Well, I guess you could say that I'm taking a leap of faith.
I am no expert in biology by ANY MEANS. But I think I am qualified to argue against people like the Coach.. The guy posts nonsense from christian websites and claims there's no truth to evolution.
Of course not. But there are hardcore religious fundamentalists out there that use absolute belief in religion to shape politics and how other people lead their lives. I am not expert on stemcell research or abortion, but is Bush when he's using his religious views to pass laws against them? Abortion already effects millions of women, while stemcells just might benefit a lot of people in the near future. This is what I'm arguing against.. Sheer ignorance.
The argument can just as easily be made that hardcore non-religious or anti-religious "fundamentalists" who so similar to shape politics and how other people live their lives.
Before you start talking about other people's "sheer ignorance", you may want to get your facts straight.
You are using the same old tired take that opposition to
embryonic stem cell research means opposition to ALL stem cell research. That is blatantly and patently false. The law Bush passed doesn't even ban embryonic stem cell research. It merely states that the government isn't footing the bill.
Other forms of stem cells have cured LOTS of diseases. Embryonic stem cells have cured NONE, ABSOLUTELY NONE!!. It's rather ridiculous that the one form of stem cell research that many non-religious folks scream about the most has cures the absolute LEAST amount of ailments.
As for abortion, it's a really simple concept: Either it's a baby or it's not. You want to talk about scientific advances. The ones we have today can clearly show the development of a baby inside the womb (fingers, toes, eyes, sex of the baby, brainwaves, heartbeat, etc.). Not to mention, the cases we've seen when babies are born way too prematurely, technology has been able to keep them alive, when years ago, those infants would have died.
But, the irony is that many of the so-called "pro-choice" bubbas don't want this technology used, when it comes to validating something that most people with common sense have known all along: the baby inside the womb is just that, a BABY.
And they call Christians "anti-science"?
Plus, abortion is supposed to be a woman's issue. So, why are many (if not most) abortionists men. Why was the founder of NARAL (who has long since then, become pro-life) a man? The Supreme Court justices that legalized abortion, courtesy of
Roe v. Wade: ALL MEN!
Pro-choice women don't seem to mind men getting involved with the politics of abortion, as long as those men side with them. If this were, indeed a "women's issue", abortion might not even exist.
