Whaaaaaaatt???? What's happening in Canada??

[Stephanas]

Originally Posted by TRIPLE E

From the looks of the Canadian dollar Canada is doing a pretty good job standing on it's own.The US on the other hand.... well

The Canadian loon is close to achieving parity with the US dollar for the first time since November of 1976. Did you get that? For thirty years Canadian dollars and Pesos couldn't buy a "drab" American dollar.

We can make it clear with a single question. If you are to be a given a bond with a twenty year maturity date. Do you want it in US dollars or Canadian loons?

[Rachel]

Originally Posted by Stephanas

Facts, friend, nothing but facts.

*grin*

[Stephanas]

Originally Posted by TRIPLE E

Hmmmmmm and I thought all along the US was the world leader in moral decay but eh I could be wrong!

Canada has same sex marriage.

The Liberals' controversial same-sex marriage legislation has passed final reading in the House of Commons, sailing through in a 158-133 vote.
Supported by most members of the Liberals, the Bloc Québécois and the NDP, the legislation passed easily, making Canada only the third country in the world, after the Netherlands and Belgium, to officially recognize same-sex marriage.
But the passage of Bill C-38, once again, came with a political price tag for the government. Joe Comuzzi, resigned from the cabinet so he could vote against the bill – an open rebuke of the government legislation.

The USA has the Defense of Marriage Act

The first section states that for purposes of federal law, marriage means a legal union between a man and a woman:
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word "marriage" means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word "spouse" refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

[Stephanas]

Originally Posted by Bullwinkle

Here's a thought for our US buddy - unreal that this still is happening in the US of A today. Move over Jim Crow, Stephanas is lining up beside you. Nice prosecutor! What's up with blacks having to ask permission to meet under the "whites" oak tree? Great to see civil rights progress in action! Got to love the deadly weapon these kids are charged with using - tennis shoes - ROTFL. Then the attempted murderee was at a school function that evening. This makes the US a laughingstock in the modern world.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20218937/site/newsweek/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlates...936088,00.html

Racism is not an American problem. Racism is a human problem. Why don't you Google Amnesty International's view of Canada's treatment of its indigenous people. Do you want me to find links for disgraceful examples of racism in Canada and post them here? Would that prove anything other than humans are sinners?

[Maple Leaf]

Originally Posted by Rachel

I understand the moral and ethical objections behind abortion and embryonic stem cell research. Abortion, unfortunately, is going to happen - right or wrong, legal or not. I think it's possible to use the cells and retain credibility - it's more than likely a fine line.. But I would, with the science background, rather use the cells for good instead of just discarding them. Not only is it a disregard for human life but a complete waste not once, but twice.

Thanks for a thought provoking post.

I would like to separate consideration of stem cells harvested from aborted fetuses and those obtained from discarded embryos that are left over from fertility clinics (Test tube babies for want of a better shorthand description).

From my perspective, abortion is Canada's greatest crime, an affront to our shared humanity. It is morally and spiritually repugnant to murder an unborn child in the sanctuary of its mother's womb. I have no doubt that you share my conviction that abortion is absolutely wrong. Our ethical discussion is not focused on the abortion debate, but on the use of aborted fetuses for the benefit of science, and ultimately for the benefit of those suffering from diseases that may be cured by stem cell therapy.

While sympathizing with your view, I do have some serious reservations with the use of stem cells from aborted babies for scientific or therapeutic purposes.

You say, quite logically, "But I would, with the science background, rather use the cells for good instead of just discarding them. Not only is it a disregard for human life but a complete waste not once, but twice." I would counter with the assertion that turning the tiny corpses of these slaughtered babies into a supply line for laboratories continues the disregard for human life that was begun in the abortionist's clinic. I have difficulty seeing research as the redemption of a tragic death, and am more inclined to see it as a second indignity upon a human body.

In what way is using the stem cells from aborted babies different than using the bodies of the victims of history's genocides for scientific research? I don't think that we would endorse the use of the Holocaust's victims for scientific research. Why would aborted babies be afforded less respect?

Perhaps it is impossible to discuss the ethics of stem cell research using the bodies of aborted babies apart from the discussion of the nature of abortion. The point of contention between the secular perspective and the spiritual perspective is centered on the description of the aborted fetus. If the aborted fetus is a collection of cells with the potential of becoming a human being, then our ethical perspective will be much different than if we view the aborted fetus as a human being.

Again, thanks for introducing a thought provoking topic, and I apologize for any emotionally charged language in my post. (I'm a preacher. I can't help it.)

