The end of the stem cell debate as we know it?

on the "approach" with your biblical references. Mine did come from a personal recollection of a Sunday homily a while back. It was a sermon I didn't nap through. I can't say the priest's words were totally clear to me buy I gave my own interpretation. Still, an approach can range from passive to aggressive. My understanding is that our "beacon" was to be visible and attractive.... bring 'em to us without the buttonholing. So, in a sense, that is a form of approach.

And, hey, it worked for the sirens and die lorelei.

Paul seems conflicted, to say the least -- while he has that beautiful passage on marriage you cited, elsewhere he says "it is better to marry than to burn," which certainly doesn't say much for his view of the institution!

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

who were getting distracted from the preaching of the good news of Jehovah?s kingdom. (Mt 24:14) Much of First Corinthians (from which your quote comes) is on that very topic. ?For though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of: for necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel!? (1 Cor 9:16)
?But I speak this by permission, [and] not of commandment. For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn." (7:6 ~ 7:9) [Our bible says "to be inflamed with passion", which is also a distraction.]
And where did that leave Paul? Free to devote full time to his missionary work. It's a rare bible that doesn't have an endpaper map of "Paul's missionary journeys" or some such. Look them over some time, especially in a text that gives references from Acts and Paul's letters. It would have taken a special woman indeed to put up with that particular life, and then Paul would have been distracted with worry about her safety.

We Christians are still cautioned against marrying if that would interfere with serving Jehovah in our "peculiar" way. The people who give us those cautions formally do so "by permission [as a scriptural topic] but not by commandment [specifically from Jehovah at this time]." And compare the case of Jeremiah, in similarly parlous times, whom Jehovah did forbid to marry.

Hi, Cindi.

My apologies if that's your denomination and you're offended by my comment. A couple of the largest (and very conservative) SB churches are here in the Houston area, and I hear their ministers on both the news and occasionally preaching while channel surfing. My understanding is that the Southern Baptist Convention has now split into a more conservative "official" wing (Ed Young of Houston's Second Baptist being one of their leaders), which takes as articles of faith inerrancy and that "wives should be submissive to their husbands," etc. etc. (largely based on Paul, btw). The more liberal wing doesn't believe the latter; I'm not sure about the former, but I think not. In any case, there have been legal battles over the status of one of the Baptist seminaries in the Dallas area, as well as turmoil at Baylor University. If I'm misinformed about any of this (it's by observation, but not ultra-close attention), please feel free to enlighten me.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

word I "drag out" is not mine, but someone else's. (Others feel the same way, perhaps about different authors.) Under my "observer of the human condition" hat I notice so many competing philosophies, many not just mutually exclusive but at each others' throats, that I'm inclined to look for something else. Not even satisfied with my own any more. Anyway, the one I chose is ... my choice. Take it or leave it.
I found nothing objectionable about the thread topic. I also think few others would have an objection, except for the ones Dave and I see as getting excited about any such question. (Not including you. Not even Dave, for a change. )
BTW what will we do when the fray comes to us?

...your credibility, especially for someone that has as much formal education as you claim to have.

First, in your subject line..."there few...people..." should read, "...there are few...people...". In other words, the sentence is lacking a verb.

Second, "...to argue against."...is a slam against "pro-lifers" as you seem to say that pro-lifers, by themselves, are just looking for a "fight". My point is...how many participants does it take to make an argument?

"Who" for people; "that" for things or animals.

Yaaaay! I done won! I done won!

...ain't no "thing" or "animal"...LOL. It would have to be "something" to be a "thing" or "amimal". Maybe I should have said, "...something who has as much..."...LOL

According to this source:
English Grammar and Writing : English language courses, English Grammar Online, Who, whom and which can be replaced by that. This is very common in spoken English.

Personally I prefer the 'someone who' form but either form seems to communicate adequately most of the time.

with some states MANDATING funding of stem cell research, this will be an issue forever as long as "researchers" are getting paid for it.

most of them scores if not hundreds of times what researchers make, though the typical researcher takes 7-10 years after college before one starts making much over the avergae wage (and much over minimum wage if you calculate the pay as "hourly wage!) The typical CEO spends two years in B-school before being hired at a salary substantially higher than the average Assistant Professor. But I gather you think researchers should work for free?

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Most of which produce SOMETHING !!!!!

spontaneous generation? The biotechnology industry is based largely in this country because of the fruits of NIH funding. And then there's The Impact of Biomedical Research Funding on Local Economies.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

between you paying for stem cell research, DM, and a pacifist paying for nuclear weapons? As far as I can see,
it's that one's "us" and the other's "them!"

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

I am not objecting paying for research, as long as it produces results. Be as ridiculous as public funding for GLOBAL WARMING. And the point is, even AFTER it will be shown to be not needed as research, we will still be throwing money away at it.

Interesting. Link?

MJ Fox

Stem cells could rain down from the sky and there would be a debate on the morals of using them for research...

...rational proposition. DK calls it "an argument"...a huge difference in what is supposed to be an intelligent, objective, rational discussion...and THE main reason I don't participate in this forum much anymore. The "zingers" need to stop.

...standards are. Everyone's posts can be read and scrutinized world wide. I would consider that a formal document. But if you don't care how you present CNet and yourself, well, carry on.

As for your dictionary link, I see you very carefully left out the Synonyms and Related Words part of the verbage...like for Synonyms, bicker, brawl, dispute, fall out, fight, hassle, quarrel, row, scrap, spat, squabble, and wrangle...and for Related Words, dare, defy, clash, fuss, nitpick and quibble...all of which give a much more complete meaning of "argue"...and totally more aggresive than "discuss".

As for your "zinger" comment...of course mine was a zinger. But there was a major difference. You initiated yours. Mine was in response. But, my proposition relates to me as well as to you. I don't have double standards. Mine needs to stop as well as yours. But by the mere fact that you called attention to my zinger, you seem to want to justify your zinger. That is your double standard...like your zingers are OK because I made one too...and that's all based on your background and foreground. My "zinger" is wrong too. I don't have double standards. However, your zingers are indiscriminate...like a "shotgun" effect. Mine was like a well aimed rifle shot...directed specifically at you in response to your "shotgun" zinger trashing all Right to Life people. Q.E.D.

...interested in good intellectual discourse. And if you're not, it'll just be your opinion as my opinion will not be in concert with yours. Soooo...carry on...knock yourself out...whatever "floats your boat". You won't get any flack outta me. That little "offensive post" button is, in my opinion, a feel good button for non-worldly, close minded people anyway. For myself, I don't remember ever hittin' the "snich" button (I like to call it the "whine" button). I just don't complain with the snitch function. So, if you gotta complaint with what I said, spit it out and we'll discuss it like two sane, rational, intelligent human beings...that would rival the quality of a good University debate.

not "heaven". Gotcha! We're the TOS police! Put down that bible and step back from the gurney!

I agree with your assessment about the "objections". But are embryonic stem cells actually that much closer to approval? (Medically, I mean, not politically.) BTW I personally have no objection to the adult stem cells already under discussion in medical press. And I understand that they're as close to being useful as the embryonic.

That's exactly what Dave said, and I agreed with him, in my own words.

Otherwise this thread would have mostly medical posts. (Mine was early on: 'Sounds like good news' or words to that effect. That's all my medical knowledge qualifies me to say. Perhaps Dr. Bill will put down his pipette and translate the bulletins for us.)