, as opposed to how some people want to paint things.

No one has ever tried to paint the entire world as being God serving, just because it was in Biblical times, Doug. There were plenty of people back then who did not adhere to His will.

No, not changing it's meaning - just noting that in no way were the unborn always valued positively, and there are plenty of other instances where the biblical god did not want the unborn to live, though obviously they were "innocent."

Yes, Doug, completely changing it's meaning. No one has said that there were not people back in the Biblical times who did not view the unborn positively. We have said that God does view the unborn positively, and that human beings are not to, of their own whim, take life away that God has created.

No, that has nothing to do with it. The point is that being inside the body of a person makes a huge difference.

To you, perhaps.

Indeed, and wasn't that for the prophet Jeremiah, in the first place? That wasn't for all pregnancies - the story is that this was a dude for which the biblical god had specific plans, while for quite a few pregnancies the biblical god did not want them to continue.

Doug, every person who God has created has been specifically ordained for some purpose.

Yes, that particular verse speaks of Jeremiah, but the Bible is pretty consistent about the fact that we are all of value, we are all unique and created in God's image, for a specific purpose according to His plan. If you want me to find the Bible verses and post them for you, I will.

But I do not understand why you must try to act as though you are a Bible scholar when you don't even believe God exists in the first place. This sudden interest in Scriptures, by two athiests, is pretty confusing, if you ask me.

Congressman Ron Paul is still the best candidate when it comes to pro-life issues. He authored bill HR 1094 which would define life as beginning at conception and was the prime sponsor of HR 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. He also authored HR 1095 which prevents federal funds from being used for population control. http://ronpaul2008.com

"No, not changing it's meaning - just noting that in no way were the unborn always valued positively, and there are plenty of other instances where the biblical god did not want the unborn to live, though obviously they were "innocent."

Bethany: Yes, Doug, completely changing it's meaning. No one has said that there were not people back in the Biblical times who did not view the unborn positively. We have said that God does view the unborn positively, and that human beings are not to, of their own whim, take life away that God has created.

Nope - in no way did the biblical god want every pregnancy to continue. And seeing all the miscarriages that occur, presumably without conscious input on the part of the pregnant woman, i.e. "under God's control, if anything," it's reasonable to assume that any sentient, powerful god doesn't necessarily want all pregnancies to continue now, as well.
......

But I do not understand why you must try to act as though you are a Bible scholar when you don't even believe God exists in the first place. This sudden interest in Scriptures, by two athiests, is pretty confusing, if you ask me.

It's come up many times in the past. I'm not a "Bible scholar," but we see the "I knew you in the womb" stuff often, as if it's a statement of valuation that applies to all pregnancies, and that is not the case. The biblical god is talking about before he "formed thee in the belly," i.e. before conception. If that god could tell the future, then sure - he might see Jeremiah coming to be, but of course then he'd also see all the miscarriages and abortions too. It doesn't pertain to the morality of abortion at all. It's really just saying, "I could see the future." As far as Jeremiah - we're talking prior to conception here, sperm and egg stuff. If there are "higher" beings than us earthly humans, gods or whatever, then perhaps they do have knowledge and power beyond our ken, but again - it's not logical to think that they'd want all pregnancies to continue, from what we can observe.

Doug

Nope - in no way did the biblical god want every pregnancy to continue. And seeing all the miscarriages that occur, presumably without conscious input on the part of the pregnant woman, i.e. "under God's control, if anything," it's reasonable to assume that any sentient, powerful god doesn't necessarily want all pregnancies to continue now, as well.

Because God is the one who created life, He is the one who can take it away. When God takes away a life through miscarriage, He is bringing that life to Himself. This does not mean the child is viewed negatively, but positively, by God.

