Hi, Sntjohnny.  Thank you for attempting to enlighten me on what I see as one of the greatest contradictions in the pro-life mentality.  To me, most (but not all) seem able to tolerate all kinds of violence and mayhem directed at fully functional human beings while simultaneously feeling the utmost sympathy for unthinking bits of flesh.  They seem to fully embrace the Old Testament revenge-based morality.  

"For me, President Bush represents a portrait of the greatest contradiction that I see in the Pro-Life movement--someone who simultaneously promotes war to achieve political ends"

This presumes that this is known and established.

I am only taking his words at face value.  Perhaps he lied.  It wouldn't be the first time.  But I have a feeling that he was sincere in his claim that Israel could impose a lasting military solution on Hezbollah.

"while deeply opposing even the most benign use of human stem cells in research to support healing and save lives."

This presumes that the stem cells in question are embryonic.  There are stem cells that are not embryonic.

Indeed.  In this case, the discussion is limited to the harvesting of embryonic stem cells, which was the kind at issue in the bill that Bush vetoed.  These cells would be harvested from human placentas, which are routinely discarded after childbirth.  Did you not know this?

"In six years of public office, this man's first veto was to strike down public funding for the harvesting of stem cells--nothing more than dots of human flesh--in basic health research."

This presumes that the 'dots of human flesh' are not in fact, human.

Dots of human flesh are human.  They are not human beings, and that is why we do not care whether they die most of the time.  I'm not just speaking about my own attitude, but yours, as well, I think.  In a world of over 6.5 billion people, millions of embryos die every day.  Only a minority ever have a chance to attach to a uterus and develop into fetuses, let alone fully functional beings.  Does this really bother you?  It is the ones that would have died anyway that Bush and his supporters refuse to harvest for scientific purposes.

"The irony is that his veto will not save or promote one single human life, since the cells to be harvested will only be discarded anyway."

This presumes that the 'dots of human flesh' do not constitute 'one single human life.'

I make no such presumption.  You aren't paying attention.  All of the embryos in question will be discarded and die anyway.  None will be saved for artificial insemination.  This is not about saving any human lives.  It is about preventing the use of moribund clusters of cells that could lead to unprecedented cures for catastrophic illnesses and injuries.  I see the "pro-life" stand in this issue to be fundamentally anti-life and immoral.

If they are in fact, human, then the Nazis rationale that the Jews 'be harvested' for medical research as they 'will only be discarded anyway' has resurfaced once again.

Does your religious dogma blind you to the distinction between a barely visible cluster of cells and a fully functioning human being?  From your responses here, I can only conclude that it does.  The Nazis destroyed human lives, not dots of flesh.  There is no comparison between their torture of live human beings and the use of specks of tissue that are routinely discarded as medical waste.

"He does not propose to save any of those cells from extinction."

This presumes that the embryos are 'no more than cells.'  Is it not your position, Copernicus, that none of us are 'no more than cells' ?

Huh?    He does not propose to save any of those cells from extinction.  What I said is literally true.  If you think of them as human beings, then maybe I should have said "He does not propose to save any of those human beings from extinction."  Does that help you to understand the point?  Or do you deny its truth?  Do you not understand the facts behind the issue?  No human lives will be saved by his action.  In point of fact, more living human beings will die and suffer as a result of it.  Using stem cells to cure illness and injury is not murder.  Preventing their use in cures is.

"Instead, he supports throwing those cells away with the rest of medical trash."

This presumes that we know- or at least, that you have established we know- what his position actually is.

Obviously pro-lifers are not in the least in favor of discarding embryos 'with the rest of medical trash.'

Dont' be silly.  We do know that that is his position.  And it appears to be yours as well, although you and he may not have actually thought through the implications of his benighted policy.

"How can this contradiction in our "Pro Life" president be reconciled? How can people of religious conviction support it?"

This presumes that you have made accurate statements and accurate representations of the issues.  I don't think this presumption can be made.  Your continued use of the idea of these stem cells being 'cells' and not being derived from embryos betrays your own position about the nature of the thing under discussion.  Pro-Lifers think that the embryos are humans and so deserve the rights accorded to humans, and so naturally their destruction- even in the name of medical science- follows rationally as objectionable.

