# Stem Cell Research



## Storm (Dec 8, 2004)

Today President Bush made a statement about Stem Cell Research, so I thought it would be a good time to discuss this topic. This topic was brought up earlier by a person in this forum. They couldn't understand why Stem Cell Research was wrong. I am by no means an expert on the subject, but have tried to understand the issue. My father inlaw also works in this area as a college professor teaching moral/ethics issues at a Catholic University. He is in the process of finishing a book devoted to Stem Cell Research. Stem Cell Research isn't bad in itself. We all have stem cells in our body right now. Some can be harvested without an effect to the body. The Vatican and President Bush have no problem with this type of stem cell research. When we cross the line of using embryonic stem cells for research, then it becomes wrong. Embryonic stem cells come from fertilized embryos. When harvesting these stem cells they must destroy the embryo, thus destroying the life. The Catholic Church teaches that life begins at conception, so each fertilized egg cultured in a petri dish is life. This is also why the Church teaches that inveetro fertilization is wrong. The reason being that there is going to be several fertilized eggs killed in the process. To sum up this in a nutshell, a person can't destroy life to make life. This is a moral wrong. So to use the example of, "why can't we do embryonic stem cell research to cure Diabeties", the answer is because we can't destroy life searching for cures that may or may not happen. An example of this would be the Nazis in WWII, they did horrible things to Jews and other prisoners in the name of medical research. Was this right? No. The same goes for us today, we can't go around developing life in a petri dish for the purpose of killing that life to maybe help us out. Another concern is cloning. If we are going to develop life in a petri dish for our own little medical experiments, then don't you think there is going to be some researcher out there that is going to start cloning humans. 
As President Bush was speaking today he was surrounded by 21 children who were adopted. Each child had been a product of inveetro fertilization and they were the left over eggs in a petri dish. They would of been destroyed, except for the generous people who chose life. Thank God we have a PRO-LIFE President.


----------



## tail chaser (Sep 24, 2004)

Storm, No post here has ****** me off more than yours, let me tell you why. I'm glad you are grounded in your belief and stand behind your faith, you have that right and I respect that, here lies the problem. I'm not Catholic! And alot of people in this country are not either! I do not believe life starts at meeting of sperm and egg. You have but the president does not have the right to tell me or anyone what religious belief is right or wrong. Do you believe in the seperation of church and state or not?



> This topic was brought up earlier by a person in this forum. They couldn't understand why Stem Cell Research was wrong.


If you are talking about me you are incorrect, what I said was: "I can't see how its tied to abortion". And as for me being wrong you are assuming you and your religious opinion is truth and mine is not. You are entilted to your opinion, it is not fact, it can be wrong in your mind though.



> We all have stem cells in our body right now. Some can be harvested without an effect to the body. The Vatican and President Bush have no problem with this type of stem cell research. When we cross the line of using embryonic stem cells for research, then it becomes wrong. Embryonic stem cells come from fertilized embryos. When harvesting these stem cells they must destroy the embryo, thus destroying the life. The Catholic Church teaches that life begins at conception, so each fertilized egg cultured in a petri dish is life. This is also why the Church teaches that inveetro fertilization is wrong. The reason being that there is going to be several fertilized eggs killed in the process.


Stem cells harvested from humans (not embryo's) have been proven to be of no value in this type of research.



> To sum up this in a nutshell, a person can't destroy life to make life. This is a moral wrong.


According to this type of thinking nothing good can come from bad? What is so hypocrytical from the idea of Bush having those 21 kids present is the Catholic Church and Bush would rather see those embryos from inveetro clinics destroyed rather than go to research to cure disease yet the result is the same the embryos are destroyed. Now that is a moral wrong. :******: Just those embryos that are destroyed in legal inveetro clinics is more than enough for research, no new ones need to be created! According to what you posted, are you against organ donation? How so? Some of those embryo's in the clinic are going to die, we both know that, If they had a functional kidney accourding to you it is wrong to use it for donation.



> Another concern is cloning. If we are going to develop life in a petri dish for our own little medical experiments, then don't you think there is going to be some researcher out there that is going to start cloning humans.


This will or is happening no matter what US law is, and I am not for it, but stem cell reseach isn't part of it. Stem cell research is not cloning!!



> To sum up this in a nutshell, a person can't destroy life to make life.


No.... to sum up according to the Bush way of thinking nothing good should come from the death of those embryo's that are going to be destroyed in an already legal manner. If bush wants to make inveetro clinics against the law then I'll stop calling him a hypocrite.

As for the Nazis comparison....Ya thats along the same line sure?

It is against some religions to cut your hair, I wonder if the cure for cancer were in the cells of hair, would that religion stand in the way of collecting clippings from the local barber?

TC


----------



## njsimonson (Sep 24, 2002)

> Today President Bush made a statement about Stem Cell Research, so I thought it would be a good time to discuss this topic.


WRONG! No time is a good time to discuss this topic. 



> Begun...the clone war has.


 - Yoda.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Very tough question, I'm catholic also and clearly life begins at conception that being said Invitro Fertilzation has been going on for some time and part of the process is the discarding of unused embryos, if they are going to be discarded than its just as clear to me that its a waste not to exploit them. And I intentionally used the word exploit. Heres the problem as soon as we get comfortable with embroyos there will be some scientific justification for getting the cells from 2 months old fetuses. Then when we are comfortable with that it will " hey if we got them from 6 month old fetuses" then we could do X Blah blah, and so on. The slippery slope really applies to this question big time.
I am sure about one thing I don't want the Catholic Church or any other church determining policy in this country, there are elements of the christian community that would be as bad if not worse than the nuts killing "in the name of Allah" in Iraq. Seperation of Church and state is a good thing although its frequently misinterpreted by the left. Whether we like it or not this research is going on in other parts of the world and we have to decide if we want to be at the forefront of this technology or not. I lean toward using the unused embryos rather than discarding them but thats where I draw the line in stone. I will never approve of farming of embryos and thats where I fear it will end up if not worse. Like I said its a tough question, the people with dread diseases that can be helped should get some consideration also and if the embryos are going to be discarded than use them to help these people, if it was my child suffering from some dread disease I would want them helped at almost any cost.
The Catholic Church can't even keep their own priests in line so I don't give them much stock on moral issues anymore and I say that as a lifelong Catholic and a believer in the religion.


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

The problem lies in the definition of where life begins.

The reality of the situation is that life is not viable in a petri dish as far as fertilized eggs go. This is a fact. There is no arguing this. You can't create humans in a petri dish.

In my opinion all you have is two cells that have merged together. It takes more than a sperm and an egg to create life. You need someone or something to carry those two cells. They have the potential for life but are not viable without a carrier and that to me is the difference. We are not removing cells from their carrier where they were first combined.

