A A A A Search :
Toledo Talk   (musing about Lake Erie West and beyond)
From FatBabe44's workspace   

Take this as a warning sign

I cringe at this information because it's just what Hitler tried to do to the human race - create perfection (aka Genetic Cleansing). If this doesn't concern you, it should. This is how that kind of mentality takes hold - very quietly and in small steps disguised as being for "the greater good".

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080512/D90KBJH00.html

NEW YORK (AP) - News that scientists have for the first time genetically altered a human embryo is drawing fire from some watchdog groups that say it's a step toward creating "designer babies."

But an author of the study says the work was focused on stem cells. He notes that the researchers used an abnormal embryo that could never have developed into a baby anyway.

"None of us wants to make designer babies," said Dr. Zev Rosenwaks, director of the Center for Reproductive Medicine and Infertility at NewYork-Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center.

The idea of designer babies is that someday, scientists may insert particular genes into embryos to produce babies with desired traits like intelligence or athletic ability. Some people find that notion repugnant, saying it turns children into designed objects, and would create an unequal society where some people are genetically enriched while others would be considered inferior.

The study appears to be the first report of genetically modifying a human embryo. It was presented last fall at a meeting of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, but didn't draw widespread public attention then. The result was reported over the weekend by The Sunday Times of London, which said British authorities highlighted the work in a recent report.

Rosenwaks and colleagues did the work with an embryo that had extra chromosomes, making it nonviable. Following a standard procedure used in animals, they inserted a gene that acts as a marker that can be easily followed over time. The embryo cells took up the gene, he said.

The goal was to see if a gene introduced into an abnormal embryo could be traced in stem cells that are harvested from the embryo, he said. Such work could help shed light on why abnormal embryos fail to develop, he said.

No stem cells were recovered from the human embryo, said Rosenwaks, noting that abnormal embryos frequently don't develop well enough to produce them.

Marcy Darnovsky, associate executive director of the Center for Genetics and Society, said the Cornell scientists were developing techniques that others might use to make genetically modified people, "and they're doing it without any kind of public debate."

A London-based group called Human Genetics Alert similarly criticized the work.

But Kathy Hudson, director of the Genetics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C., said she's not troubled by the work. She said the idea of successfully modifying babies by inserting genes remains a technically daunting challenge.

"We're not even close to having that technology in hand to be able to do it right," she said, and it would be ethically unacceptable to try it when it's unsafe.

created by FatBabe44 on May 13, 2008 at 11:15:02 am     Comments: 52

print      source      versions

Comments ... #

"...it would be ethically unacceptable to try it when it's unsafe."
Ummm, yeah, how about just leaving off the "when it's unsafe" part.

posted by justareviewer on May 13, 2008 at 11:38:53 am     #



So I wonder if it would be ethical to modify genes so that babies would be insurable when they become adults. Some people with genetic abnormalities aren't able to get insurance now, but that is considered quite "ethical".

posted by oldsendbrdy on May 13, 2008 at 05:23:37 pm     #



Read up on Nazi Dr. Josef Mengele and see if anything sounds familiar (in essence) to the current ideology of many liberals today. Keep in mind, these liberals have good intentions in mind...just like Dr. Mengele thought he did. The "Let's all make it a better world" mentality is pretty much what you have expressed than once here Oldsendbrdy regarding Abortion - the "they're better off not being born" attitude. Who makes you or me judge and jury on who gets to live?

http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/history/mengele/nazi_3.html

an excerpt:

If Mengele himself became a cold-blooded monster at the height of his Nazi career, he certainly learned at the feet of some of Germany's most diabolical minds. As a student Mengele attended the lectures of Dr. Ernst Rudin, who posited not only that there were some lives not worth living, but that doctors had a responsibility to destroy such life and remove it from the general population. His prominent views gained the attention of Hitler himself, and Rudin was drafted to assist in composing the Law for the Protection of Heredity Health, which passed in 1933, the same year that the Nazis took complete control of the German government. This unapologetic Social Darwinist contributed to the Nazi decree that called for the sterilization of those demonstrating the following flaws, lest they reproduce and further contaminate the German gene pool: feeblemindedness; schizophrenia; manic depression; epilepsy; hereditary blindness; deafness; physical deformities; Huntington's disease; and alcoholism.

posted by FatBabe44 on May 13, 2008 at 06:48:12 pm     #



The food supply is more genetically modified than you think. Could be a reason why disease, obesity, and golf scores have gone up.

People take synthetic rip offs of natural medicine all the time. Usually with lots of unnatural side-effects.

Where's the outrage at that?

American Science have always owed a bit of gratitude to the Nazis:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip

The water supply, food supply, plastic seepage, pollution etc. are also known to modify genes in babies and adults for some time.

How do you think they got the idea?

posted by charlatan on May 13, 2008 at 07:07:05 pm     #



Like the guy in the article said though,, """"""""" "None of us wants to make designer babies," said Dr. Zev Rosenwaks, director of the Center for Reproductive Medicine and Infertility at NewYork-Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center.""""""""

While the U.S. has the highest infant mortality of any industrialized country, perhaps they should figure out a way to fix babies while they are in their mother. This is a good way to do that, its a start on it.

Equating stem cell research with hitler has been so unfortunate for the world. We villified everything about him, took his weapons research, embraced it, married it, and kept evolving it. But because we villified genetic manipulation broad spectrum, we have missed the stem cell cancer connection,, even ignored it.

Nobody is trying to make babies with blond hair and blue eyes, I think that first they will cure some birth defects.

