Does it really Matter???

[AG_jr]

I got into a debate today regarding the upcoming election of the POTUS.

1) I was trying to explain why I believe religion does not have a place in politics, therefore, the religion of the candidate should be of no consequence. The other person kept trying to argue that they would trust a "Christian" more than a non-christian to be president, because they have morals, and that's why we should all vote republican, because democrats don't have morals. (Their wording, not mine.) Personally, I find this argument completely ridiculous. I am a Christian, but a candidate's religion doesn't affect my choice. Like I said, I feel religion has no place in politics. Thoughts?

2) The above debate spurred a side-debate about stem-cell research (inevitably). I am of the opinion that if the stem cells come from an ALREADY aborted baby, it shouldn't matter. The other person's argument is that saying it doesn't matter if the stem cells come from an aborted baby is supporting abortion. The fact is, the baby is ALREADY DEAD. If not stem cell research, the only other purpose it serves is to take up space in the trash (I know that sounds cold-hearted, but that's the truth). THAT is why I don't have a problem using aborted babies for stem cell research. Thoughts?

[AG_jr]

Oh yeah...Ron Paul for President.

[Bigdog13]

Oh yeah...Ron Paul for President.

Yes. Ron Paul. (a Christian :icon_wink

[AG_jr]

Yes. Ron Paul. (a Christian :icon_wink

I actually wasn't aware that he is a Christian. The person I was debating today said that for me to NOT vote for Huckabee is to NOT support christianity.

[JuBru]

1) Morality doesn't come from Chrisitanity. It was around before Christianity, it will be around after it. Being Chrisitan does not equate to being moral. Being non-Christian does not equate to be non-moral. Many other religions and those without share the same morals, many don't. You have to take the individual for what they are.

2) I don't know enough about stem cell research to support or be against it.

[Bigdog13]

I actually wasn't aware that he is a Christian. The person I was debating today said that for me to NOT vote for Huckabee is to NOT support christianity.

That's silly.

[Red's Better]

On topic 1. I am also a Christian and I do agree with you for the most part. If you will refer back to the Bible, Jesus would not weigh in on political matters. And as far as the republican, democrat statement, well that is the single dumbest thing I have ever heard and I am now dumber for having read that. However, I do think that it is important that we continue the values our country was founded upon, and those are Christian values, but if you believe different you are still welcome. The basis of why this country was formed.

[9701Dawg]

Am I the only one supporting Fred Thompson?

[Guisslapp]

(1) Religion is a non-factor to me unless I have reason to believe that a candidate's religion is going to influence his/her policy in a negative way.

(2) I support the use of aborted fetus stem cells in stem cell research.

[randerizer]

1) I was trying to explain why I believe religion does not have a place in politics, therefore, the religion of the candidate should be of no consequence. The other person kept trying to argue that they would trust a "Christian" more than a non-christian to be president, because they have morals, and that's why we should all vote republican, because democrats don't have morals. (Their wording, not mine.) Personally, I find this argument completely ridiculous. I am a Christian, but a candidate's religion doesn't affect my choice. Like I said, I feel religion has no place in politics. Thoughts?

See the Huck Sucks thread. I'm not sure a former "Christian" pastor has "morals." I mean, he LIED to the media and in the debates (to the public) about having a theology degree! :icon_wink: I would tend to look at track records. If a candidate has lied about a position, if a candidate has said one thing and done another, etc., that is a sign of a candidate that you shouldn't trust. I'd rather trust a track record than someone's religion ANY day. Guess who wins here?

2) The above debate spurred a side-debate about stem-cell research (inevitably). I am of the opinion that if the stem cells come from an ALREADY aborted baby, it shouldn't matter. The other person's argument is that saying it doesn't matter if the stem cells come from an aborted baby is supporting abortion. The fact is, the baby is ALREADY DEAD. If not stem cell research, the only other purpose it serves is to take up space in the trash (I know that sounds cold-hearted, but that's the truth). THAT is why I don't have a problem using aborted babies for stem cell research. Thoughts?

I'm of the opinion that "aborted baby" is a contradiction in terms. :icon_wink: There might be an argument that supporting stem-cell research legitimizes abortion. Likewise, there is probably an argument that paying OB-GYN's probably legitimizes abortion as well. I am of the opinion that there should be no federal funding for stem-cell research (or any other research for that matter). However, as long as the federal government continues to consider itself the funding source for R&D for medical markets, it is a poor practice for it to exclude stem-cell research from its R&D plate. If there is a moral question, that is a good reason for it to start cutting its R&D programs (and not spend the money elsewhere), so the market can allocate it appropriately.

[THEarmada]

Embryonic stem cells don't come from aborted babies in the sense of a late first trimester/second trimester abortion. The stem cells come from a fertilized egg that's about 1 week old (before most women know they're pregnant). So the greater debate is In Vitro Fertilization and the use of frozen embryos. But I'm confident that science is on the verge of not needing embryonic stem cells. We'll be able to stimulate cells to dedifferentiate or get bone marrow stem cells to differentiate into other tissue by using various chemical compounds.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...082101180.html

[Bigdog13]

Haven't they recently been finding results from mature stem cells that are actually more promising than the results they have been finding in the line of stems derived from fetuses??

I have heard that often lately and not from Christian sources either. If true it should end this argument.

But like Randerizer said the Federal Government shouldn't be funding anything like this. It is a poor argument to say well since they are we should fund this or that. If the bottom line is they shouldn't be than they shouldn't be. Period. And BTW I think they shouldn't be funding it from both a Christian and non-Christian POV.

[Bigdog13]

Embryonic stem cells don't come from aborted babies. The stem cells come from a fertilized egg that's about 1 week old. So the greater debate is In Vitro Fertilization and the use of frozen embryos. But I'm confident that science is on the verge of not needing embryonic stem cells. We'll be able to stimulate cells to dedifferentiate or get bone marrow stem cells to differentiate into other tissue by using various chemical compounds.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...082101180.html

That link was exactly what I was talking about. Thanks Armada.

[AG_jr]

Another thing to bring to the discussion. The person I was debating kept arguing that manipulating stem cells and other kinds of genetic manipulation is "playing God". How so? I am of the opinion that if you have the ability to do something, then you are not "playing God", merely maximizing your potential of using your talents/abilities.

[Bigdog13]

I think the argument is that creating life for the purpose of destroying it is wrong. Destroying a life to help another person have a better or longer life is wrong. I don't want to get into the when does life begin argument again on this board anymore than I want to play 77 games of Tic-Tac-Toe in a row. But that is the argument.

Like I said earlier though I think science is getting to the point where that will not even be necessary soon.