It seems strange to me that it is perfectly fine for researchers to work on a sperm cell or an egg cell individually but to combine them in a petri dish crosses some sort of moral line.

What I find hypocritical is the idea that some people value two cells in a petri dish more than they value the life of conscious human beings who could be helped with this type of research now and far into the future.

Would you be willing to stand in front of someone and say. "We have the potential cure for your disease here in these two cells but we have to combine them to do it. If they were apart it would be ok but if we combine them (which we must do) it would be wrong. So we can't"

I don't think I could.


----------



## Storm (Dec 8, 2004)

Tail Chaser I will try to address some of your questions and comments, but first of all let me say that I didn't use your name in my post and I wasn't trying to make you mad, but rather start some dialogue on the question.
First of all a person doesn't have to be Catholic to be against embryonic Stem Cell Research, the last time I checked President Bush aligned himself with the Methodist Church. And I am sure there are many other non-Catholics against embryonic stem cell reasearch. The reason I mentioned the Catholic Church is because the Vatican is outspoken on the subject and the media covers what the Vatican talks about. As a Catholic I am often asked by others why the Church takes this stance on this subject. I do believe in seperation of Church and state, but I believe this isn't black and white, and the Church has an obligation to stand up for the innocent, as does our government. Seperation of Church and state wasn't ever ment to be that all religious ideas or idealogoy would be completely seperated from our government. Seperation of Church and state ment that the government wouldn't dictate to the people what religion we would have to follow. This would be called religious freedom. For example the government couldn't say our official religion is Scientology and Tom Cruise will be the offical leader.  
The reason embryonic stem cell research is tied to abortion is because both acts kill innocent unborn life. 
You stated that adult stem cells haven't proven to be of any use, is there any proof that embryonic stem cells will be of any use. The answer is no, there isn't one bit proof that embryonic stem cells will be the majic answer and cure all the ills of the world.
I'm glad you brought up the idea that nothing good can come from something bad. You use the example of the 21 kids with Bush. You are correct often times good things do come from bad, or suffering. The sad truth is that there are only a few children that are going to be adopted as fertilized eggs and implanted in women to have a chance at life. The majority will be destroyed. That's why we can't say continue this act of designing life in a petri dish and we will deal with the children later. But we must deal with the ones that are already sitting in a freezer in a clinic. 
Cloning is bad news. I realize that scientist in other parts of the world may be trying this right now, but the United States shouldn't be involved. 
An example of this would be if I went out and bought my daughter condoms because I new that she was going to be sexually active. This only promotes teenage sex. My daughter might go out and have premarital sex, which I hope she doesn't, but I am not going to condone this activity by my actions. The same is true with respect to buying teenagers alchohol or durgs. So the United States should stand up against cloning, even if other countries are cloning. 
Tail chaser your idea of comparing cutting hair to destroying human life doesn't make sense as does your reference to organ donation. Embryos are living life that if taken care of would have a very good chance of becoming a normal man or women. A children that is brain dead from an acident and on a ventalator isn't going to have a chance of norman life. Thus his organs could be used, but this is only in a case where that person is being kept alive with extra ordinary means. Cutt hair will grow back and it isn't going to kill anyone. I hope this answered some questions.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

> You stated that adult stem cells haven't proven to be of any use, is there any proof that embryonic stem cells will be of any use. The answer is no, there isn't one bit proof that embryonic stem cells will be the majic answer and cure all the ills of the world.


Both of these premises are unknown at this time. However they will never be known if there isn't any research. One big thing to consider is that Bush only has any say over federal monies not private sector and that is where this research probably should be done. This is like the abortion argument and it will never be settled with legislation its in the hearts and minds of all of us.


----------



## Storm (Dec 8, 2004)

gandergrinder,
You can't believe that human life can be designed in a petri dish. It happens every day. A couple who are having trouble conceiving go into a clinic and put $10,000 down to have the mans sperm and eggs from the women combined in a petri dish. Several eggs are fertilized at which time a certain number are then implanted in the women. This is why multiple births are not uncommon anymore. The other embyros are either frozen to be used at a later time or destroyed. So we are forming human life in a petri dish and playing God.

Bobm,
You make sense with your comments. It is a very slippery slope that we have seen before. When Roe vs. Wade came into effect there were time limits when abortions could be done. What I mean by this, is a legal abortion could only be done up to so many months, then it was illegal. Now we abort babies minutes before they are born. This sick act is called partial birth abortion and it happens every day. I might add that some abortion clinics are selling body parts from aborted fetuses right now. So Bob that slippery slope has already been crossed to some degree.
Also don't buy into this idea that the Catholic Church is bad and has no right to discuss moral issues because of a few bad priest. That is exactly what the media and anti-religion people would like you to do. The Church is made up of mortal human beings that are going to make mistakes and sin. But this doens't mean the Church is bad. I know many wonderful Priest who have done nothing but give their life to serve the people.


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

BobM says


> I'm catholic also and clearly life begins at conception


Zogman says, " I am not catholic. I was adopted". Need I say more?
I thank God my birth mother valued my life at the moment of conception.

I haven't researched or don't know enough about stem cell research.
I would love to see a cure for cancer, diabitias, etc.....................


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Storm I don't want to take this thread in the direction of a debate about the Catholic church but if you don't believe that the Vatican and the hirarchy of the Catholic Church was well aware the abuse of children by priest and did nothing in order to save both face and money you are simply uninformed. Any group that does that will never have my respect, the Catholic Church not the Catholic religion as I said before I am a believer. I am also well capable of making moral decisions on my own. I don't and never will care what the Priests or the pope think again, they are little more than politicians and I hold them in disdain. The Catholic Church has along history of corruption, go to the religion for moral guidance not some priest.


----------



## Goose Huntin' Machine (May 8, 2005)

Personally, I think the science is junk. Very stupid California voters (I will not get into why we are stupid) voted to approve state funding for embryonic stem-cell research.

Why state funding? Because the private sector was not funding it. Lets face it, the private sector is much more efficient than the government. So the way I see it, if the science was worth anything, the private sector would be "all over it." As it is, the private sector is not "all over it," and in my opinion proves its worth.

Also, where does "Seperation of church and state" come from? Does anyone know? Can you tell me?

Lastly, I too believe life starts at conception. I am a pentacostal christian, but in all honesty, I am not sure my view stems from my religion. As someone said already, when these two cells meet in a certain area, that is life because life is formed there. As Storm pointed out, life does start in a petri dish, so according to the logic...this must be immoral and not done.

Zogman, touching story. Think of everything you would have been neglected had your mother not been pro-life.