I would however later on like to create a child that is born and bred to fight fascism.

posted by prime3end on May 13, 2008 at 08:50:14 pm     #



FatBabe, at least this method is more "subtle" then what was tried in America in earlier times, http://www.sntp.net/eugenics/eugenics_america.htm. Of course, we could always bring back the castrating knife for the genetically inferior. That "old time" religion had some interesting effects on legislation.

posted by oldsendbrdy on May 13, 2008 at 10:36:20 pm     #



Planned parenthood was created for the Darwinian purpose of propigation of the species. It was designed to eliminate weak-born babies.

posted by billy on May 14, 2008 at 09:47:09 am     #



Holy shit. Fatbabe posts an article which points out that there are things that science can do (or will soon be able to)---but the question would remain "should we do this, is it morally right?". Fine and dandy. Then she "adds" to the conversation by comparing Nazi ideology to liberals. What a piece of shit.

posted by pink_slip on May 14, 2008 at 09:57:18 am     #



Many of you have missed the point (once again)!

It's the MINDSET of those in favor of Eugenics and experimentation on human embryos that is what I find disgusting.

Misdirected Ideology is more dangerous than a gun.

posted by FatBabe44 on May 14, 2008 at 11:28:46 am     #



Really Fat Babe? Or is it that you really don't want to cure those babies while they are still in their mom's belly? Religous monsters have long justified not helping those disabled from birth, by claiming that it was gods way of showing the rest of us how lucky we are. Fuck that. Lets cure those babies you penguin.

posted by prime3end on May 14, 2008 at 01:52:29 pm     #



Religious monsters have long justified not helping those disabled from birth?????

WTH? First, quantify that accusation. You don't just get to throw out a ridiculous remark like that and get off easy. You're insinuating that all religious folks fall under your accusation.

Second, you are twisting this all into an argument that all Eugenics is for curing birth defects. The posting is about creating or tweaking human embryos to get a desirable outcome.

Pay attention and try to get the point or do your research before you start telling me "fuck that" and calling me a religious monster or penguin (whatever that meant).

posted by FatBabe44 on May 14, 2008 at 02:09:06 pm     #



http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=2706

http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1129

http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=928

It seems to me that religon has always been at odds with science because religion fears science will uproot their core beliefs. It surely will. The slightest threat of science challenging a core belief sends the overly religous into spasms of fear or Fatebae44 into a post.

Before you start on me Fatebabe44 - I do have a religous faith and I do believe in a creator. But I'm not so dumb that I can't recognise the power of science and the power of a creator and reconcile the two.

posted by holland on May 14, 2008 at 03:02:14 pm     #



Good post Holland! You spoke my words exactly.

posted by prime3end on May 14, 2008 at 03:41:55 pm     #



The goal of Human civilization is to increase liberty and prosperity for all. Anything else is a Dark Ages throwback and we should put a stop to that.

Altering genetic codes is only the next logical step in the increase of liberty and prosperity. Will there be fuckups? Oh, yes. Anything new "unleashes a demon". But as Humanity advances, we must handle the side-effects of expanded capabilities. We use trial-and-error when growing up as individuals. So Humanity must use it when advancing the Human condition.

Partners are already making genetic alterations with using things like choice of partner, diet during pregnancy, and abortion. Designer babies are the future. Accept it ... or put on a monk's robe and live in a fucking cave for all I care. Public policy should not be set by people's wacky fears of change.

One day we'll leave the Earth and then NO ONE will be able to invoke control over all Humans, regardless of philosophy. Read Sterling's "Schismatrix" SciFi series and you'll see that true liberty is achieved by LEAVING.

posted by GuestZero on May 14, 2008 at 05:00:01 pm     #



I tend to think most health issues (and a lot of behavioral happiness issues) are diet and lifestyle related. Modifying genetics won't cure all the crap caused by swilling sodas, eating nutrition-free diets, and smoking like a junkie.

Most medical procedures wind up on the cutting room floor or for the most part are highly ineffective. This sounds like it will be no different.

And if you need genetic modifications, you probably don't need kids. Nor really want them for that matter. A perfect person is one with lots of flaws.

posted by charlatan on May 14, 2008 at 11:12:36 pm     #



You guys crack me up. Talk about Extreme Prejudice. You take the cake on that for sure. Yep, we Christians and all other religious folk are nothing but fools that should go live in caves. What an asinine remark.

Let me see if I've got this right, because I see a correlation between "designer babies" and the Nazi vision of creating a perfect race, I hate science and live in the dark ages? Wow. Interesting speculation on your part.

I like how this always turns into using the "F" word when your minds slams shut. Oh, and yeah I'm going to go read some SciFi book for my philosophy lesson of the day. Sorry GuestZero, my book has all the lessons I need on "the human condition".

The Human Condition. What a joke. Do you really think "the human condition" is going to improve by man's hand? Take a look at the headlines today and tell me that the human condition has improved since recorded history. Men's hearts are more and more evil as each day goes by. More people have been "Cleansed" from this planet in the last century than ever is history.

