Monday, June 27, 2005

I dont think so...

So, the "International Society for Stem Cell Research" has conferences every so often to talk with their members, and clear up some misconceptions people have about their practices. (see this article)

One of these misconceptions that we hold is that using embryonic stem cells is like "dismembering babies". They say that because these are groups of only about 100 cells, they dont have limbs. Now, I wouldnt mind people cutting off my fingertips for lifesaving research (If you did not know, fingertips can regenerate). The stem cells in my fingers will turn back into fingertips, but what will the embryonic cells turn into? The answer is that they will become arms, legs, a head, and a complete body. The truth is that though they say they are not dismembering babies, they are wrong. A couple cells off on the left, and let the baby develop, and maybe you did dismember them. Of course, since they kill the babies, we dont even get to see.

Legalized murder, only in the US.

Too bad!

Its really too bad that the first amendment does not read, "The US Supreme Court shall make no law...". This would possibley have stopped the ruling the court released today regarding having the Ten Commandments on display in a courthouse.

For those who have no knowledge of the first amendment besides the ACLU propaganda, here is a word for word copy:

"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."

For those who do not understand this antiquated document, I will translate it. Congress may not make laws regarding religion. They may not make a law supporting either side. This has absolutely nothing that would seem to prohibit a government official from supporting a religion, or even having religious symbols in a government building. Essentially, this has absolutely nothing to do with what the Supreme Court has ruled on. If anything, it violates the second clause, by removing a persons ability to freely excercise their religion.

The third through fifth parts are completely unrelated, only dealing with freedom of expression, the right to peaceably assemble, and the right to complain to the government, essentially.

The point I am getting at here is that the supreme court is basing their ruling on their own opinions, and completely ignoring the actual law. This is exactly the same thing that the ACLU does, so it really just shows how much power they have over our court system.

The only thing that does not completely upset me about this is that it was a 5-4 decision, meaning there are at least 4 judges who care about following the letter and spirit of the law. At least all of the judges have to retire sometime.

Thursday, June 23, 2005

Just a note.

For the record, this blog is no longer kept up, as I primarily blog on another site now. For those wondering, the pictures you may find here, or on my photo blog are only there so I can link to them from other sites.