Jeff


----------



## Storm (Dec 8, 2004)

Zogman,
You are the reason why I fight so hard for the pro-life cause. If your birth mom would of been pro-choice you would be a statistic. Your story is very powerful so don't be afraid to stand up and tell it. Just think you mother may of been influenced by a pro-lifer. You could do the same. God bless you.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Plainsman told me that Zogman is really an alien from the planet Zog, so don't believe a word he says :lol:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I have more questions than answers. The foremost question I have is what difference if any is there in umbilical cord stem cells and embryonic stem cells?

I guess I am about where Bobm is at. Give them an inch and they will take a mile. What I mean is if they use embryonic stem cells now, will they purposely create more embryos so they can harvest them. If people go in for inveetro fertilization will the doctor make 50 embryos instead of 10? If there is a buck in it many will go for it right or wrong. I don't want to see humanity turn into self parasitism. I guess something that is going to be destroyed anyway could as well be used, but I have little trust in the medical community to stop anywhere if not controlled.

I have a son, brother and friends with diabetes, and organ transplants. As a matter of fact I am an only grandchild that doesn't have diabetes (yet). I hope that umbilical cord stem cells will provide medical break throughs. I am really torn on this subject, and wish I had the answers.

Storm and Bobm I also agree with separation of church and state, but Bob your absolutely right some people on the left misinterprets it. (I do not say this to inflame people, but it is a fact. Please also notice I purposely said some. I'm not trying to point a finger at anyone on this form.) First of all many will say "as it says in the constitution". It is not in the constitution. The ideals behind separation of church and state is to protect religion from government not government from religion. It is ridiculous to say we can not let religion influence government. We all get our morals somewhere, our parents, our friends, church, the bible, people we respect and talk to in person and here. It matters not where those moral values are formed or by who. They are our individual moral values and each and everyone of us have the right to influence the government to the best of our ability.


----------



## tail chaser (Sep 24, 2004)

You are correct and I agree we have the right to influnce gov but gov does not have the right to influnce us when it comes to religion. This is the problem I have with parts of the far right. If I wanted the lifestyle, morals, beliefs of a particular church or religion I would attend that church and participate in that religion, it should not be forced upon me thru legal means. Its both fortunate and unfortunate that religion deals with so much we don't know.

Storm, ya we all know hair grows back, you missed my point it is against some religions to cut it. You see you failed to recognize the rights of others in the question.

BTW I appreciate your level head on the subject you do a good job of explaining why you feel the way you do.

TC


----------



## Goose Huntin' Machine (May 8, 2005)

Plainsman....

Thank you for knowing "Seperation of church and state" is _not_ in the constitution; it was said by the courts. The only thing that is in the constitution is in the First amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

Over 60% of the population believes without a doubt creationism is more than a story, and well over half are of some form of Christianity. What is wrong with religion influening society if it is the will of the people?

Jeff


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

Science does a great job of showing us "What is possible."

It does darn little to tell us what we "Ought or ought not do."

That is left to the realm of "Moral values."

Or so it seems to me.


----------



## tail chaser (Sep 24, 2004)

please correct me if I'm wrong.

So if the Vatican feels inveetro fertalization is wrong. What should happen to Catholics that opt for this procedure? I know 3 Catholic couples myself. Are those who are against embryonic stem cell research willing to fight to shut down inveetro clinics? more importantly are the politicians of thier choice willing to?

TC


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

It is a very tough issue a lot tougher than abortion, thats a no brainer for me atleast I am sure about one thing, abortion is wrong. But this issue different for me.

I don't want religion mandated by goverment but I want our goverment to be made up of religious people, open minded about all religion. Belief in God has kept me on the straight and narrow when I could of easily done something harsh to someone that wronged me and I'm thankful of that, I'm not very religious in practice, though I do believe, I usaually keep it to myself.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Also, where does "Seperation of church and state" come from? Does anyone know? Can you tell me?


The separation of church and state proposal was in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut. It was to qualm their fears that the Congregationlists were to become our national religion. Of course this was only rumor. This letter was written January 1, 1802.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

TC there are many issues where Catholics don't follow the Vatican the biggest being birth control. I think thats one of the worst things the church does telling all these third world countries full of devout catholics that shouldn't use birth control when they can't even feed themselves. Creates alot of suffering needlessly.

Oh and your statement


> Storm, ya we all know hair grows back


, 
mine doesn't :lol:


----------



## tail chaser (Sep 24, 2004)

After rereading your posts, I have come to the conclusion we will never agree, and thats ok. You are firm in your beliefs and I respect that. I on the other hand think we should do something with what we consder an accepted and legal practice to help out our fellow humans. If those who have deep religous beliefs that feel this is so wrong why do they not fight against the inveetro clinics? Or are they and I don't know of it? I will do as much research on such clinics as I can in the next few days and I would expect others do the same.

TC


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

This doesn't fit in here perfectly, but I thought I would just throw it out there. Please don't look at this as liberal or conservative because it will make us all think a little. Not real funny, but thought provoking. Forgive me for the cut and past.

2 TOUGH QUESTIONS

Question 1:
If you knew a woman who was pregnant, who had 8 kids already, three who
were deaf, two who were blind, one mentally retarded, and she had
syphilis, would you recommend that she have an abortion?
Read the next question before looking at the response for this one.

Question 2:
It is time to elect a new world leader qsand only your vote counts. Here
are the facts about the three candidates.

Candidate A. Associates with crooked politicians, and consults with
astrologist. He's had two mistresses. He also chain smokes and drinks 8 to
10 martinis a day.

Candidate B. He was kicked out of office twice, sleeps until noon, used
opium in college and drinks a quart of whiskey every evening.

Candidate C. He is a decorated war hero. He's a vegetarian, doesn't smoke,
drinks an occasional beer and never cheated on his wife. Which of these
candidates would be your choice? Decide first... no peeking, and then
scroll down for the response.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Scroll down

Candidate A is Franklin D. Roosevelt. Candidate B is Winston Churchill.
Candidate C is Adolph Hitler.
And, by the way, on your answer to the abortion question: If you said YES,
you just killed Beethoven.
Pretty interesting isn't it? Makes a person think before judging someone.
Wait till you see the end of this note! Keep reading...
Never be afraid to try something new. Remember: Amateurs...built the ark.
Professionals...built the Titanic
And finally, can you imagine working for a company that has a little more
than 500 employees and has the following statistics:

* 29 have been accused of spousal abuse
* 7 have been arrested for fraud
* 19 have been accused of writing bad checks

* 117 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses
* 3 have done time for assault
* 71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit
* 14 have been arrested on drug-related charges
* 8 have been arrested for shoplifting
* 21 are currently defendants in lawsuits
* 84 have been arrested for drunk driving in the last year... Can you
guess which organization this is?