The worst genocides of the 20th Century

Mao Ze-Dong (China, 1958-61 and 1966-69, Tibet 1949-50) 49-78,000,000
Jozef Stalin (USSR, 1932-39) 23,000,000 (the purges plus Ukraine's famine)
Adolf Hitler (Germany, 1939-1945) 12,000,000 (concentration camps and civilians WWII)
Hideki Tojo (Japan, 1941-44) 5,000,000 (civilians in WWII)
Pol Pot (Cambodia, 1975-79) 1,700,000
Kim Il Sung (North Korea, 1948-94) 1.6 million (purges and concentration camps)
Menghistu (Ethiopia, 1975-78) 1,500,000
Ismail Enver (Turkey, 1915) 1,200,000 Armenians
Yakubu Gowon (Biafra, 1967-1970) 1,000,000
Leonid Brezhnev (Afghanistan, 1979-1982) 900,000
Jean Kambanda (Rwanda, 1994) 800,000
Suharto (East Timor, West Papua, Communists, 1966-98) 800,000
Saddam Hussein (Iran 1980-1990 and Kurdistan 1987-88) 600,000
Tito (Yugoslavia, 1945-1987) 570,000
Yahya Khan (Pakistan, 1971) vs Bangladesh 500,000
Fumimaro Konoe (Japan, 1937-39) 500,000? (Chinese civilians)
Savimbi (Angola, 1975-2002) 400,000
Mullah Omar - Taliban (Afghanistan, 1986-2001) 400,000
Idi Amin (Uganda, 1969-1979) 300,000
Yahya Khan (Bangladesh, 1970-1971) 300,000
Benito Mussolini (Ethiopia, 1936; Yugoslavia, WWII) 300,000
Mobutu Sese Seko (Zaire, 1965-97) ?
Charles Taylor (Liberia, 1989-1996) 220,000
Foday Sankoh (Sierra Leone, 1991-2000) 200,000
Slobodan Milosevic (Yugoslavia, 1992-96) 180,000
Michel Micombero (Burundi, 1972) 150,000
Hassan Turabi (Sudan, 1989-1999) 100,000
Jean-Bedel Bokassa (Centrafrica, 1966-79) ?
Richard Nixon (Vietnam, 1969-1974) 70,000 (vietnamese civilians)
Efrain Rios Montt (Guatemala, 1982-83) 70,000
Papa Doc Duvalier (Haiti, 1957-71) 60,000
Hissene Habre (Chad, 1982-1990) 40,000
Chiang Kai-shek (Taiwan, 1947) 30,000 (popular uprising)
Vladimir Ilich Lenin (USSR, 1917-20) 30,000 (dissidents executed)
Francisco Franco (Spain) 30,000 (dissidents executed after the civil war)
Fidel Castro (Cuba, 1959-1999) 30,000
Lyndon Johnson (Vietnam, 1963-1968) 30,000
Hafez Al-Assad (Syria, 1980-2000) 25,000
Khomeini (Iran, 1979-89) 20,000
Robert Mugabe (Zimbabwe, 1982-87, Ndebele minority) 20,000
Rafael Videla (Argentina, 1976-83) 13,000
Guy Mollet (France, 1956-1957) 10,000 (war in Algeria)
Paul Koroma (Sierra Leone, 1997) 6,000
Osama Bin Laden (worldwide, 1993-2001) 3,500
Augusto Pinochet (Chile, 1973) 3,000
Al Zarqawi (Iraq, 2004-06) 2,000
___________________________________________

Some of the Most Influential, Most Famous Scientist who were Christians

Scientists listed in both Scientists of Faith (Christians) and also in one of the general books above (The Scientific 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Scientists, Past and Present, etc.) These individuals could be considered among history's most influential and famous scientists, who also happen to have been devout Christians of various denominations:

Roger Bacon
Johannes Kepler
Johannes Baptista van Helmont
Blaise Pascal
Robert Boyle
Anton van Leeuwenhoek
Carolus Linnaeus
Leonhard Euler
John Dalton
Michael Faraday
John Frederick William Herschel
Matthew Fontaine Maury
James Prescott Joule
Gregor Mendel
William Thomson, Lord Kelvin
James Clerk Maxwell
George Washington Carver
Arthur Stanley Eddington

50 Nobel Laureates and Other Great Scientists Who Believe in God

http://www.adherents.com/people/100_Nobel.html

Part IV. Founders of Modern Science (16-21 Century)

Isaac Newton Founder of Classical Physics and Infinitesimal Calculus Anglican (rejected Trinitarianism, i.e., Athanasianism;
believed in the Arianism of the Primitive Church)
Galileo Galilei Founder of Experimental Physics Catholic
Nicolaus Copernicus Founder of Heliocentric Cosmology Catholic (priest)
Johannes Kepler Founder of Physical Astronomy and Modern Optics Lutheran
Francis Bacon Founder of the Scientific Inductive Method Anglican
René Descartes Founder of Analytical Geometry and Modern Philosophy Catholic
Blaise Pascal Founder of Hydrostatics, Hydrodynamics,
and the Theory of Probabilities
Jansenist
Michael Faraday Founder of Electronics and Electro-Magnetics Sandemanian
James Clerk Maxwell Founder of Statistical Thermodynamics Presbyterian; Anglican; Baptist
Lord Kelvin Founder of Thermodynamics and Energetics Anglican
Robert Boyle Founder of Modern Chemistry Anglican
William Harvey Founder of Modern Medicine Anglican (nominal)
John Ray Founder of Modern Biology and Natural History Calvinist (denomination?)
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz Mathematician and Philosopher,
Founder of Infinitesimal Calculus
Lutheran
Charles Darwin Founder of the Theory of Evolution Anglican (nominal); Unitarian
Ernst Haeckel German Biologist,
the Most Influential Evolutionist in Continental Europe
Thomas H. Huxley English Biologist and Evolutionist,
Famous As "Darwin's Bulldog"
Joseph J. Thomson Nobel Laureate in Physics, Discoverer of the Electron,
Founder of Atomic Physics
Anglican
Louis Pasteur Founder of Microbiology and Immunology Catholic

posted by FatBabe44 on May 15, 2008 at 07:52:48 am     #



Some of the Most Influential, Most Famous Scientist who were Christians

Fatbabe, you left someone off this list:

Dr. Josef Mengele

posted by pink_slip on May 15, 2008 at 10:46:24 am     #



Yep. There've been some real evil people claiming to be Christian. They are the ones that will get the worst judgment in the end, but that doesn't invalidate the good ones.

