You are obviously quite easily offended. Have you tried anti-bvbl for a chat? They tend to have the “more emotional” types like you there.

Karla you must have made a lot of people laugh at the comment of me being easily offended for you obviously have no idea of what you are talking about… but i did seem to concern you didn’t I :)))

Karla H said on 18 Mar 2009 at 11:42 am: Flag comment

“ATLANTA – More babies were born in the United States in 2007 than any year in the nation’s history, topping the peak during the baby boom 50 years earlier, federal researchers reported Wednesday. … For a variety of reasons, it’s become more acceptable for women to have babies without a husband, said Duke University’s S. Philip Morgan, a leading fertility researcher.”

Bob Wills… care to comment on why “it’s become more acceptable for women to have babies without a husband”? Why would this be? Why at this particular time? (and note the words “without a husband”)

Maybe they do not need a husband to live a full life as you seem to think it is a requirment. Maybe they are not interested in controling radical right wing thinking males who ” know ” everything. One Researcher at Duke does not define the whole world of knowledge but maybe you have a limited veiw on what it takes to live life. Now Greg and Stewart will tell you we had such an increase in babies in 2007 because of illegal immigration and they honestly might be right but I doubt if it was because or women wanting to have babies and not husbands. Maybe they have husbands but not married to them?

Bob Wills… care to comment on why “it’s become more acceptable for women to have babies without a husband”? Why would this be? Why at this particular time? (and note the words “without a husband”)

News flash… people aren’t bears.

“an insult to the women whose husbands have died in War and raised their children” - Bob Wills

These mothers are not living in “the jungle”. They are living in modern (socialist) society. Reread my post.

“What an offensive statement” - Bob Wills

You are obviously quite easily offended. Have you tried anti-bvbl for a chat? They tend to have the “more emotional” types like you there.

And as an addendum to “If there was ever a societal collapse the single parents would become prey.” Allow me to be more explicit (warning, do not read further if you are squeamish or under 18).

Single parents can survive in modern society only because of societal liberalism (e.g. welfare). Single mothers cannot survive in “the jungle”.

I guess the mother bear that protects its young from the male can not survive? Maybe they survive in the cold but in a jungle it is different.

What an offensive statement and an insult to the women whose husbands have died in War and raised their children after the fathers gave so much so you can bash their abilities to raise a family.

KFD said on 12 Mar 2009 at 2:08 pm: Flag comment

Bob and Battlecat, Stopping stem cell research doesn’t stop science or prevent discoveries that might protect those who are important to us. There’s nothing that can be gained from stem-cell research that can’t be gained by other methods of research, and there is now a process by which adult skin cells can be reproduced to provide similar testing opportunities.

Asking some one who has actualy done stem cell research there are at least two serious problems with it. When a cell starts to grow and if it does not stop it turns into cancer. Science has not found a way to contol stem cell growth when it has reached it intended growth point. As an example stem cells in the brain turning into tumors. Adult stem cells have already started the growth of course but that also means that cancer causing properties are or can be with in that cell. That is one of the reasons in laymans terms as to why embronic stem cells are so important as they have no growth period of time to start the cancer causing properties.

None of this issue is answered by an ariticle and the opinions are as vast as cells themselves.

Bob and Battlecat, Stopping stem cell research doesn’t stop science or prevent discoveries that might protect those who are important to us. There’s nothing that can be gained from stem-cell research that can’t be gained by other methods of research, and there is now a process by which adult skin cells can be reproduced to provide similar testing opportunities.

KFD: Here is a news article that reinforces your comment above.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/03/13/national/main4863762.shtml

…….but this would take time away from the “staff” meetings in the local mall parking lots…….(sarcasim intended)

But the humor the dubya-philes are attempting isn’t nearly as funny as the last eight years.

Single parents can survive in modern society only because of societal liberalism (e.g. welfare). Single mothers cannot survive in “the jungle”. After a societal collapse a single mother would not stand a chance in h3ll. She would have little means for physical protection. Some big, burly, 200 lb. “biker goon” would immediately want to “exploit her”. He would take her in as a… ahem… “wife”. Her children would be “off’ed”. After all, they are the spawn of a competitor male. The goon would not want to support them since they suck up resources and do not carry his genes.

A complete family unit, including a mother and father, is a requirement in “the jungle”.

If you are offended by this, then ask yourself, “Is this the truth?” Are you offended by the truth?

So, michael, again, this is where “the rubber hits the road”. This is where creationists and evolutionists concur. Mother nature will look after your concerns, michael. Rest easy.

“Espinosa of the Central American Resource Center said more can be done by local law enforcement, but he doesn’t want to see profiling. If they’re going to check one sector of the population, they have to check everybody, not just the Latino community, not just the Asian community, the Muslim community, but they have to check everybody, said Espinosa”

[I THOUGHT THAT WE HAVE BEEN ASKING FOR THIS METHOD ALREADY - EQUAL APPLICATION OF THE LAW - I SAY WE SET UP RANDOM CHECKPOINTS]. I have no problem showing my proof of citizenship.