Give up yet?
It's the 535 members of the United States Congress. The same group that
cranks out hundreds of new laws each year designed to keep the rest of us in line.

All I can say in ending is that I should have known better than trust a vegetarian. Plainsman


----------



## tail chaser (Sep 24, 2004)

Bobm sorry about your hair! mine is pretty thin and I just shave the rest, so I know what those scalp burns feel like!

I know all Catholics do not follow the Vatican and there are different divisions among the Catholic church. I had some relitives that would drive 300 miles to attend latin mass every sunday. I would call them Ultra Catholics, then when the time came for one of thier funerals they had it out of state because no church in ND was acceptable to them. When I was younger I knew some that didn't belong around any church at all. I kept my distance from them since I have a fear of being struck by lightning! 

TC


----------



## tail chaser (Sep 24, 2004)

I'm not going to jump you for the cut n paste it was within the topic, you have explained why you feel this way and you didn't start the post off with it, its also not Dem vs Rep or Lib vs Con. I liked it.

I voted for Hitler, but did not suggest she get an abortion.
And depending on my relationship with the women I might have made a b-line to the clinic! :lol:

The scary thing to me is Hitler was elected by the public. Its not enough to vote every four years to consider yourself active in politics. just look what can happen. :eyeroll:

Isn't it ironic that the cure for her syphilis was created or found on a petri dish that was going to be thrown away by one Mr Flemming?

TC


----------



## Storm (Dec 8, 2004)

Tailchaser,
You have brought up some questions about the Catholic Church that I will answer for you. Inveetro Fertilization is against the teachings of the Church. It is stated in the Catholic Catechism paragraphs 2374-77. I won't copy all if it down but will sum it up for you. "The act which brings the child into existance is no longer an act by which two persons give themselves to one another, but one that entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of doctors and biologist and establishes the domination of technology over the origin and the destiny of the human person. The dissociate the sexual act from the procreative act, is morally wrong."
To answer your question about the Catholic couples who have inveetro, this isn't black and white. Inveetro Fertilization is a sin, but there has to be three things in place for a person to commit a mortal sin. First it has to be of grave matter, secondly the person has to know it is a grave sin, this would be called knowledge, and thirdly they have to go ahead and commit the sin. So the Catholics you know of who have had inveetro fertilization might not know it is a sin. Thus they wouldn't have knowledge to commit the sin. If a Catholic does know this and goes ahead with the procedure they have committed mortal sin which can be forgiven if done thru proper channels.
Do people protest inveetro clinics? Good question. I personally haven't heard of any. Pro-Lifers are busy protesting Abortion clinics, and as Plainsman alluded to the inveetro fertilization issue isn't as easy to understand as the abortion issue.

BobM,
I'm going to have to call you on this one. You stated that you aren't very religious but you continue to makes claims against the Catholic Church. I let the first one slide about how the Vatican knew all about the priest scandels. To make a bold statement you need some proof. So where is it? Are you going to quote some documentory on CNN. The Catholic Church is directed by a Pope. The final numbers I heard were that 4 million people attend John Paul II funeral. That's alot of people paying respect to a corrupt man who knew about all these priest doing bad things. You also bring up the issue of birth control. This to is against the teaching of Catholic Church and found in the Catechism (paragraph 2370). Also I will point out that every other denomination was against birth control until the 1930's. Now only the Catholic Church is against it. The fact that many Catholics don't follow this doesn't make it right. There are other methods of regulating the number of children a couple can have that the Church recognizes. One is called Natural Family Planning. The Church does not allow chemical or physical means of regulating pregnancy. I could go on for ever about that one but won't for now.

Lastly Tailchaser there aren't divisions of the Catholic church. There is one Church directed by the Pope. Sure there are people who claim to be Catholic, but are not in line with the Church. When you talk of relatives who will only attend Latin Mass, you are probably talking about Tridentine Catholics. These are Catholics who don't recognize Vatican II and thus aren't in line with Rome and the Pope. They will only attend a Latin Mass, which is how Mass was said before Vatican II. The beauty of the Catholic Church is that it is one Church led by one Pope.


----------



## Jiffy (Apr 22, 2005)

I think some people cant see beyond the "blinders of their religion"....please guys dont think that all Catholics are the same.

My mother is BIG in the "right to life" subject....I myself can "see the trees through the forest"......

This could be HUGE....whats holding it back?????....I'll tell you what is. It is the stauch Rep. Right wing.....namely the Catholic church. Sorry Storm but I have to turn my back on a Catholic brethren.....

This research could probably find a cure for cancer, enable people in a wheelchair to walk again....ect......why not go for it!!!!!! Oh because life begins at conception.....even if it is not for the good of humanity.........Ok, now I understand.

I guide for a physically challenged bowhunt called "Twist of Fate"....not only do I guide for these guys but I would consider all of them my freinds. I would like to see you come out there and see what these guys go though everyday. Now for somebody to say that the possiblity of them not walking again depends on some "premonition of Catholicism" makes me sick......get real!!!! It really makes me mad when people are so blind to see inovative ideas......Maybe I am too logical...my fault for "going outside the box"......


----------



## Jiffy (Apr 22, 2005)

Ps: Strom, are you a "Father"!!!!! You sure sound like one.....maybe a deacon or a bishop. I hope you are not one of those guys that form a human chain outside of the abortion clinic.


----------



## tail chaser (Sep 24, 2004)

Storm thanks for the explanation, I shouldn't have used the word "division" rather what I meant was there are different levels of devotion among some and how active and how closely some catholics follow the Vatican. I think this is true for all religions. I have thought about wise cracks about priests but I held back because It is not fair to judge a group by the actions of a few. most Catholic priests are good people. I don't think all hunters are poachers yet I know some do it, but I will not look the other way, I will blow the whistle quicker than anybody! To look the other way and pretend nothing is happening is to align yourself with the guilty party.

TC


----------



## tail chaser (Sep 24, 2004)

Jiffy the problem I have with this topic is not that they believe life begins at conception but that those (to the best of my knowledge) who claim this belief will not stand up to inveetro but will stand up against embryotic stem cell research. Kind of hypocrytical don't you think? My only geuss is they are afraid of loosing power and respect if they did. Can you imagine if Bush dropped the SS thing to tackle the Inveetro clinics? I sure hope none of you practing Catholics have any shares in medical company's that have a stake in such an industry. Wouldn't it be fun to find someone who condems an act but then profits from it. Check those portfolies gentlmen!

TC


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

Its a miracle. We have a thread in the politics forum that is actually very informative and fun to participate in. I just wanted to point out how much I enjoy a good discussion. :beer: Nice work gentlemen.