Kind of the good Muslims and the bad ones?
Good whites and bad whites.
Good blacks and bad blacks.
Good - you fill in the blanks.

posted by FatBabe44 on May 15, 2008 at 01:12:41 pm     #



Fatbabe,

You forget that some of those scientists would have been burnt at the stake had they tried to renounce their faith. Maybe tortured first then burned. I think it was Newton who secretly wrote that he rejected the then newly adopted stance that Jesus was God. Many of the others would have been cast out of their positions and society for rejecting the magic man in the sky. Forced worship is not true belief, and its foolish to believe in a fabricated bunch of stories specifically tailored to empower the church and state. Its all pigshit. Your really a nut. But consider this:
Bush's war on science and stem cells has caused delays in understanding the very nature of cancer, all cancers. Cancer is embryonic in nature. Then there are all the deaths from heart disease, diabetes, etc etc that stem cell derived cells could treat or even cure. So lets look at today and right now. The CHURCH is the biggest mass murderer of modern times, and all times by this measure. Consider that the number who have died in the 7 years of Bush/Church caused delays in stem cell science have probably killed 7,000,000 to 10,000,000 Americans, then consider what the number would be when you consider the whole worlds population that have died because of the delay.
That would make the collective kool aide drinking magic man in the sky churchies responsible for more deaths than all the mass murderers you listed. Heil Hitler and pass the communion wine beeaccch. **** the church in their tight little *** *****.

Amen

posted by prime3end on May 15, 2008 at 04:50:16 pm     #



Check it this segway:

Here's the full title of Chuck D's book on evo:
On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life

I believe it has something to do with NASCAR and detergent sponsorship.

posted by charlatan on May 15, 2008 at 06:41:33 pm     #



Fatbabe, you're the one invoking all the religion here. I'm just putting down Medieval thinking, and I never mentioned religion at all. I mentioned the ERA.

Reactionary, much? You just proved you're irrational.

Like I've said in other threads on Swampbubbles, religious thinking has no place in forming public policy in a nation where religion and the state are separate.

Science advances the Human condition, and as well creates new problems. Within the important context of INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY, that's OK since the gains made by individuals overwhelm the problems experienced by the collective.

posted by GuestZero on May 17, 2008 at 11:40:04 am     #



I never said anything about forming public policy. Not on this post or ANY other post of mine. I have NEVER wished to impose my belief system onto others. I merely post articles here that have interesting information for people to ponder, research, debate, find new perspective, and hopefully persuade. All I usually get in response are insults, name-calling, and ridicule.

My sole intention on this forum and any other on which I post is to bring things to the attention that otherwise are ignored or dismissed, but I feel passionate about. Perhaps you have preconceived notions about persons of faith having an opinion on anything that is considered a "hot topic". I don't know. What I do know is that time and time again on this forum people make all kinds of biased accusations and conclusions about me based on one thing - that I am a Christian.

I am sick of being labeled as some kind of ignorant relic because I believe in God and the values that come with that belief.

Believing in God means I choose to live, think, and act like He wishes for us to. Contrary to the negative image that has been instilled thanks to the people in history (false witnesses) that did evil things in God's name, (and encouraged by TV & Movies), my faith teaches that God gave us a free will and a pretty good set of laws (10 commandments) to live by that would help keep our society intact (that's a whole other topic). If free will weren't God's desire, then we'd be nothing better than caged zoo animals to Him. Think about how unfulfilling it is when someone is forced into a relationship (like a kidnap victim). Free will is what sets us apart from the animals.

What comes with free will? Responsibility & Accountability. If I choose not to speak against what I see as contrary to my faith, I have to answer for that when I stand before God and account for my life. What fruit did I bear? That's what I and most Christians do believe.

This brings me back to what I was trying to point out - I merely want to present information and let people think about it, see it from another perspective, and hopefully

My perspective on the original posting is that when man starts deciding whose life is worth living and whose isn't, we get in dangerous territory (genetic defect cleansing becomes something much more deviant eventualy). We think we can make a perfect human and before you know it, we think we're better than God. Blah blah blah. The ramifications go on and on, but it's difficult to discuss them fully in this format.

posted by FatBabe44 on May 17, 2008 at 01:08:37 pm     #



"I merely want to present information and let people think about it, see it from another perspective, and hopefully"............

"Merely" presenting isn't comparing a scientific advance that you disagree with to Hitler.

Follow that comparison with the statement: "my book has all the lessons I need on the human condition" and you pretty much get the picture of the biased mindset this supposed presentation comes with.

posted by holland on May 17, 2008 at 01:50:56 pm     #



"I merely want to present information and let people think about it, see it from another perspective, and hopefully"............

"Merely" presenting isn't comparing a scientific advance that you disagree with to Hitler.

Follow that comparison with the statement: "my book has all the lessons I need on the human condition" and you pretty much get the picture of the biased mindset this supposed presentation comes with.

posted by holland on May 17, 2008 at 01:50:56 pm     #



I don't get your point. So I am biased. So is everyone else here. That's why we're here posting and debating....each of us has our view and we want everyone else to see it, or hear it, or at least respect it by agreeing to disagree.

