Dogmatic Interference

I'm a little confused here, are you trying to make the case that life cannot begin at conception, or is are you making an argument for something in a lab called a "culture of life". Forgive my confusion, but I want to make sure I understand your meaning here.

when it is clear no such “life at conception” exists.

No, that is not clear and is at the center of the controversy.  Unti, such time as it can be made clear (doubtful anytime soon), then the controversy will continue.

If I was in doubt, I would still err on the side of life.  That way, shuld it go either way, I have not advocated the killing of innocent life.

Ted2k: I'm simply using the Catholic belief of "conception" requiring a womb as opposed to cell cultures that will never be implanted.

Doc: Whether life is at conception or some other interval is not the point, which is the embryo in a lab is outside the womb.

Doc: Whether life is at conception or some other interval is not the point, which is the embryo in a lab is outside the womb.

But you madeit a point by stating something as fact, when it still is not clear it is fact.  The truth of my position is I dont know.  But I know it has not been established yet either way.

The Lord told Jeremiah, that before he was formed in the womb, that He knew Jermiah and before he came out of the womb God sanctified and ordained him to be a prophet unto the nations. Jermiah 1:5 An it came to pass.

The psalmist said that our substance is not hid from God, when we are made in secret (womb) and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. God's eyes even saw our substance, yet being unperfect; and in His book were all of our members written, which were in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them. Psalm 139:15-16

These two verses from God's Word tells us that not only is he aware of our being (life) , even while we are still in our mother's womb, but He sets some apart for His service.

stevendedalus quote "it is clear no such “life at conception” exists"

God's Word vehemently disagrees with your quote, therefore so do I.

preacherman

it is clear no such “life at conception” exists is referenced to the laboratory and not a criticism of Catholic dogma.

Either way, I'll go with the biological definition of "life" over any political one:

1) Has genetic material (DNA, etc) unique to species and organism
2) Controls its own metabolism

I don't care about cosmetics or function, if an organism has DNA consistent with Homo Sapiens, it's DNA is unique to itself and has its own metabolism, it is human (homo sapien).

Of course, if in the lab, those requirements are not present, then it isn't.

it is clear no such “life at conception” exists is referenced to the laboratory and not a criticism of Catholic dogma.

That is why I said I dont know.  But while you know what has yet to be established, I admit to my ignorance.

I'll go with the biological definition of "life" over any political one

I'll go with the Biblical one.

preacherman

Hmmm...makes ya think, don't it?

Probably because nothing has come from the few lines of Fetal Stem cells that they were allowed to use, versus stem cells from other sources.

I'll go with the Biblical one. preacherman

I'll go with the biblical also, but it doesn't cover what we will be facing before too long.

Yes, because of what the Lord told Jeremiah, we know that life begins at conception. However, we are approaching a time when human life can be procreated without a womb.

The biological definition precludes dehumanizing someone because they were cloned, conceived in a test tube, or even brought to full term in a lab.

It has done no such thing. It has simply chosen not to fund it, due to our population's inability to come to an agreement on the argument being played out above.."when does life begin?"

True, the idea that the government not funding is a "ban" is merely an extension of the "entitlement" mentality.

The ironic part of it all is, the liberals blame Prs. Bush for stifling progress by not funding stem-cell research, yet he is the only president who has ever recommended that any federal funding occur.

The idea that there is a ban on stem cell research is just another example of people basing their opinion on ignorance!

Ted2k:California has not banned it. Granted Bush did not go ballistic over embryonic cells, allowing a few to be analyzed, he nonetheless severely limited it and its funding, which is always at the base of his motives and has left it to the states and private enterprise. As most here agree, including me, little is done without the backing of the federal government--particularly in this case where there is no proof that it will succeed.

If the potential is so great, why aren't the giant, greedy, corporate pharmacuedical companies willing to fund the research themselves?

Good point; the profit is questionable when research is in its infancy[pardon the pun]. If, however, we left it to private enterprise there would not have been a man on the moon.

Of course, if in the lab, those requirements are not present, then it isn't.

There wouldn't be much point in the research if liver, kidney, heart cells were not from a "human" DNA chain.

 

As most here agree, including me, little is done without the backing of the federal government--particularly in this case where there is no proof that it will succeed

People put there money into what they think is important. If all those who want to see stemcell research move forward aren't willing to put their money where their rhetoric is, then apparently stemcell research doesn't really have that much support.

If scientific research has become nothing more than another government program, then how is the researcher any different than any of the "greedy" corporations that vie for taxpayer dollars to survive?

then how is the researcher any different

Yes, there are many infractions by university researchers who take from the government at the same time they receive corporation kick-backs. 

Yes, there are many infractions by university researchers who take from the government at the same time they receive corporation kick-backs.

Not exactly what I meant. I mean, if our scientific research is so reliant on taxpayer funding, how are they any different than any corporation that does the same thing, yet we are supposed to view the corporation as an evil money grubbing monster, but not the researchers.

To me, most of the R&D that goes on should be privately funded. I mean, if Joe Snuffy University Labs finds a cure for cancer, who gets the patent rights, the taxpayers who funded the research, the govenment who authorized the funding, or Joe Snuffy University? We pay the costs, they get the profits.

That's what I meant.

Theoretically there should be NO profits. But, yes, I get your meaning.