----------



## tail chaser (Sep 24, 2004)

GG I must admit I have learned alot from others on this thread and why they think the way they do. Some who I have viewed as... say a little stuborn in the past, are not nearly what I thought. 
To quote GG: 


> I just wanted to point out how much I enjoy a good discussion. Nice work gentlemen.


TC


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Storm Read this, read the entire study please
http://www.nccbuscc.org/nrb/nrbstudy/nr ... m#response
heres a couple more

http://www.ucg.org/wnp/wnp0205/catholic.html
http://www.bibletopics.com/biblestudy/74.htm

there are plenty page after page of articles about this issue. I have personal experience with this issue a friend of mines retarded child was a victim and the coverup commenced, big money was paid and I don't want to go into the details. You can read as well as I can and every Catholic should be screaming about this instead of trying to claim it didn't happen. 
Study the issue yourself and draw your conclusions, just draw them from reason and not from blind faith, this is an issue we Catholics have to demand is resolved. I am not slamming Catholicism I am discusted about the response of the Vatican and as the study says its been going on a very long time and the whole Church hirarchy knew about it. I've spoken about it to our priest and he freely admits that nothing was done and they all knew about the problem. You can criticize priests for their behavior but no one can correctly claim they are too stupid to know the truth they are among the best educated people in our society on average.


----------



## north14 (Oct 1, 2004)

Has anyone else noticed how much better these threads go without MT around to ruin them?


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

I had to take a little break from the political forum, getting to me I guess. I to am excited to see that discussions can stay on track, everybody airs out their opinions without it turning into an all out war. I have been checking in at least once a day just to see whats going on and it looks awsome to me.

Back to the topic of this thread, this is a tough one, but I will have to side with Storm on this one. I am not Catholic, but Lutheran, and I will have to say that I lack knowledge of the bible and rely on my wife to guide me to general areas of it to find the answers I am looking for. Anyway great discussion guys, lets keep it going in all threads and maybe a few who have refrained from posting lately will return.


----------



## Storm (Dec 8, 2004)

Jiffy nice to see that you joined the party. You made some statements that I would like to comment on. You are right not all Catholics are the same, but the teachings of the Church don't change. The Catholic Church isn't a buffet line of where you pick and choose what you will believe in and what you won't, although many Catholics do this. This is why we have a Catechism that spells out what the Church teaches so that there isn't any confusion. Then it is up to each Catholic to decide whether or not the are going to follow the Church. Unfortunantly many don't. This is also why there is so much confusion about what the Church really teaches, because so many Catholics are not living the faith. I am very fortunate to live in a very good diocese with a great Bishop. I realize that most of the country isn't as fortunate. You are right I am a father, but not a Priest. I have a wonderful 6 year old daughter and a beautiful wife. I'm also 34 years old, which might come as a shock to some. I am a convert to the faith, and am going to start a masters program in Catholic Theology this fall at Franciscan University in Stuebenville, Ohio. I have stood in Pro-Life chains before, as well as spoken to groups on pro-life matters. I also have worked to get pro-life politicans elected with the most recent being Jeff Fortenberry to the U.S. House of Representatives. People didn't give him a chance, but his strong stance on pro-life issues including being against embryonic stem cell research are what got him elected. As I have stated before, stand up for what is right and the truth will set you free. My father in-law is a college professor who works in the field of bio-ethics and he and another professor have been advisors to the Bush administration on life issues, especially sem cell research. I guess I didn't leave much for you to figure out.  Jiffy, you told us that you are an x-marine which is awesome. Marines are some of the best trained toughest fighters in the world. I once had a Priest tell my that the Catholic faith is the Marine Corps of religions. He was right, the Catholic faith is consistent on moral issues and has been for 2,000 years. Even when our society tells us we shouldn't stand for such silly things as being pro-life, against same sex marriage, conception, and so on. The Vatican says NO, these have always been wrong and always will be, it doens't matter what MTV, Hollywood, or CNN says. This is also why Catholics get persucuted so much.
I also wanted to honor you for helping handicapped hunters. It is great to volunteer your time to help others in need. This not only helps them, but also yourself. I wish science could find a way to help people walk again, get over cancer, cure blindness, etc. But life begins at conception, this is where your life began, this is where my life began, this is where everyones life began. Knowing this, I can't be for killing innocent life looking for miracle cures. You can't commit an evil act looking for a greater good.

Tailchaser,
You brought up an excellant idea of people contributing money in the form of stocks to companies that may deal in areas that are contrary to the teachings of the Church. There is a company called Ave Maria Mutual Funds located in Bloomfield. Michigan that bases its investments in companies that aren't involved in activity contrary to the Catholic Church. For more information look up *www.avemariafund.com *

BobM,
I read you articles and have read plenty in the past on the matter. I am very sorry that a small element of the Church has done some very bad things. These priest should be prosecuted to the furthest extent of the law. I will also achknoledge that some Bishops have used some very bad judgment. But I think we have to keep in prosepective that this is not the majority of the Priest and Bishops. The media took the oppurtunity to really go after the Church. The Catholic Church is the most conservative organization in the world. The puts a big bullseye on the Church. I think the scandels actually had a redeeming effect on the Church. The Church needed purification. Through the scandels many bad Priest were removed. I can also tell you that each diocese now has much stricter standards for seminarians enter the seminary. After Vatican II when there was a Priest shortage they were allowing many young men who were not fit to be priest to be ordained. I do have compassion for all the victims who were effected directly and all the victims who were effected indirectly, but I can't allow this is turn into bitterness directed towards all the good Priest, Bishops, Cardinals, and the Holy Father.


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

Just 0.02. I saw in the discussion a good point. If one opposes use of embryonic stem cell research, then one, in good conscience, should also oppose all in vitro fertilization clinics. Any in vitro process creates multiple embryos, only one of which is implanted, and the rest are destroyed and this is common ever since the beginning of in vitro fertilization.

For researchers, their request at this time is not to create new embryos but to use those embryos created in the clinics that would otherwise be destroyed.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

As a parent you well understand my zero tolerance of child abuse. I don't blame the good parish priests. I do blame the bishops on up, they are the management and they swept it under the rug for financial reasons. Anyway its not the topic of this thread so I think we can agree to drop the discussion.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

> For researchers, their request at this time is not to create new embryos but to use those embryos created in the clinics that would otherwise be destroyed.


Once the financial incentive is there to do so, they will be farming embryos for this purpose which I oppose. This is one tough issue to decide on, I have my doubts that the country has the will to draw the line at the right point.