It's come up many times in the past. I'm not a "Bible scholar," but we see the "I knew you in the womb" stuff often, as if it's a statement of valuation that applies to all pregnancies, and that is not the case. The biblical god is talking about before he "formed thee in the belly," i.e. before conception. If that god could tell the future, then sure - he might see Jeremiah coming to be, but of course then he'd also see all the miscarriages and abortions too. It doesn't pertain to the morality of abortion at all. It's really just saying, "I could see the future." As far as Jeremiah - we're talking prior to conception here, sperm and egg stuff. If there are "higher" beings than us earthly humans, gods or whatever, then perhaps they do have knowledge and power beyond our ken, but again - it's not logical to think that they'd want all pregnancies to continue, from what we can observe.

It's kind of odd that you think that Jeremiah is the only one who the Bible who was mentioned as being fashioned in the womb. Also, did you happen to read any of the verses I posted above, to SOMG?

Also, many born children died in the Bible. Does that mean that God does not view children positively?

"Suffer the little children to come to me, for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven"
That sounds very positive to me. So do hundreds of other verses which speak of children.

"[Jesus] said to the disciples, It is impossible that no stumbling blocks should come, but woe to him through whom they do come! It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were thrown into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones." (Luke 17:1-2)

"Behold, children are an heritage of the Lord, and the fruit of the womb is His reward."

You obviously do not have a clear understanding of many things in the Bible. The most important being, God created life, and God takes away life. There is nothing wrong with this.

God has determined a life span for each individual. "Show me, O LORD, my life's end and the number of my days; let me know how fleeting is my life."

"And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:"

Some people are meant to naturally live on this earth for a very short period of time. Some are meant to naturally live to 100.

When a human being tries to alter God's plan and take innocent lives away before their appointed time, God is displeased with this, which is why the Bible says "thou shalt not kill".

As for your idea that children aren't all ordained before birth for some purpose, you are wrong about what the Bible says:

Before Esau's birth, God told Rebekah that her older son would serve the younger son. And the Bible makes mention of the "older child serving the younger"

When Jesus and John the baptist were still in the womb, the Bible specifically mentions that John was a "babe" who leaped in the womb for joy.
How could one who was not a child in God's eyes, leap for joy, in recognition of his Saviour?

Unborn children are regarded in the Bible in the same way as other human beings.

Their growth and formation is in the hands of God:
Job 10:8-11
8 "Your hands shaped me and made me.
Will you now turn and destroy me?

9 Remember that you molded me like clay.
Will you now turn me to dust again?

10 Did you not pour me out like milk
and curdle me like cheese,

11 clothe me with skin and flesh
and knit me together with bones and sinews?

Psalm 139:13-16
13 For you created my inmost being;
you knit me together in my mother's womb.

14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
your works are wonderful,
I know that full well.

15 My frame was not hidden from you
when I was made in the secret place.
When I was woven together in the depths of the earth,

16 your eyes saw my unformed body.
All the days ordained for me
were written in your book
before one of them came to be.

Jeremiah, Paul, the servant in Isaiah, and Samson were all called by God BEFORE birth for a specific purpose:

Jeremiah 1:5
5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew [a] you,
before you were born I set you apart;
I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."
Galatians 1:15
15But when God, who set me apart from birth[a] and called me by his grace, was pleased.

Isaiah 49:1-5
1 Listen to me, you islands;
hear this, you distant nations:
Before I was born the LORD called me;
from my birth he has made mention of my name.

2 He made my mouth like a sharpened sword,
in the shadow of his hand he hid me;
he made me into a polished arrow
and concealed me in his quiver.

3 He said to me, "You are my servant,
Israel, in whom I will display my splendor."

4 But I said, "I have labored to no purpose;
I have spent my strength in vain and for nothing.
Yet what is due me is in the LORD's hand,
and my reward is with my God."

5 And now the LORD says—
he who formed me in the womb to be his servant
to bring Jacob back to him
and gather Israel to himself,
for I am honored in the eyes of the LORD
and my God has been my strength-

Judges 13:7
7But he said unto me, Behold, thou shalt conceive, and bear a son; and now drink no wine nor strong drink, neither eat any unclean thing: for the child shall be a Nazarite to God from the womb to the day of his death