Do you read my posts or just skim them?

posted by FatBabe44 on May 17, 2008 at 02:31:38 pm     #



"Like I've said in other threads on Swampbubbles, religious thinking has no place in forming public policy in a nation where religion and the state are separate." Guest Zero

Except for our founding fathers who never put Seperation of church and State into any part of the Constitution or Declartion of Independance. Who were All christian, and would probably condemn the Idiotic lengths we have come to actually Seperate church and state. The only reason any of them even mentioned a seperation in any related writings is because of the fear of a STATE religion such as England's where discrimination occured if you didn't belong to the Church of England or a Religious controlled state such as Iran that dictates law by religious text or decree. Removing things such as the ten comandments from court houses only detatches ourselves from our own founding principles on which our country was founded on. I still cant understand why people get so upset about it. People go to such great lengths to not offend and deprives others of artistic and religious content before anyone is even actually offended. You would have beautiful sculptures and carvings removed from a courthouse or government grounds just for their religious content so as to not offend someone not of that religion who probably could care less, because it doesn't have any effect on them in the first place. I dont think i have ever heard anyone interveiwed that said hey im blank religion and it really offends me to see such and such. Only thing i think i ever saw was some atheist complaining that they should have to look at it. I say look the other way, if you say it dont exist then why does it bother you in the first place. I think for the most part is people want to destroy any form of religion that is in their sight, because almost any religion has some form of morality to it, and lets face it with school shooting, rape, murder, theft, stock swindles, preying on the ederly, I think a little morality could be had for all these days.

posted by Linecrosser on May 17, 2008 at 04:56:03 pm     #



Fatbabe, you brought religion into the topic as a mainline, not me. I just commented about the advancement of Humanity, and then you went beserk and claimed you were being oppressed or put down due to your religious beliefs.

Like I said, you're reactionary, and YOU are the one creating the atmosphere of persecution. I don't buy that you're being persecuted when all we're doing here is talking.

And for Linecrosser:

US Constitution, Amend. I : "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof[.]"

Clearly, you're wrong. Since the Congress can't align or prohibit religions, it only stands to reason that the use of religion to make law is forbidden. Hence, we have the separation of religion and state.

Since this amendment went onto the Constitution fairly soon after the Founding, it also stands to reason that the Founders had a hand in it.

Removing such things as the Ten Commandments from a courthouse is only rational since said court must respect the First Amendment where the government cannot align with a religion.

The form of religion that wants to rule government in this nation is PRECISELY the form of religion that should be destroyed. But that wouldn't be your kind, peaceful religion, would it, LC?

(Remember, the First Amendment can be changed. Get crackin' on that movement, LC.)

posted by GuestZero on May 17, 2008 at 07:05:10 pm     #



GZ, with all due respect I was not the one that brought up religion in this thread. Please see where it was first brought up by "Oldsendbrdy" and then by "Prime3end". It was only at that point that I had to get defensive.

FatBabe, at least this method is more "subtle" then what was tried in America in earlier times, http://www.sntp.net/eugenics/eugenics_america.htm. Of course, we could always bring back the castrating knife for the genetically inferior. That "old time" religion had some interesting effects on legislation.

posted by oldsendbrdy on May 13, 2008 at 10:36:20 pm #

Really Fat Babe? Or is it that you really don't want to cure those babies while they are still in their mom's belly? Religous monsters have long justified not helping those disabled from birth, by claiming that it was gods way of showing the rest of us how lucky we are. Fuck that. Lets cure those babies you penguin.

posted by prime3end on May 14, 2008 at 01:52:29 pm #

posted by FatBabe44 on May 17, 2008 at 08:08:03 pm     #



insane

posted by prime3end on May 17, 2008 at 11:18:26 pm     #



<<Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.>>

Where does that say that you cant have anything religious on government property, I would say that Atheism is its own religion and that by removing anything from another religion is in itself setting Atheism over any other established religion. In fact by removing those examples of religion I would say that they are "prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Also again it has been written numerous times that our founding fathers only wanted to prevent the establishment of a STATE religion. I guess its really a matter of opinion, I see nothing wrong with that stuff being on display, obviously you do.

posted by Linecrosser on May 18, 2008 at 12:29:31 am     #



Next I guess is that all churches, synogogs, mosques and anything with any religious meaning will have to be removed, no more baby Jesus's in the front yard because it might be offensive to you walking by. Hmm someone mentioned Hitler, maybe they should of compared it to Stalin.

posted by Linecrosser on May 18, 2008 at 12:35:00 am     #



Fatbabe: Clearly I'm mistaken about who started what, then. I should have searched.

At any rate, I'm hardly taking the tack of calling anyone a "religious monster" or any other term that conveys such contempt.

Linecrosser: Now you're just being obstinate. If the government cannot align with a religion, then OBVIOUSLY government property cannot become festooned with religious icons, and particularly it cannot be marked with ONE particular religion's symbols.

Personally, I'm also content to leave historical symbology where it is, but it only takes one religious or secular partisan to bring the matter to court and enforce the separation of religion and the state. When the matter is brought to a head, the symbols of religion have to be removed. Sorry, but that's the way it is with a SECULAR government. Again, you're free to start a movement to alter or abolish the First Amendment.

And you're only indulging in sour grapes by saying that Atheism is a religion. It's a first order definition that it is not. As well, removing officious religious icons from government grounds is NOT an act of Atheism ... it's just a mark of enforcement of the separation implied by the First Amendment.

Look, LC, you lost the argument by examples of clear logic. Why not just admit it and we can proceed to advance the topic?

posted by GuestZero on May 18, 2008 at 02:28:03 am     #



As for this griping bullshit of yours, Linecrosser: "Next I guess is that all churches, synogogs, mosques and anything with any religious meaning will have to be removed[.]"

Are churches, synagogues, mosques and the like qualified as either public or government property? No. Why would the separation of religion and state require the removal of those icons from private property, then?

Like I said, you're confusing an incidental historical presence of Christianity in this nation with an official presence.

And don't try anything more foolish like saying the wearing of the Cross or Star or Moon or whatever has to be removed from people working in government positions. The people of these United States have every right to be secure in their effects and persons, so that well covers the personal liberty of wearing religious icons.