----------



## Storm (Dec 8, 2004)

Yes, we are getting a little off the topic. Bob I respect you just as much as anyone on this site, so I hope nothing I said offened you.

Indsport,
You are correct if you are against stem cell research than you should be opposed to inveetro clinics. But this is a very difficult area since inveetro is a very common practice and many couples have children from this practice. The last thing they want to hear is that during the the process they killed several children so that they could have one or two. Many people are totally ignorant and the inveetro clinic isn't going to tell them this unless asked. And then it will be sugar coated not to upset them. Bob is right when he points out that researchers won't stop with the supply of eggs in freezers from inveetro clinics. They will then start farming embryos and selling them. Look at California who is now spending millions of tax payers dollars on embryonic stem cell research. Do you think they will stop research after the surplus of emrbyos from inveetro clinics is used up? No.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

I've never really studied or paid much attention to stem cell research and I also have never come to a decision in my own mind as to when life begins. Last night I looked up the definition to embryo and found this......

_em·bry·os
1.
a. An organism in its early stages of development, especially before it has reached a distinctively recognizable form.
b. An organism at any time before full development, birth, or hatching.
2.
a. The fertilized egg of a vertebrate animal following cleavage.
b. In humans, the prefetal product of conception from implantation through the eighth week of development.
3. Botany The minute, rudimentary plant contained within a seed or an archegonium.
4. A rudimentary or beginning stage: _

With this definition I would have to come to the conclusion that there is more involved than just sperm and a egg in a dish. It seems some form of life has been started even if it is outside of the womb. With this in mind I have to agree with TC that if one opposes use of embryonic stem cell research, then one, in good conscience, should also oppose all in vitro fertilization clinics if it means some fertilized eggs are discarded.

I've watched this thread with interest but I must say I now have far more questions in my mind than answers.


----------



## tail chaser (Sep 24, 2004)

Uh Oh! Gohon agrees with me ....Will the sun come up tomorrow?

Just kidding Gohon :lol: :lol: :lol:

I had to look and see if any of these clinics exist in ND and they do in Fargo and Bismarck, if your inclined to protest go ahead.

TC

Shows you how much I know I've been spelling invetro wrong the whole thread.


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

My wife had a bout with a very rare form of border line breast cancer last year. The form she had consisted of less the .5% of all breast cancers and when it reoccured, the 5 year survival rate was somewhere around 20%. She proceeded with radiation treatments, driving 180 miles round trip 5 days a week for six and half weeks. Trust me, there is nothing more she would like to see than a cure for cancer. We had a discussion on this topic last year when she was going through treatment. Trust me there is nothing more either of us would like to see than a cure for cancer. What it boils down to for her, she would never want to see a life lost for hers, she is probably the strongest person I know.


----------



## Storm (Dec 8, 2004)

racer66 you have a good wife. She has a very unselfish mentality. We would all like to see a cure for cancer, but not at the expense of others lives.


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

I hesitate to weigh in on this discussion because it parallels discussions on abortion that have taken place previously. While reading through this thread, I couldn't help but think that some sentences lacked terms such as, "in my opinion" or "according to my religion". For instance (terms inserted by me):



> The reason embryonic stem cell research is tied to abortion is because both acts kill innocent unborn life according to my religion.





> Cloning is bad news in my opinon.





> Inveetro Fertilization is a sin according to my religion...


Get it? All of these statements are based on a particular religious belief that life begins at conception, regardless of whether conception occurs in a uterus or a petri dish.

The value of embryonic stem cells is that they are undifferentiated cells, meaning that they have not received the biochemical cues to differentiate themselves into skin cells, liver cells, brain cells, or any of the other kinds of cells in your body. You see, all cells in our body contain the exact same genetic material. However, what causes a stem cell to become a skin cell or a liver cell is that certain genes are turned on or certain genes are turned off. Many diseases occur because these genetic messages do not work correctly. For instance, cancer arises because cells with genetic errors (cancer cells) do not die like they are supposed to. Studying stem cells will give us a tremendous amount of knowledge about these gentetic cues.

Secondly, because stem cells are undifferentiated cells, we can use them to build new cells (if we knew how to turn certain genes on or off). Therefore, we could grow new skin cells in a petri dish for burn victims or we could create new nervous system cells for spinal cord injuries. Powerful, exciting stuff.

Now, I am Lutheran, not Catholic. Lutherans, like other Protestants, look to the bible for guidance, not to a religious leader like a pope. Therefore, we are not bound by a doctrine from our church leadership. Even if our Bishop presented some sort of religious opinion, any good Lutheran bishop would ask his or her church members to look to the bible for guidance, not to him or her.

This being said, I do not consider a bunch of embryonic stem cells to be a "life". I also do not consider a mass of cells in the first few weeks of pregnancy to be a "life". Therefore, I have no moral opposition to embryonic stem cell research. In fact, I think that it is critically needed.

For those that consider embryos and fetuses a "life", I respect your views. However, please do not try to change my mind. I will also not impose my moral beliefs on you.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

BigDaddy....I couldn't have said it better.


----------



## Storm (Dec 8, 2004)

Bigdaddy,
I won't try to change your mind but I will respond to some statements you made. The whole premise of the pro-life movement is to defend human life. The age old question has always been when does life begin? So I would ask you when does life begin? Is it two weeks after conception, 2 months after conception? Is it when the child is born? Is it when the child is two weeks old? How can you pin point when life begins? Life begins when one sperm and one egg come together, this is an objective truth not anyones opionion. This has nothing to do with a certain religion. I know plenty of Lutherans who believe this, and I know of Catholics who don't believe this. From the time that one sperm connects with one eggs a new life has formed. You have taken two objects 1 sperm, 1 egg and turned it into mortal life that now has a immortal soul. This is an objective truth, and I would challenge anyone to prove otherwise. So my statements are based on objective truth, not subjective opinion.
You also bring up the point of how your Bishop will ask you took to the Bible for guidance. This is very wise advice to look to the Bible for guaidance, but no where in the Bible does it ever state to use the Bible as your only source of guidance. But I can give you several verses that speak of using the Bible plus tradition. For example look up *John 21:25* it states "And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suspose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. Amen." *2 Thessalonians 2:15* states "Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or by our epistle." You could also look up *2 Thessalonians 3:6* is also a good one. The Catholic Church is made up of three parts. First is Scripture (Bible), Secondly Tradition, and the thrid part is the Magisterium, which consist of the College of Cardinals and of course the Pope. I would also point out that I copied each passage out of a King James Version Bible. Which the most widely accepted Protestant Bible.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> Life begins when one sperm and one egg come together, this is an objective truth not anyones opionion. This has nothing to do with a certain religion. I know plenty of Lutherans who believe this, and I know of Catholics who don't believe this. From the time that one sperm connects with one eggs a new life has formed. You have taken two objects 1 sperm, 1 egg and turned it into mortal life that now has a immortal soul. This is an objective truth, and I would challenge anyone to prove otherwise. So my statements are based on objective truth, not subjective opinion.