You've completely missed the argument.  Even given your concept of embryos, which has no scientific, ethical, or scriptural basis, there is a fundamental contradiction that you seem oblivious to.  On the one hand, you bend over backwards to argue on behalf of embryonic clusters of cells that you appear to favor discarding anyhow.  At least, I perceive no argument on your side that anyone lift a finger to save those embryos.  Your argument is solely that they should be discarded rather than used to develop cures to save human lives.  On the other hand, you think it perfectly sensible to bomb civilian neighborhoods full of innocent humans because enemy combatants use them as human shields.  In other words, you find it sensible to sacrifice human life for the "greater good", but not to use embryonic cells for the "greater good".  This strikes me as a deeply flawed and contradictory sense of morality.

Furthermore, I'm not so certain I'm willing to accept that your powers of mind reading can adequately establish for us the true motives behind what the President is doing in Israel, or elsewhere.  Unless you have him on the record somewhere on the matter.... ?

I'm sorry if I've been too trusting, but I've simply taken him at his word.  He has said that he does not want Israel to cease its attacks until Hezbollah is crushed militarily.  He believes that that will lead to a lasting peace.  He thinks that he sees a solution that eludes everyone else.  He has not explained why Syria and Iran will cease training and supplying Hezbollah guerillas, but he clearly seems to think that continuing this war will lead to some kind of lasting peace rather than an even greater thirst for revenge on the part of Israel's enemies.  In this respect, there seem to be no other world leaders who agree with him.  In fact, it seems to turn the stomachs of most civilized people to watch the slaughter of innocent lives continue.

Finally, there is no contradiction in a pro-lifer supporting death under certain circumstances.  For example, capital punishment has the presumption that the person has been convicted of a heinous crime that he really did commit.  That is world's apart from an embryo or a 'fetus' or an 'unborn human' that has yet to take a breath, let alone had an opportunity to commit a crime.  This sort of distinction is not hard to recognize or accept, but it seems to have been outright ignored in your post, Copernicus.

What you are saying is that pro-lifers do not oppose killing in all circumstances.  That leaves us with the contradiction that you seem to have missed throughout your detailed response--that the stem cells you refuse to allow scientists to use will be discarded anyway.  They will literally be allowed to die and thrown in the trash.  This policy is utterly senseless.  There is nothing "pro-life" about it.

"Thank you for attempting to enlighten me on what I see as one of the greatest contradictions in the pro-life mentality."

You give me too much credit.  There was little fair representation of the 'pro-life mentality' in your original post in the first place, so its hard to say I was trying to resolve a contradiction in that mentality.  Its a contradiction inside your own head derived from strawman argumentation.

"I am only taking his words at face value."

Which words?  We're looking for words that substantiate:

"someone who simultaneously promotes war to achieve political ends"


You don't get to carry on your tirade by compelling us to accept a point that is critical to your argument by merely repeating that he 'did say it' and 'perhaps he lied.'  What DID he say?  

"Indeed. In this case, the discussion is limited to the harvesting of embryonic stem cells, which was the kind at issue in the bill that Bush vetoed. These cells would be harvested from human placentas, which are routinely discarded after childbirth. Did you not know this?"

Not know what?  The specific details of the veto?  Actually, no, because I was out of the country.  However, I do know that you don't get embryonic stem cells from human placentas.  You get EMBRYONIC stem cells from EMBRYOS.  I quote:  "The discussion is limited to the harvesting of embryonic stem cells, which was the kind at issue in the bill that Bush vetoed."

You do understand that a placenta is not an embryo?  Did you not know this?

"Dots of human flesh are human. They are not human beings, and that is why we do not care whether they die most of the time."

Well, the 'contradiction' is resolved, then, isn't it?  Your position is that they are not human beings.  The pro-lifers attitude is that they are.

Since you were trying to expose a contradiction in the pro-life attitude, its the pro-life attitude that matters, not YOURS.

"I'm not just speaking about my own attitude, but yours, as well, I think. In a world of over 6.5 billion people, millions of embryos die every day."

Oh right.  As a pro-lifer I'm very happy about that, aren't I?  Come on Copernicus.

""This presumes that the 'dots of human flesh' do not constitute 'one single human life.'"

"I make no such presumption. You aren't paying attention. All of the embryos in question will be discarded and die anyway"

Sure you are.  Clearly, if you managed to save the embryo, and the embry was a 'single human life,' you would in fact be saving 'a single human life.'  The question of them being 'discarded and dying anyway' is a separate matter.  Clearly, if you gave a hoot on understanding what people's real positions are, you'd see that I am just as concerned about these embryos being discarded.

