SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: PROLIFE who wrote (678932)4/12/2005 2:51:07 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670
 
Re:

"POINT ONE : NO HUSBAND WOULD GO OFF AND LIVE WITH ANOTHER WOMAN."

Yeah... That'll never happen. :) (Couples never split-up... not even when one of them is brain dead!)

"POINT TWO: NO HUSBAND WOULD FATHER BASTARD CHILDREN WHILE MARRIED TO ANOTHER WOMAN."

Like Mark Twain once said: 'I hear they have a law against adultery too... but I don't see where it's moderated it any.'

Well, Proconfusion, you outlined what you don't like about the guy... and, since it's a mostly free world, you're welcome to your opinions. (To be *consistent*, though, I'm SURE you feel EXACTLY THE SAME about Gingrich for leaving his wife for a younger woman while she was on her death bed....)

Now that you've vented and expressed your opinions... how about mustering the guts and honesty to try answering the simple questions I posted several times to you concerning the CHANGES to MARRIAGE LAW that you previously PROPOSED?????????

An opinion is just an opinion... but a MAJOR LEGAL CHANGE affects MILLIONS.

What do you say? Care to follow your logic and explain how your proposal to redefine TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE would work?
====================================================

Re: "You don't pull the plug on someone over the objections of family members, certainly not parents."

1) But that's how traditional marriage law has been for many HUNDREDS of years --- dating to before we were even a country, dating to English common law and earlier. When a couple marries, the parent's 'rights' over their actions are voided. The couple become a new whole, bonded to each other.

To change that, to grant rights to parents over their married offspring, you'd have to TOTALLY REDEFINE TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE. It would be a mere shell of what it is now. (Hell, with 'gay marriage' all you've got is *more* people wanting to gain the exact same legal rights that marrieds have today... but if you WIPE AWAY THE LEGAL RIGHTS OF MARRIAGE, then you have redefined to whole thing. It wouldn't be marriage any more, it would be co-habitation. Childhood would NEVER end!)

2) If 'parents gain an over-riding legal control' over their married offspring... then would the grandparents have an over-ride over THOSE decisions? Would the greatgrandparents be able to over-ride even that??????



To: PROLIFE who wrote (678932)4/12/2005 2:56:05 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670
 
In Missouri, GOP is riven over embryonic stem-cell research

By Alan Scher Zagier, Globe Correspondent | April 10, 2005
boston.com

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. -- In January, the Missouri Republican Party gained control of both branches of the state legislature, as well as the governor's mansion. Such a political alignment had not been seen in 84 years.

Among Republicans, early-year expectations of a conservative agenda have been replaced by angst, as a proposal -- to ban a form of embryonic stem-cell research involving cloning -- pits two core constituencies against each other: Forces opposed to abortion are squaring off against business leaders seeking to nurture scientific and medical research industries in Missouri.

Last week, the Missouri Senate shelved a bill that would have banned somatic cell nuclear transfer, or so-called therapeutic cloning. That process is opposed by many, including Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, because they believe it involves creating a human life to destroy it.

Supporters of therapeutic cloning, which is used to harvest stem cells for research, argue that the egg cell used in the procedure is never fertilized and that it will not be implanted in a uterus, so human life is not being created.

State senators debated the measure for six hours without resolution last week. The bill's sponsor, Matt Bartle of suburban Kansas City, resisted calls to compromise or, as some Republicans would have preferred, to drop the proposal entirely.

''It became obvious to me awhile ago that there is more than enough political will to kill this bill," Bartle said in floor debate.

The anti-cloning measure has attracted an array of high-profile opponents, from former US Senator and UN ambassador John Danforth and researchers at Washington University St. Louis to civic and business leaders in Kansas City and the president of the University of Missouri system in Columbia.

Dr. William Nieves, a self-described ''born-again Christian" who heads the Stowers Institute for Medical Research, has told legislators that the institute, which is endowed with more than $2 billion, will forgo an expansion and seek out a location ''more favorable to stem cell research" should the anti-cloning measure pass.

''I completely reject the belief that a few cells in a Petri dish are a human being," Nieves said. ''People have become convinced this is a moral and appropriate way to search for cures to human diseases."

Caught in the middle is Matt Blunt, 34, the new governor, who was viewed as the antiabortion candidate last fall. The son of the US House majority whip, Roy Blunt, Governor Blunt opposes Bartle's measure and favors a ban on human cloning for reproductive purposes. Political observers say that opposition is at the heart of legislators' reluctance to embrace the anti-cloning measure.

''He does not believe it should ban somatic cell nuclear transfer," said Spence Jackson, a Blunt spokesman. ''He believes we should ban reproductive cloning. He believes life science research is vitally important to the future of Missouri's economy. And that is a concern of his in this debate."

Supporters of embryonic stem cell research say adult stem cells offer only limited research prospects, whereas embryonic stem cell research has the potential to combat specific diseases and perhaps even ailments from individual to individual.

Even as the anti-cloning bill lingers in the legislature, word of the proposal is spreading beyond Missouri and hindering efforts to realize that vision, Nieves said. As an example, he cited efforts to recruit two scientists from the Harvard Stem Cell Institute who are hesitant over the possible legal limits their research could face.

''We see the proposed legislation as a threat that would undermine all of our efforts to build a life-sciences industry," said Donn Rubin, executive director of the Coalition for Plant and Life Sciences in St. Louis. ''It would really cut off all of our efforts."

Rubin is also chairman of the Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures, an alliance of more than 60 state and national business, civic, academic, and research groups created to fight the Bartle bill.

Last week's Senate hearing offered a warts-and-all look at the battles in the Missouri Republican Party, with a series of avowed anti-abortion politicians describing the political risks they face by opposing the anti-cloning measure.

''I understand the political realities could cost me my Senate seat," said Senator John Griesheimer, who is against the proposal but said party loyalty would compel him to vote in favor it if it reaches the floor.

Griesheimer was one of many GOP senators fretting over the lack of unity. ''I know the Democrats are salivating over this whole thing," he said. ''It's sad we are fighting among ourselves."

Bartle's staunchest supporters hail from the Missouri Right to Life and the Missouri Catholic Conference. Leaders of both groups assert that the creation and destruction of human embryos in the name of research is no different than the destruction of human life.

They, too, expect political repercussions against anti-abortion Republicans who do not support the anti-cloning bill.

''We were very disappointed this bill didn't come up for an ultimate vote," said Larry Weber, executive director of the Missouri Catholic Conference. ''This is the preeminent threat to early human life we're now facing in our society.

''Many prolife citizens of this state recognize human cloning for what it is," he continued. ''That will probably be something they will carry with them into the voting booth next election."

Roger Wilson, a former Missouri governor who now chairs the state Democratic Party, said that the groups opposed to abortion around the state have ample reason to be angry.

''They've been used like a crowbar for the past two decades in Missouri elections," he said.

''And," Wilson added, ''the Republican Party was willing to use them. I think they've just dropped that group on their head."

While the debate is largely settled in Massachusetts, where legislators have endorsed embryonic stem cell research over Romney's objections, Wilson said he expects the internal rancor on display among Missouri Republicans to play out in state capitals throughout the country.

''I think this will have a political effect in every state," he said. ''This will create the same . . . conflict in other states."