That's a pretty bold statement to be hinged on objective truth, which I assume to mean moral absolute. Granted our founding fathers gave us a constitution based on unalienable rights from our Creator which was moral absolute and religious leaders give us guidance based on moral absolutes but the bottom line is all this is tied to faith. And faith still regulates your statement to be a opinion which may or may not be shared by others. Isn't that what this is all really about?


----------



## Storm (Dec 8, 2004)

Gohon,
You bring up a good question, and I enjoy good civil dialogue. My statement of life begining at conception is an objective truth. Faith does help us to understand the reality of life to greater extent, however even people without faith can recognize life. There is either life, or there isn't life. It is an objective truth based on scientific fact. If it isn't life than what is it?


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Storm, I'll give you one thing you know you religion a lot better than I. I have a lot of respect for your opinion and even more for your level of conviction. This issue is really tough for me, like Gohon I can't really make up my mind about it.


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

Storm wrote:



> From the time that one sperm connects with one eggs a new life has formed. You have taken two objects 1 sperm, 1 egg and turned it into mortal life that now has a immortal soul.


Again, I will add, "in your opinion" to these statements.

This statement raises the obvious question: Do other creatures besides humans have a soul? My church states that they do not. Why? The theological answer relates to divine intervention and the fact that God created humans in his image. However, I would also argue that the reason is because other creatures cannot reason. Because they cannot reason, they cannot make conscious decisions to do good or evil.

Can a fetus or embryo make conscious decisions? The answer is no.

You are right in the fact that this debate centers on when "life" begins. I am a scientists, and this question is about "what is life" is covered in every introductory biology course.

There are several characteristics of a living organism. These are: A) it has cellular organization, B) it grows and develops through metabolic processes, C) it reproduces, D) it has organized and specific responses to environmental stimuli, and E) it has heredity, meaning that it inherits certain traits from its former generation and passes certain traits onto its offspring through genes.

An embryo or early-stage fetus meets all of these criteria above except "D", although this is debatable as well.

My question is, when does an organism have a soul? You claim that this occurs when a sperm fertilizes an egg. Isn't there a need for consciousness here? Consciousness and reason are what separate humans from beasts.

Many, many pregnacies end within the first few weeks of conception. Most times, the woman does not even know that she is pregnant. The concepted fetus is sloughed off in something resembling a heavy menstrul flow. Question: Have you ever attended a funeral for such a "life"? Where are the last rites?

I still believe that there is something drastically different about an embryo or early-stage fetus and aborting a fetus in the second or third trimester.

Last, I truly respect your Catholic beliefs. The Catholic church should be commended for its traditions. However, my church teaches that we are ALL sinners. Nobody, including our clergy or church leaders, are any more holy than any of the rest of us. Therefore, the Pope's directives mean nothing to me because I do not believe that the Pope has any special line of communication with God. You likely belief that he does. However, please remember that "because the Pope said so" will not sway my opinion.


----------



## Storm (Dec 8, 2004)

Bigdaddy,
It's nice to hear back from you. You mentioned that you are a scientiest, I would be interested to hear what kind of scientific field you work in? I can see why you would find this topic interesting. 

You are exactly right when asking the question, "when does human life obtain an immortal soul?" The key word is immortal. St Thomas Aquinas taught that all animals have a soul, but only humans have an immortal soul. Immortal meaning that our soul is going to live forever, either in heaven or hell.

I have heard similar arguments such as yours why early forms of life aren't really considered life. Your argument is that human life only becomes life with a immortal soul when that life can reason.

I have to respectfully disagree and I will give my argument why. The definition of reason in Webster's Dictionary states "The ability to think logically, to understand, and to draw inferences." I don't know of any fetuses that can reason. I don't know of any one year old children that can draw inferences. I have done some work in a childrens center working with severly and profoundly handicapped children ranging in age from 6-19. Most of them can't understand or reason. Do these children not have an immortal soul? If you are injuried in a car accident and you are in a comma and loose the ability to reason, have you lost your immortal soul? When you go to sleep and are in a semiconcious state without the ability to reason at that moment, have you lost you immortal soul? The answer to all the questions above is NO. Human life at every stage has an immortal soul.

Yes, Bigdaddy you are right some women do miscarry very early in their pregnancy. The concepted fetus will be sloughed off during a heavy menstrul flow. If a women didn't know she was pregnant, then I'm quite certain there wouldn't be a funeral, or last rites. Your statement does bring up another very interesting topic that I have refrained from writing about, but will now mention. Oral contraception or better known as the "pill" is used as a preventative measure from getting pregnant, but in a small percentage of the time it is used as an abortifacient. This meaning it can also cause an abortion very early on in a pregnancy. Most people using the "pill", don't know this and it isn't something the phamacutical companies like to share. This is also another reason why the Cathlolic Church is against conctraception, but this isn't the only reason.

You are also right that we are all sinners. The Catholic Church also teaches that we are all sinners. It was widely known that John Paul II went to confession on a regular basis, as did Mother Teresa. Not saying that they were huge sinners, but they took advantage of this Sacrament to obtain graces and hopefully be a better person as many Catholics do.
I will only make a brief statement about the Pope. The Catholic Church teaches that the Pope is the vicar of Christ on Earth. This doesn't mean that he is perfect and doesn't sin, it means that Jesus Christ new that there would be a Church established on Earth for the people after he was gone, and this Church would need a leader. Just like an good organization needs a leader to give guidance. The Scriptural basis for the Pope is found in several areas but I will give the most recognized. *Mathew 16:18,19 *In Jesus' words "And I say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of Hades (Hell) shall not prevail against it. And I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
The newly installed Pope Benedict the XVI is the 265th Pope in succession after Peter.


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

Storm:

I am an environmental toxicologist with degrees in toxicology, biology, and chemistry.

In my last post, I pointed out that both reason and consciousness should be considered when deciding when life begins. I would argue that even newborns have consciousness and reason. Even a newborn understands that if they cry, they get fed. If they reach out, they will feel something. See, they can make inferences and understand these basic concepts. They are conscious beings... they are human beings with a soul.

Even a young child can understand the difference between right and wrong. Therefore, even if they do not understand the Word, they understand that what is and is not good behavior. They understand how they can hurt others. Therefore, they understand sin and not doing what is expected of them. They are conscious beings... they are human beings with a soul.