I don't make medical use of Jews just because they are going to be discarded and killed anyway.  Maybe it is hard for the near future to save the Jews, but I won't take my eye off the fact that they need saving.  Two separate issues.

"I see the "pro-life" stand in this issue to be fundamentally anti-life and immoral."

Clearly.  And that is because you don't think that the entities in question are humans entitled to human rights.  If you did, it works out very rationally and morally from there.  Who is more anti-life?  The one that opens the gates wide to accept the weakest and most innocent and defenseless entitites into the realm of 'human' or those that exclude them so that those already in the realm can be healed from their diseases?

"Does your religious dogma blind you to the distinction between a barely visible cluster of cells and a fully functioning human being?"

What you don't understand, dear man, is how little it matters right now.  You are trying to argue that there is a contradiction in the 'pro-life mentality.'  If this 'barely visible cluster of cells' is believed to be a human,  regardless of your view of whether or not that is a correct view, then the rest follows rationally and easily enough.

We can debate whether or not that particular view is correct, but that is a separate issue, isn't it?  

"There is no comparison between their torture of live human beings and the use of specks of tissue that are routinely discarded as medical waste."

You're right in one sense:  there was outrage for the Jews;  you are blithely unmoved by 'specks of tissue' (aren't you merely a combination of specks of tissue'?) being 'discarded as medical waste.'

"Do you not understand the facts behind the issue?"

Do you understand what a pompous, condescending, j....  oh nevermind.

"No human lives will be saved by his action. In point of fact, more living human beings will die and suffer as a result of it. Using stem cells to cure illness and injury is not murder. Preventing their use in cures is."

Two separate issues:  1.  Saving the Jews and 2.  using the Jews for medical research since they are going to be discarded anyway.  

Your attempt to smash Bush over the head on this presumes that the bill in front of him addressed #1, but my presumption (I have not read the bill, I'm drawing off of press reports and what you have shared- dangerous, I know) is that it only focused on #2.  Yes, it sure would be nice to see some legislation coming up on #1, and I would be very much distressed if such legislation was vetoed.

Also, you continue to equivocate between stem cells in general and embyronic stem cells.  No one objects to using stem cells, my friend.  What we object to is where you're getting them, and how.

""""Instead, he supports throwing those cells away with the rest of medical trash.""""
"""This presumes that we know- or at least, that you have established we know- what his position actually is."""
""Obviously pro-lifers are not in the least in favor of discarding embryos 'with the rest of medical trash.'""

"Dont' be silly. We do know that that is his position. And it appears to be yours as well, although you and he may not have actually thought through the implications of his benighted policy."

Oh, that's his position?  His position is that he 'supports throwing those cells away' ?

We do KNOW that, do we?  I'm looking forward to your posting evidence of that being his view.  Or mine.

"You've completely missed the argument."

You always say that when you've been refuted.

"Even given your concept of embryos, which has no scientific, ethical, or scriptural basis,"

Even given?  Dear chap- that's the whole point in exposing the contradiction in a point of view:  you take their givens and work with them.  You didn't KNOW this about the pro-life position?  

Let's also keep in mind that whether or not his has any basis or not is irrelevant to whether or not there is a contradiction.  Also, I'm interested to hear that there is no scriptural basis to the view.  That will be disappointing to Dicoll who has just informed us that anything can be justified in the scriptures.

"to argue on behalf of embryonic clusters of cells that you appear to favor discarding anyhow."

Oh, you're daft.  Oh yes, you've nailed it.  Where is my eye-rolling smiley?

"At least, I perceive no argument on your side that anyone lift a finger to save those embryos."

Huh, well, perhaps if you weren't constantly pattering on about how we pro-lifers were 'arguing that we support their discarding,' presumably by implication, because I know you'll not find any pro-lifer saying such a thing- but let us bow to the mindreading powers of Copernicus... who am I to question his abilities?- and asked the question, you might find that such arguments exist.

"Your argument is solely that they should be discarded rather than used to develop cures to save human lives. On the other hand, you think it perfectly sensible to bomb civilian neighborhoods full of innocent humans because enemy combatants use them as human shields. In other words, you find it sensible to sacrifice human life for the "greater good", but not to use embryonic cells for the "greater good". This strikes me as a deeply flawed and contradictory sense of morality."