The separation of religion and state is not a bad issue and it will require continued adjustment to the current condition of the nation. Again, if you don't accept that, then all you have to do is amend the US Constitution. Good luck with that, since the process to do so has been started about 11 thousand times in over 200 years, and less than 30 amendments have been achieved. It's a difficult and involved process, but when the issue is truly important (barring aberrations like Prohibition), it can succeed.

posted by GuestZero on May 18, 2008 at 02:37:55 am     #



Well smack me down. If the word seperation had been used i would agree, but this is my last post on the subject, im sure your happy to hear it. Lets just agree to disagree.

posted by Linecrosser on May 18, 2008 at 01:53:43 pm     #



I really wasn't going to post anymore on this subject. That was the case until I just stumbled on this editorial by accident while reading the news online.

I couldn't believe it. I'm not kidding that I would have dropped this whole issue until I saw this. To be fair, I went to other websites and read up on this Peter Singer person and found that the Townhall editorial is truthful. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer#Abortion.2C_euthanasia_and_infanticide

http://townhall.com/columnists/DineshDSouza/2008/05/12/atheism_and_child_murder?page=full&comments=true

Atheism and Child Murder
Dinesh D'Souza
Monday, May 12, 2008

Peter Singer is a calm, lucid and able debater, and our debate at Biola University in Los Angeles on April 25 was lively and hard-fought. Not for nothing is Singer considered a world-class philosopher and advocate. To watch the debate go to dineshdsouza.com and click on my AOL blog.

Singer praised me for not simply making assertions of faith or hurling Bible passages at him but rather for using reason and argument to make my case . And I complimented Singer for stepping, so to speak, into the lion's den. (Biola actually stands for Bible Institute of Los Angeles.) Unlike the pusillanimous Richard Dawkins, who doesn't dare to debate me even at his home campus of Oxford, Singer was brave to come to a Christian campus to dispute the resolution "God: Yes or No." The audience of 3,000 was mostly though not exclusively Christian.

So perhaps atheism has found an able advocate. But unbelievers may want to think twice before lining up behind Singer, who argues in favor of infanticide, euthanasia and (this is not a joke) animal rights! One of Singer's interesting proposals concerns what may be called "fourth trimester" abortions, i.e. the right to kill one's offspring even after birth!

Here are some choice Singer quotations on the subject which I get from his books Rethinking Life and Death and Writings on an Ethical Life.

On how mothers should be permitted to kill their offspring until the age of 28 days: "My colleague Helga Kuhse and I suggest that a period of twenty-eight days after birth might be allowed before an infant is accepted as having the same right to life as others."

On why abortion is less morally significant than killing a rat: "Rats are indisputably more aware of their surroundings, and more able to respond in purposeful and complex ways to things they like or dislike, than a fetus at ten or even thirty-two weeks gestation."

On why pigs, chickens and fish have more rights to life than unborn humans: "The calf, the pig, and the much-derided chicken come out well ahead of the fetus at any stage of pregnancy, while if we make the comparison with a fetus of less than three months, a fish would show more signs of consciousness."

On why infants aren't normal human beings with rights to life and liberty: "Characteristics like rationality, autonomy and self-consciousness...make a difference. Infants lack these characteristics. Killing them, therefore, cannot be equated with killing normal human beings."

In my opening statement I showed the profound connection between Singer's Darwinian atheism and his advocacy of infanticide and euthanasia. Remarkably Singer responded by saying he didn't come to debate his bioethical views! Rather, he wanted the debate to focus exclusively on the question of whether God exists or not. I didn't want this to be a debate in which Singer and I ended up talking on completely different subjects, so I engaged him on his chosen ground.

Even so, I was disappointed that Singer wouldn't stand up for the opinions that have made him famous, or infamous. Our topic resolution was broad enough to permit a discussion both of the existence of God and also of the social implications of the theist and the atheist positions. I view Singer's work as exploring the consequences of living in a truly secular society, devoid not only of the Christian God but also of Christian morality.

So while Christianity introduced into Western civilization the concept of dignity of human life, Singer explicitly says we have to get rid of this outdated concept. He contends that God is dead and we should recognize ourselves as Darwinian primates who enjoy no special status compared to the other animals. In the animal kingdom, after all, parents sometimes kill and even devour their offpsring. Singer argues that the West can learn from the other cultures like the Kalahari where children are routinely killed when they are unwanted, even when they are several years old.

Some of Singer's critics call him a Nazi and compare his proposals to Hitler's schemes for eliminating the unwanted, the unfit and the disabled. But as I note in the debate, Singer is no Hitler. He doesn't want state-sponsored killings. Rather, he wants the decision to kill to be made by you and me. Instead of government-conducted genocide, Singer favors free-market homicide.

Given the connection that Singer draws between atheism and child murder, using the former as his premise to recommend the latter, I wonder if our atheist friends are going to rush to embrace this guy as one of their heroes. Is Singer showing us where the road to complete secularism actually leads?

Copyright © 2008 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.

posted by FatBabe44 on May 19, 2008 at 04:26:57 pm     #



Singer has much to explain. For instance, the US constitution defines citizenship as being on native soil at birth. Note that word carefully: BIRTH. An infant obviously passed the BIRTH stage and must be given the rights of citizenship.

Hence, Singer must explain how he proposes to kill citizens on a basis not allowed by our base of law.

In other words, Singer is a wacko. I'm not a wacko. I base my decisions on law and secular morality.

Once again, this is a Constitutional issue and as such, the document must be changed to reflect the philosophy. Singer obviously isn't doing it, as Linecrosser isn't doing it for the issue of keeping religion and the state separate.