Does an embryo have a soul? Is it a conscious being that can understand the difference between right and wrong? I contend that it has the potential to have a soul, but it has not yet reached that stage. Therefore, it is a stretch to call it a "life", just as it is a stretch to call my sperm a life regardless of whether they have fertilized an egg. They have the potential to form a life, but they are not in fact a "life".

Does a person lose their soul when they suffer an accident and becomes unconscious without brain function? Of course not. However, their soul was formed and shaped long before they reached that stage. That soul will be released once life ceases.

My comments on the Pope were simply to reflect the fact that Lutherans look to themselves and to the Word for guidance, not to our religious leaders per se. When we seek forgiveness, we ask God, not a priest. When we pray for safe travel, we pray to God, not to Saint Christopher. Any person who believes in the Word is allowed to offer sacraments to congregational members because all believers (clergy or not) are seen as equal. Furthermore, ALL sinners are allowed (no, encouraged) to partake in communion at any time. This is not necessarily the case in the Catholic church. In fact, I recall recently when a priest told his congregration that those with pro-choice beliefs were not welcome to partake in communion. This is flat out wrong, in my opinon.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> In fact, I recall recently when a priest told his congregration that those with pro-choice beliefs were not welcome to partake in communion. This is flat out wrong, in my opinon.


I whole heartedly agree. These are the people who need communion. I don't think God would deny forgiveness, what makes a priest think he can?

Well, even as a scientist myself I find this confusing. Of all the scientists I know some change their definition of life when it comes to abortion and stem cell research. Up to that point they consider single cell animals (that don't think) life. Try tell a botanist that the grasses and flowers of the great plains are not alive.

We say an embryo is not alive if it can not live on its own. By this definition 800 taxa , 56 genera, in 8 families of parasitic plants both holoparstic and hemiparstic are not forms of live. Then there are all the parasitic animals from the protozoan and amoeba diseases that prey on us, to ticks , fleas, tapeworms and leeches. Speaking of tapeworms, then we have asexual reproduction in animals. Of course we would call this parthenogenesis. Kind of like virgin birth I guess.

We recognize many stages of life in the insect world. Common beetles (Coleoptera) have an egg stage, a larvae stage, a pupal stage, and finally an adult stage. Many forms of insects go through complete metamorphosis, yet we consider then alive at each a stage of their life cycle, including the egg. Funny how we change our mind to fit our situations.

This doesn't solve anything, but it gives us more things to think about. I am not becoming convinced, the more we talk the more confused I am becoming. Help.


----------



## Storm (Dec 8, 2004)

Bigdaddy,

I would love to talk to you about your job. Sounds very interesting. But I will stay on the topic at hand.

You argue that a human life doesn't obtain a immortal soul until they have the capability of reason with consciousness. On what premise do you base this argument on? Why would human life need consciousness with some capability of reasoning power to have an immortal soul?

I can give you my argument why human life begins at conception and why it is at this time that human life has an immortal soul. A sperm and egg are living organisms, but do not have immortal souls. We both agree on this. When both reproductive cells come together, they form one organism called a zygote. At the time of conception, this zygote/embryo containes all the DNA needed to form a mature human being. Bigdaddy, as a biologist I am sure you are aware of this. All that is needed is time and nurturing. Its only logical to assume that if this embryo obtains all the DNA needed to grow into a mature adult human being at conception, than this is also when the person obtains an immortal soul.

The Catholic Church teaches that every mortal sin committed must be confessed to a Priest to receive absolution, thus bringing the person back into good graces. This is called the Sacrament of Reconciliation. Many people including some Catholics don't understand the meaning of Reconciliation. I will also give scriptural evidence for this. The Church teaches that when you commit a sin it is either venial or mortal. Venial sins are minor in nature where as mortal sins are grave in matter. An example of this would be if I say a cuss word out of frustration, I have committed a venial sin. If I commit adultry, I have committed a mortal sin. Once we have committed a mortal sin we are no longer in a state of grace. To get back into this state a person must confess their sins to a priest. We are confessing our sins to a priest who is acting in _Persona Christi._Which means the Holy Spirit is working the priest to give you absolution. Certain things must take place for it to be a valid confession. The person has to name all mortal sins committed and also the number of times committed. The person has to be truely sorry, and the person has to try not to commit them again. Then the person will offer an act of contriction and the priest will give a penance and then absolution. Penance means a small punishment, which usually involves saying prayers or something on that line, but not always. So Catholics do also believe in asking God for forgiveness, but we are required to go through a priest acting in _Persona Christi_.
The question of why Catholics "pray to Saints," is also often misunderstood. We aren't praying to Mary or any other Saint. We are asking them to pray for us. Much like if I ask you to pray for me. Catholics also can pray to God too, and many do. 
The Catholic priest you mentioned who would not allow members of his congregration to receive holy communion that held pro-abortion views is correct. To be outwardly for something that the Church views as a grave matter and a serious sin means that you have seperated yourself from the graces of God and to take Holy Communion would be a sacrilege. You may remember when John Kerry went around the country professing to be Catholic but publically denounced many teachings of the Church, some priest rightly refused him Holy Communion. Some priest allowed it, which was wrong.
Please look up *James 5:16 *" *Confess your trespasses to one another*, and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The effective, fervent prayer of a righteous man avials much."

Read *John 20:23 *Jesus is talking to his Apostles "If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained." Catholic priest are acting in place of Apostles, which would be called Apostolic Succession.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

That was interesting and informative, but we sort of run out of steam didn't we? I wish there were other perspectives because it would help make up our minds on some of the border line things. Part of me wants very much to go ahead with the stem cell research, part of me doesn't trust the medical community not to start farming embryos, and partly it scares the heck out of me because to support it may risk more than life itself. Talk about a rock and a hard spot. Does anyone have fresh new ideas?


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

I agree that this is an interesting discussion, and I thank Storm and Plainsman for keeping it respectful. This discussion eventually arrived at the same place that most discussions do that revolve around life and abortion. Both sides state their cases passionately, and neither one can fathom why the other can't possibly agree with them.

You know, theology is a fascinating thing, and one of my favorite things to do is to have theological discussions, especially with those from different faiths. Maybe we need to rename this forum to the "Politics & Theology" forum.

Politics and theology overlap quite a bit in our country, even with the first Amendment on the books.


----------



## Storm (Dec 8, 2004)

Bigdaddy,
It is nice to have a respectful discussion. I too enjoy discussing theology, even more than politics. Talk to you later.


----------



## pointer99 (Jan 16, 2004)

tail chaser said:


> Bobm sorry about your hair! mine is pretty thin and I just shave the rest, so I know what those scalp burns feel like.


you two are almost old.

i still have most of my hair and some of my teeth. :lol:

pointer


----------