You're whole argument is based on pretension.  The above characterization presumes a great deal, all of which you get at from arguing from implication.

I'm so glad to hear you sticking up for the Lebanese.  What are you doing  and what have you been doing for those in Darfur?  What's the matter, Cop, Sudan isn't sexy enough for you to take an interest in?   As far as I know, Bush is the only person to have labeled what is going on in Sudan a genocide link.  Many more people are dying and have died in Darfur, and only one head of state has called it what it is.  Apparently arguing from implication is the modus operandi of the thread, so perhaps I can play, too:

Clearly, Cop, you support the killing of the people in Sudan by the hundreds.  Isn't it obvious that your focus on Israel is indicative of how well the press can lead you around by the nose?  In your presumptuous attempt to show a contradiction in the pro-life movement, you contrasted embryonic stem cells with deaths in Lebanon... why Lebanon?  Lebanon is up to... 550 dead... Darfur has seen that sort of thing PER DAY for months and months and months.  But you aren't concerned with human life, really, are you Cop?  You're concerned with making a political point- no more, no less.  If you did care about human life, you would have mentioned Darfur, or Rwanda, or something with a little more punch.

In fact, by your not going out of the way to do so, I can only conclude that you do support throwing them away with the medical trash.

Silly?  Perhaps- but I think there is an element of truth to it.  The point is that arguing by implication is a dangerous game in that there is a tendency to take assumptions out of one's OWN arguments and impose them onto someone else's arguments when deriving 'contradictions.'

"I'm sorry if I've been too trusting, but I've simply taken him at his word."

Once again we have you merely asserting again that he said something.  Taking him at what word?  Support your claim, man.

"In this respect, there seem to be no other world leaders who agree with him. In fact, it seems to turn the stomachs of most civilized people to watch the slaughter of innocent lives continue."

Interestingly, no other world leaders agree with him that there is genocide in Darfur, either.   I wonder, why was your stomach turned by Lebanon but not by Darfur?  What excuse does the UN have by its inaction and refusal to call Darfur genocide?  The 'world leaders' can eat my shorts.  After they've atoned for Darfur, Rwanda, [I could produce quite a list] I'll consider them credible on Israel.  

And you can eat my shorts, too.  

"What you are saying is that pro-lifers do not oppose killing in all circumstances."

The man can read!

"That leaves us with the contradiction that you seem to have missed throughout your detailed response--that the stem cells you refuse to allow scientists to use will be discarded anyway."

Two issues:  saving the Jews, using the Jews.

"They will literally be allowed to die and thrown in the trash. This policy is utterly senseless. There is nothing "pro-life" about it."

That is nothing more than your opinion.  I like how you continue to equivocate and use 'stem cells' throughout as though anyone was against the use of stem cells.  Is it election time already?  That sort of double-talk can get you hired quick in most political campaigns.  Just because you are comfortable throwing what pro-lifers consider to be humans (in your defense, in hopes to think the best of you, I'm presuming YOU dont' think they are humans) into the trash does NOT MEAN that this gives an entitlement to use them for medical research.

Indeed, when one thinks about it, we're all going to die, right?  We're all going to end up 'in the trash.'  Right?  What's the real difference between hauling Copernicus off to be harvested for stem cells and a 'little bundle of cells.'  Its only a difference of size and scale- and they're all going on the trash heap anyway...  Ah, yes, here is the difference:  Copernicus can defend himself.

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/jul/06072709.html
"Catholic Church NOT Opposed to Stem Cell Research: Catholic Bioethicist"


Some highlights which will sound familiar:

"...the Church is an enthusiastic supporter, not an enemy of stem-cell research."

"During his presentation, Fr. Pacholczyk.... explained that it is the source of stem cells is at the heart of the ethics in stem-cell research."

"Fr. Pacholczyk explained that the Catholic Church only applauds that research which uses stem-cells procured from methods that do not violate human life."

"Toward the end of his presentation, Fr. Pacholczyk addressed the topic of fate of the hundreds of thousands of human embryos frozen in fertility clinics across the United States. Although proponents of embryonic stem-cell research maintain that these embryos are doomed to be destroyed anyway, Fr. Pacholczyk emphasized greatly that the possible future of these embryos in no way justifies their destruction in the present

"Why should government play a role in regulating it?"

Or, similarly, why should government play a role as financial sponsor for it?

No one is standing in the way of universities and secular institutions doing as they want on the matter.