And, no, Linecrosser. I will not "agree to disagree". I'm right and you're just wrong. You've failed to make your case, whereas my case is fully contained in the First Amendment. The FA clearly demonstrates by first-order implication that religion cannot be used as a government method. Religious philosophies cannot be used to form laws, for example ... since in order to do so, ONE PARTICULAR RELIGION must necessarily be used as a basis, and that violates the First Amendment.

The reason it violates it, is that there is no difference between the government establishing a religion, or restricting a religion, and a government that uses religious philosophies in order to make laws that affect people (religious or not).

If you disagree, then it only logically follows that a group of Muslims can attain a majority in Toledo and pass items from their Sharia law, like making it illegal for women to avoid wearing the veil. Surely you see the absurdity of your position by now, eh? Or is the absurdity only obvious to you when non-Christian religious creed is used as an example?

posted by GuestZero on May 20, 2008 at 05:48:24 am     #





Fat, what was your point in posted the townhall article by religious fundamentalist Dinesh D'Souza?

posted by pink_slip on May 20, 2008 at 02:51:35 pm     #



Pink_slip, If I have to tell you, then you didn't read the article.

Why do you label him a fundmentalist? I would think you would be wanting to know more about the Princeton Prof. Peter Singer mentioned in said "fundamentalists" editorial. This Peter Singer person (who teaches Philosophy to young minds at Princeton) condones the killing of unwanted children by their parents. It doesn't stop there. Check him out on Wikipedia. He's a freako whack job.

posted by FatBabe44 on May 20, 2008 at 02:57:57 pm     #



Pink_slip, If I have to tell you, then you didn't read the article

Coward. Yes, Peter Singer has some controversial ideas. But many religious folks have whacko ideas too. Here's more of Distort D'Newsa's work:

“The American slave was treated like property, which is to say, pretty well.” (from D’Souza’s book, The End of Racism)

“If America as a nation owes blacks as a group reparations for slavery, what do blacks as a group owe America for the abolition of slavery?” (from The End of Racism)

"Am I calling for the repeal of the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Actually, yes." (from The End of Racism)

“...within the United States, black males have (you may be surprised to discover) the highest self-esteem of any group. Yet on academic measures black males score the lowest. The reason is that self-esteem in these cases is generated by factors unrelated to studies, such as the ability to beat up other students or a high estimation of one’s sexual prowess.” (from D’Souza’s book Letters to a Young Conservative)

"[f]or many whites the criminal and irresponsible black underclass represents a revival of barbarism in the midst of Western civilization." (from D’Souza’s book The End of Racism)

“What impact did the abortionists, the feminists, the homosexual activists, and the secularists have on the Islamic radicals who conspired to blow up the World Trade Center and the Pentagon? Unfortunately, this crucial question got buried, and virtually no one has raised it publicly.” (from The Enemy at Home)

“What disgusts [Muslims] is not free elections but the sights of hundreds of homosexuals kissing one another and taking marriage vows. The person that horrifies them the most is not John Locke but Hillary Clinton.” (from The Enemy at Home)

“In reality, the left already has a foreign policy and a strategy, and it’s called working in tandem with bin Laden to defeat Bush.” (from The Enemy at Home)

posted by pink_slip on May 20, 2008 at 03:32:11 pm     #



Wow. If those racial slurs are actual quotes, then YES! By all means he's a whack job too.

I didn't do any research on D'Souza - only on Peter Singer...which was the point of the whole thread. No need to call me a Coward.

I think the word "controversial" describing Singer is an understatement though. Do you agree? Read up on Wiki some of the whack job crap he's into.

I read news stories everyday how Christian professors, coaches, scientists are fired for their opinion, their faith, or just for making a request to keep "Intelligent Design" as an option to research. And then there's this jerk spouting out crap about killing people and having sex with animals (read up on him on that one) and he's at frickin Princeton!

http://www.princeton.edu/pr/pwb/98/1207/singer.htm

posted by FatBabe44 on May 20, 2008 at 03:45:17 pm     #



FB, "Intelligent Design" is not a valid research topic in our universities since it's not science. If a so-called scientist insists on doing it, there are enough religious institutions where she can pursue such a thing. I hardly think that a person should be fired for even suggesting it, but past the refusal of the suggestion based upon the need for science and not religion to drive research, if that person continues to press for it, then obviously their employment is a mismatch and they need to go elsewhere.

posted by GuestZero on May 24, 2008 at 07:13:14 am     #



Mankind has an inherent fear of those things we don't yet understand. The major fear is 'Where do we go after death?' People deny science for two main reasons: fear and controll. The religious masses fear that the belief system they rely upon for comfort in face of the fear of the great unknown will be taken away or eroded with a scientific explanation. Those in the religious heirarchy use that fear to control those under them to maintain their source of power and financial support. The power of the religious hierarchy requires that the supplicants remain supplicant.

It is only through science that mankind will come to understand the unkown, to understand the 'Creator', the force or whatever you choose to call it. Deny science and you deny any real path to understanding.

posted by holland on May 24, 2008 at 10:30:00 am     #



I need to say this and I don't want to come off as being snotty because I'm not but,...If you don't consider yourself a religious person, then you really don't have the right to speak for us or claim to know how we feel or think.

I don't know if you used to be part of a church or religion and left it. If so, I'm sorry if they made you feel that way about "religious" people. It's a shame what many "religious" people have done or are doing to people thereby giving the rest of us a bad name. It really bothers me because I have to keep defending my faith because of their transgressions.

I think you may missed a posting I put in another thread that relates to faith vs. science comment.