God’s natural process has declared that egg cell with its existing stem cell in it will now die outside the body” - michael

But, Michael, who is to say what is “natural”. God created man… man takes the egg… man fertilizes the egg… to me that is a perfectly “natural” process too.

But… but…
1. the Bible teaches us that this will fail. It will produce offspring without both parents. Perhaps even without either parent. The children will not have the required support. They will not flourish.
2. evolution teaches us that this is wrong as well. A species such as ours cannot survive with one parent. Certainly it can happen on a microscopic scale, and by divorced parents here and there. But it is not sustainable. There are no tribes of “Amazons” around. If there was ever a societal collapse the single parents would become prey.

With the issue of cloning the argument becomes even clearer.
1. Certainly the Bible is against cloning.
2. Evolutionists know that if we populated the planet with a cloned species eventually a virus would arise that would attack the cloned species. And then the entire population would be wiped out, because they all share the same flaw… the same lack of resistance. Nature requires diversity as a form of redundancy. Cloned species cannot survive on a global scale, without man’s help. This is why nature does not rely on cloning. This is why binary reproduction is required.

So, not to worry, Michael. Both the creationists and the evolutionists agree on this one. Even for those people like me, who do not “believe in the Bible” (i.e. a man in the sky with a white beard), we do regard the Bible as an excellent historical reference with regards to the rise of man, civilization, law, etc.

michael, in short, no.

Greg I hope that Stem Cell solves or helps to solve the medical issues of death causing deseases or is able to allow thoes who have spinal cord or brain injuries so severe that they can not walk or talk or think rationaly be helped if not cured. More then that I hope and pray that neither you nor your daughters ever have to have to choise to use the results of stem cell research to correct a medical issue for you so that you do not have to face the hard real choise of so many others that to make in the real word of life. Will you ever tell your children you would let them die rather then be cured if it were available?

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/bd371350-0f2c-11de-ba10-0000779fd2ac.html

Michael, the Bible (God’s Word) remains constant and does not change (regardless if we as humans “think” something does not make sense, or if it does not agree with what is “acceptable” in society at large). Remember, God is perfect and humans are not. Therefore, what God says in HIS Word is 100% reliable ALL THE TIME.

What if a scientist takes an egg cell that is “rejected” by the body because it is not fertilized and stores it in a test tube?

God’s natural process has declared that egg cell with its existing stem cell in it will now die outside the body, causing the infant that “could have been” to die or a form of “nature induced” infanticide, menstruation, or whatever you want to call it.

Suppose a sperm donor bank, takes some sperm cells that also were scheduled to die by God’s natural process and put those sperm cells into that test tube.

Does the Scientist now create life after God scheduled death?

What if that scientist STOPs the development of those stem cell divisions and puts them in stasis, where they NEVER mature into an infant. Is that killing an infant? or sustaining stem cell division that will never become an infant…

Is a bacteria life? A virus life? An egg cell life? A sperm cell life?

It is my belief that God, does not intend for everyone of the some 405 egg cells and 500 billion sperm cells in each individual to become infants, although both contain stem cells and DNA to become infants.

By not putting them ALL together and creating infants out of every one of them are we “killing” 402 of the 405 eggs and combined cells that never come to full term but are destroyed by the body?

What if we could use those 402 cells to save children who are already born, from a natural death not stopped or prevented by God, that if left untreated would result in the death of that infant to cancer or some other fatal disease. Would that be saving an infants life, or killing one? Whould God want us to save that child or let it die? Does he encourage death or life? Does he really care about or physical life? What if his only real concern is our spiritual soul and what happens to it after we die?

I believe their is room in scripture that does not prohibit ALL death and does not guarantee all life, in fact scripture does not talk about abortion, stem cell research right or wrong at all.

What if you or I are second guessing God’s true intent of giving us the gift of self-determination and right to make choices that are best for each of us individually.
I believe God will give to me and allow me to do what he will not allow you to do, because my special circumstance is different than yours.

When did religion and republican “religious doctrine” become “judge” that judges all and enforces law on all without letting God decide and grant his own personal permission to each person based on how they hear him?

KFD what you have stated about stem cell research is not totaly true and much of what is printed by the press is not the total or absolute word on the subject mattter but we all should know that the press is not a place to get facts. What works and does not work in stem cell research has not eliminated anything known todate. We do not know what will work and what will not and due to Bush’s policies for the past 8 years we have not advanced in this country about embrionic stem cell research. I did not get my thoughts from the paper but from people who have worked with and have done stem cell research at NIH.

Yes i did paraphrase what you said in your peace but your meaning was well understood. You have your right to any opinion you want as do others.