Sojc

That is a common misconception among people opposed to embryonic stem cell research and post-fertilization contraception. The vast majority of embryos that are left alone, will never develop far enough to be born and have "a normal life". Most actually don't survive long enough for a pregnancy to be detected by anything other than high-tech means. The number of days in a woman's cycle when an egg can be fertilized is more than the number of days when the uterus is capable of implanting an embryo. So even in very young women, in whom a majority (but nowhere near all) of eggs are capable of producing a viable embryo, most fertilizations will not result in a baby. In older women the stats are overwhelmingly against a fertilized egg becoming a baby. In women over 40, 90% or more of eggs are defective and will not produce a viable embryo if fertilized. And the older women get, the more of them have more serious endometriosis and fibroids, that interfere with implantation on the rare occasions that a viable embryo lands in the uterus on a day when the uterus could otherwise enable the embryo to implant. The embryos used in embryonic research are the same as the ones that are killed all the time naturally. And I am not for abortion, which I think in most cases is wrong. There is a large difference with human life and potentially human life. Millions of potential human lives are destroyed every day naturally.

Right to die? She could not have lived without a feeding tube. The autospy stated that she could not eaten and had severe atrophy to her digestive system and muscles. Giving terri food and water to her mouth like her parents wanted would not have saved her. She needed nutrients pumped directly into her. Medical technology is moving so fast, is it natural to keep someone alive even if they were vegetated, unconcious, and could not survive by putting food and water in their mouth? Eventually medical technology could make it that we could take people's brain out of their bodies and put in in a replacement human made shell so that they would never die. If people never died would they go to heaven? Would it be natural and god's will? I hate how politics are mixing into this issue. In the past, Terri would have already been with God long ago (hopefully if she were saved) since medical technology could not keep her unaturally alive. There is too much disinformation of both sides of the debate. But too much emphasis is placed on hearsay like "reports" that Terri could see (the autopsy has not shown that Terri was blind due to great atrophy of the visual centres of the brain). Atrophy of half of ones brain mass is not disabling, it is deadly. You cannot regenerate brain matter of that scale. As much as you may not like Michael Schiavo and believe that Terri should have been kept alive, you must use credible evidence to back your claims. Hearsay from unverified sources helps no one. Claims such as Terri's eyes could fallow her parents and that Nurses have talked to her are medically unsubstantiated. Anything can be manipulated, changed, or created. Do you remember playing the telephone game as a child, where people would whisper a secret message across a chain of people and by the end it does not resemble anything like the original?

No. Wait. That can't be true. Because, you see, the family had said all along that Terri didn't have an eating disorder. But Michael insisted that she did! Say it ain't so! Let's see here: They didn't find any evidence of abuse. Well, ge, I wonder why? She had only been laying in a hospital bed for somewhere along the order of TEN YEARS after the initial incident. I would think that those wounds would have healed by then. The orginal admitting report showed that she had signs of trauma consistent with abuse, but the judge didn't allow that evidence into the case. Why is that? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The possibility that crime was the cause of Terri's condition is and always was a seperate matter legally from pulling the plug on Terri. The medical consensus before her death was that Terri was in a persistent vegetated state and could not recover. The autopsy has shown that Terri's brain was 1/2 normal size due to years of atrophy, and she was blind and had no chance of recovery. Whether or not one thinks something could have been done earlier was beside the point, the issue of the case was whether by 2003-2005 she was conscious or had any chance of recovery. As much as it is hard to admit, Terri's husband was essentially right about her state, even if he did cause it (which I am not inclined to believe).

Michael Jackson got off because he is white... err black... err white... err black...

Hmm, lots of pieces that don't fit. These are just a few that bug me: 1. Why did building #7, a building that was very wide and relatively short, collapse so perfectly like a controled demolition? Buildings between tower #7 and the two main world trade towers recieved more damage but did not collapse. 2. If pennsylvania flight 93 crashed like was reported, then why was its debris spread over 7 miles? And also why was there a "blooper" where Rumsfeld said "we shot it down".

John Gibson chimes in... http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,152117,00.html Interesting ideas, but I ask the question: Do ends ever justify the means to god?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,152020,00.html I hear that they were smuggled out to syria. Why does Bush not push this lead? His original aim was to morally get rid of WMDs from Islamic extremists (Syria has much more involvement with Islamic terrorism than Iraq ever had).

God help us all if everybody thinks like that. God made us responsible for the earth like a good sheperd is with his flock. With that attitude there would soon be a sick flock or no more flock.

This is not surprising at all. The US supported Saddam Hussein and even Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan before it was "realized" that they were a problem.

Good analogy, if a cop searches a drug dealers home and nothing is there, then nothing happens to the drug dealer (the parralels to Iraq are obvious). There are many good reasons why Iraq/Syria was bad, however by blaming it on an issue as flimsey as WMDs is dishonest and lawyerly.

some are... Saddam and Syria have proven themselves guilty many times over. Let them prove their innocence if they can. ...or at least they should have let inspectors do it if they didn't want the consequences. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well if it were so obvious that they were guilty, it should be easy to prove that they are guilty again. The US entered Iraq with flimsey WMD evidence. They have even flimsier evidence for Syria. Yod, I have nothing against you, but I really think that the attitude of guilty until proven innocent is un-christian and un-american.

But Syria would surely tell us if they were hiding Saddam's arsenal, right? My point is that just because Saddam/Syria don't publish the location of their WMDs does NOT mean they don't have any. Obviously they do.... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> That is not the right mindset to think in. It is your job to prove, not disprove. Are people guilty until proven innocent? That is not very christian method of judgement in my opinion. Judge not lest ye be judged.

WMDs in Syria? http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,144623,00.html

You mean attacks like this? t. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Exactly Arguements get nowhere and fast since all that happens is people get emotional and unwilling to see what the other person is saying.

Man, 90% of people on this thread need to take a philosophy class. They don't know how to argue without ad hominem attacks, begging the question, ad absurdium, and an appeal to pathos.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,144623,00.html

I think their opinion is that although Saddam was no good, replacing Saddam does not make the US to look good by being better than Saddam if they still are doing bad things. To them its about self-determination and mistrust about US run Iraqi elections. It is similar to the mentality of the American Revolutionaries. Although Iraqis may think that the US could do a decent job, they believe Iraq could do a better job for herself (even if it takes a civil war). No flaming me, I only am saying what I think they are thinking.

Could you be more gullable? This is just propaganda. If you consider this "good" insight, and you believe the nonsense on this recording, I have the Brooklyn Bridge up for sale... just make me an offer. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Me? All I said was that this video was a good insight into THEIR mentality. You gotta keep your guns in your holster.

Sorry, however I am just peaking relatively to the "other" videos. The picture of the dried dead guy looks mild compared to what we are taught about the holocaust.

A video put out by an Iraqi resitance group. (it is NOT a bloody or gorey video for those of you who are sqeemish, except for a picture with a dried casualty of war). Good insight into their mentality. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7468.htm