[TRIPLE E]

Originally Posted by Stephanas

Facts, friend, nothing but facts.

I don't know where you get your "facts" but I suppose you are probably among the certain percentage of your population that believe we have snow all year long in Canada and we all live in igloos. lol

[TRIPLE E]

Originally Posted by Maple Leaf

While sympathizing with your view, I do have some serious reservations with the use of stem cells from aborted babies for scientific or therapeutic purposes.

You say, quite logically, "But I would, with the science background, rather use the cells for good instead of just discarding them. Not only is it a disregard for human life but a complete waste not once, but twice." I would counter with the assertion that turning the tiny corpses of these slaughtered babies into a supply line for laboratories continues the disregard for human life that was begun in the abortionist's clinic. I have difficulty seeing research as the redemption of a tragic death, and am more inclined to see it as a second indignity upon a human body.

In what way is using the stem cells from aborted babies different than using the bodies of the victims of history's genocides for scientific research? I don't think that we would endorse the use of the Holocaust's victims for scientific research. Why would aborted babies be afforded less respect?

Perhaps it is impossible to discuss the ethics of stem cell research using the bodies of aborted babies apart from the discussion of the nature of abortion. The point of contention between the secular perspective and the spiritual perspective is centered on the description of the aborted fetus. If the aborted fetus is a collection of cells with the potential of becoming a human being, then our ethical perspective will be much different than if we view the aborted fetus as a human being.

Very thought provoking subject ,I feel the same way as you ML on this subject.

[Maple Leaf]

Originally Posted by Rachel

I understand the moral and ethical objections behind abortion and embryonic stem cell research. Abortion, unfortunately, is going to happen - right or wrong, legal or not. I think it's possible to use the cells and retain credibility - it's more than likely a fine line.. But I would, with the science background, rather use the cells for good instead of just discarding them. Not only is it a disregard for human life but a complete waste not once, but twice.

These are definitely hard questions but since they will be discarded, why not advocate for some good to come out of it? Maybe it does seem a bit contradictory but to just allow for the embryos to be discarded is not helping the declaration of sanctity of life. Perhaps some might argue it's the lesser of two evils .. for the embryos to be casually produced to begin with and then discarded. They will be made, they will be discarded - it's not right that they produced in numbers where many of them will sit unused but full of potential and then discarded years later but it's going to happen. We won't stop that - but I'm just advocating some good to come out of it, although highly unlikely with the legalities involved with embryos.

The second issue and one that I find intriguing is the use of embryos produced for in vitro fertilization that are slated to be discarded.

I guess that the first issue we would have to resolve is our view of these embryos. Do we regard them as human beings, or as something less than a human being. Does artificially produced conception that occurs outside of the womb produce a life that we must defend as sacred. The answer to this question will form our view of the use of these embryos for stem cell research.

I think that one issue that would differentiate this debate from the discussion of the use of aborted fetuses is the very nature of the artificially produced embryo. The fetus in the womb is a viable life while the embryo in the test tube is not without direct intervention.

I think that we're going to need Rachel to bring us up to speed on the issues and ethics around this topic.

[TopDog]

Originally Posted by Stephanas

• After more than 100 years of Confederation Canada is still hiding behind the skirts of the Monarchy, too insecure to stand on its own.
  
  
• Decades of leftist liberal governments have so decimated the Canadian military that Canada must leave the heavy lifting internationally to its neighbors.
  
  
• An unrealistic socialistic medical system has overburdened tax payers who are forced to flee to the south for relief. Working Canadians are forced to provide free medical care to people too lazy to work.
  
  
• Canada harbors a whole province of traitors and coddles them in the name of national unity. Quebec pipes the tune and Canada dances to it every time.
  
  
• Canada is a world leader in moral decay, second only to Holland in its headlong rush for the sewers. Homosexuals have the right to marry and Christians have the right to be quiet about it.

And for the first time in thirty years Canada's dollar is almost equal to the American dollar, big deal!

Hmmmmm - interesting. You must BE a Canadian, because very few American's educational "reach" extends beyond knowledge about their own county and sheriff.

[BoredOutOfMyMind]

Originally Posted by TRIPLE E

I don't know where you get your "facts" but I suppose you are probably among the certain percentage of your population that believe we have snow all year long in Canada and we all live in igloos. lol

The Greenhouse gasses from the US Industrial Complex have warmed the Earth to where they now are actually selling Eskimos Freezers!


I was skeptical at first myself until I read it

Here