There are some things that I want to make clear that I don't think everyone here understands:

a. Christians don't hate science. We consider it to be one of the great ways to see God's glory. Everywhere we look whether it be under an electron microscope or into the Hubble telescope to the farthest point in the heavens - we continue to be amazed His magnificence, and humbled by His size.

b. My belief in God will not be shaken by you or anyone else. He sustains me.

c. Quote all the intellectuals you want, it doesn't make a difference to me. What they say or have said is fine for them.

d. I still have a love for you even though you ridicule and hate me and what I stand for. It's okay because it's not your approval that I need.

e. Because of that love, I pray for you and that you will someday seek Him out.

Lastly, I(we) (true believers) do NOT want to force anyone into anything. We only want you to be aware of the wonderful gift He has for you if you want it.

If you are ever curious about what wonders have been found under that microscope and through that telescope, Google the presentation videos, "Indescribable" "Laminin" or "How Great is our God" by a fellow named Louie Giglio. They are extraordinary.

posted by FatBabe44 on May 23, 2008 at 08:21:59 am #

PS: fyi, I have always LOVED science. It was one of my favorite subjects. I also LOVE astronomy (not astrology). :)

posted by FatBabe44 on May 24, 2008 at 01:22:37 pm     #



Me thinks me hit a nerve. If the religion vs science argument doesn't fit you FB44 fine. Good actually. You're in a better position than I to argue it with the "creationist's" theory of evolution. And please, don't suppose to know what experiences I've had with religion to bring me to my conclusions. I did not have to have my wallet emptied or be ostracized or have any negative experiences at all. It's of no relevance because I havn't had any. I've never personally been harmed or hurt in any way. My conclusions happen to be based on intelligence and reason.

You are flat out wrong to think that someone can reject religious belief because they had a prior negative religious expericence. Some of us can just think for ourselves.

posted by holland on May 24, 2008 at 01:58:44 pm     #



Holland, I said IF. Relax.

"I don't know if you used to be part of a church or religion and left it. If so,..."

By the way, I would never tell someone they are "flat out wrong". It's rude.

posted by FatBabe44 on May 24, 2008 at 07:18:13 pm     #



I'll clarify and correct that statement. You are flat out wrong to think that someone can ONLY reject a religious belief because of a negative experience.

posted by holland on May 24, 2008 at 07:43:30 pm     #



I NEVER said that. It was an example. But I know your bias always seems to put words in my mouth, so I forgive you.

posted by FatBabe44 on May 25, 2008 at 09:34:42 am     #



btw, I do think for myself. Despite the ignorance of atheists who think we are all deluded (ie The God Delusion, R. Dawkins).

Here's some statistics (FACTS) that proves how atheists are a very tiny minority in the world. So, by claiming we can't think for ourselves is kind an arrogant way to look at us or any other person with religious beliefs. Or is it just for Christians that atheists have such apparent disdain?

http://www.religionstatistics.net/statamer1.htm
Gallup poll (may 2004) on religion, the belief in God was followed by 90% of Americans (where 5% were not sure and 4%
were in fact atheists); in Heaven believed a 81%; in Hell and in Devil both had as 70% of believers. The religious preferences
of the polled persons were: 40% Protestant (17% Baptist, 9% Methodist, 5% Lutheran, 3% Presbyterian, 2% Pentecostal,
2% Episcopalian, 2% others); 11% Christian without affiliation; 25% Catholic; 3% Jew. There were a 34% attending
religious services weekly and a 25% monthly or with more frequency. On morals it was regarded as morally wrong pre
matrimonial sex by a 36%, euthanasia by a 41%, to have a baby out of matrimony a 45%, homosexuality by a 54%,
and abortion by a 50%. About if Americans feel that Bible is to be taken literally or sometimes symbolically, there
is a big gap between "fundamentalists" (42%), and "relativists" (37%); otherwise there is a 14% that feel that Bible is only
a book written by men [Virginia Commonwealth University Life Sciences Survey, september 2003].
Strikingly, the ABC News PrimeTime Poll (february of 2004), which conducted a survey about the personal beliefs
related to Bible's in regard to the history of of Noah, there was a 60% who answered that everything related is literal,
including that the whole world was flooded; similar percent (61%) on literal belief was stated on the account that the world
was created in 6 days.

posted by FatBabe44 on May 25, 2008 at 10:40:34 am     #



Actually if you look at religion in the US, the "No Religion/Atheist/Agnostic" group was at 15% in 2001, which would put them right behind "Catholics" and "Baptists". And as you can see, it's easily one of the fastest growing groups, while others are declining in numbers.

posted by pink_slip on May 25, 2008 at 12:21:09 pm     #



Wikipedia is your source? It's also incorrect. I followed your links and even checked the references listed. Not one of them showed Atheism at 15%. Everywhere it shows as single digit just as my source revealed. By the way, my source listed multiple polls. I only chose one of them, but if you like I could post them all. I just like to keep the postings as small as possible.

Atheism is what we're talking about. It's not the same as Agnostic or No Religion. Only Atheist think there is no God, no afterlife. Agnostics won't commit either way - they're not sure. No Religion means, they don't care.

posted by FatBabe44 on May 25, 2008 at 01:19:03 pm     #



You read all 43 references from the wiki link....in just under an hour? Well done. Much of it is semantics. I don't believe in any creator "god". But I know I can't disprove it. Richard Dawkins says the same thing. He knows, as a scientist, that he can't say he's 100% certain that there isn't a god. So for myself, agnostic would also seem appropriate. Also, although I don't discount an inner spirituality, I don't practice any religious pageontry or ceremony. So does that make me atheist, agnostic, or non-religious. Probably a little of each. A lot of people are like that. About 15% in fact.

posted by pink_slip on May 25, 2008 at 03:39:17 pm     #