Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Use my Amazon Portal
If you want to do the research - do the reasearch. But please don't do it with my tax dollars.
I have a compromise proposal. Proponents of Stem Cell research say that the excess frozen embryos are going to waste so why not use them in research. Are they really going to waste? I think opponents of the research are troubled by this assertion.It seems that there would be plenty of couples willing to "adopt" the embryo for implantation. Therefore, a law should be passed that gives the parents of the embryo a choice to 1) offer the embryo up for adoption or 2) to destroy the embryo. If they elect to destroy the embryo, it cannot be used for research.However, if they elect to put the embryo up for adoption and after a reasonable time the embryo is not adopted, then it can be destroyed and used for research. This compromise softens the ethical dilemma because it takes the choice of donating the embryo to research away from the parents and to the winds of chance. Furthermore, this law would reduce the slippery slope of people producing embryos purely for the purpose of medical research.What do you think?
Sorta makes me want to start singing "Every Sperm is Sacred".I'm pretty conservative on most social issues, but this just seems like a huge waste of political capital. It won't even have any practical effect on the amount of stem-cell research that goes on; if it did I might be a lot more bothered about it. Just another act in the Kabuki game of politics these days.
Yes Sloanasaurus, they are really going to waste. Or I guess more accurately, they are going to a medical waste facility to be destroyed.Also children have parents, not blastocysts. If we're going to be starting a giant adoption program what about for the millions of kids in foster care? Or the millions of fetuses that would otherwise be aborted. I think a clump of a hundred cells is definetly low on the list of priorities, especially if it could be utilized to, say, save some of those children mentioned above.
I think you are missing the point sloanasaurus. People who are against using embryos are not concerned about which embryos are to be destroyed for research or why, or who gets to choose. The people (like jeff) who are against using embryos for research will ALWAYS be against it, regardless of the situation. They will never agree to allow their money to be used in any research that results in the destruction of an embryo. This is not a discussion in which you can convince them compromise. Any compromise that results in the destruction of embryos will be rejected as immoral.As jeff says, "don't do it with my tax dollars." Bush agrees with him. If you want the law to change, elect someone who will change it. Bush will not change his mind. He cannot be convinced that conciously destroying embryos for any reason whatsoever is moral.
yes, Mob, but you can sway more people to your side by resolving this particular ethical dilemma.jacob's comment: "I think a clump of a hundred cells is definetly low on the list of priorities.." clearly shows that he knows nothing about the struggle of thousands of couples in trying to have or adopt children. Adopting and implanting embryos would be fairly inexpensive and would have a decent success rate. The reason why it is probably not that common has more to do with the parents of the embryo than the desire to adopt them.
If the wingnuts who back the prohibition had any degress of consistency or intellectual honesty, they would try to shut down the IVF clinics. There are thousands of leftover fertilized eggs in storage. What happens to the leftover fertlized eggs? They are frozen until they die or they are burned at the stake, like Joan d'Arc. If these are really "little people" then an IVF clinic is in reality a murder laboratory!But the wingnut crown didn't go after in vitro fertilization. The horse is out of the barn, and the horse got out so long ago that the barn has long since collapsed.Oh, ye hypocrites!
If I was the kind of person who threw around the phrase "clearly shows that he knows nothing" about a topic I might point out that sloanasaurus apperently didn't know that excess frozen embryos went to waste. But I'm not so I won't.It's true that there are lots of people who want children. It would make more sense, from a utilitarian point of view at least, to provide them with some of the surplus children that already exist. Streamlining adoption law should then be the priority. Better to use surplus blastocytes for science, then to implant them in people who should be adopting (or having their own IVF procedures done). But of course if someone wants to implant someone else's embryo in them more power to them. Just don't make it a law.I might also be misunderstanding your argument, do you really mean that there should only be those 2 choices (as I've been interpreting it) or that there should be a third choice, 3) use the embryo for privately funded research?
Theodore - that's some interesting logic there: Because pro-lifers haven't done everything they could do, therefore they are hypocrites and their argument is nullified.I suppose abolitionists in the 19th century were hypocrites because they didn't join John Brown or protest outside plantations? Self-righteousness is always easy but seldom pretty.And just for clarification, there are a number of Christians who have expressed concerns over hyper-ovulation and frozen embryos. And there are a number of Christians who are pro-life but aren't sure where they stand on what to do with embryonic life.Of course, you've helpfully pointed out that what ESCR is doing is taking the same human life created through IVF and destroying it for medical research. So at least we're agreed that what's being destroyed is human beings. We just disagree on the morality of destroying humans on the off chance that helpful therapies might result."Wingnut" was a nice touch, though. Kudos.
Two wrongs don't make a right Theodore. Just because the horse is out of the barn doesn't make it right to kill the horse. That's Ethics 101. If you want to do the research then do the research with your own money. If you cure Sickle Cell Anemia then you get the Nobel, and even better, the patent.It's almost cliche, it's true (an inconvenient truth it seems)that the better science and potential is behind adult and umbilical cord, but no life (whatever klind of life) has to be snuffed for that.A goodly portion of the country does not support (and a goodly portion does) embryonic stem cell research and the ethics are questionable. I reiterate, if stem cell supporters don't have any ethical qualms, then they can put up their own money and get off the government tit. Where's Bill Gates? -- he's flush with $60B in his foundation. Maybe instead of giving (wasting?) all that money on Harvard he can fund this magic bullet. Where's George Soros and Jeff Bezos, etc. Ted Turner? Oprah Winfrey for that matter or Brangelina?
Jacob,Streamlining adoption laws would not help much, as there are many more people who want to adopt than there are children available -- one of the unintended consequences of unlimited abortion created by Roe. 40 million is a lot of kids not alive to be adopted. That's why many couples, in spite of the costs, are going overseas to adopt.
Theodore Donald K.: I am one of those people who is a practicing Catholic who believes what the Church teaches about the sanctity of life from conception to natural death. Holding this view meant, on a personal basis, that I don't use artificial means of contraception, or IVF or even artificial insemination. When my husband and I struggled with infertility, there were clear limits to what we could and couldn't do. We never crossed the line. I believe that IVF is morally wrong and, therefore, wouldn't do it. But the more pressing battle is at the abortion clinics, where people are ending a life, rather than at the IVF clinic, where people are trying to procure a life.Limited resources, not hypocrisy, require picking the battles.
To the wingnuts whining about taxes: there can be no serious doubt that those of us who support government funding of stem cell research are on the whole better educated, more affluent, and therefore pay more taxes, than you who oppose it. So, tax receipts being fungible, you are free to imagine that all of your taxes are actually being used for whatever God-approved purpose you like...say, paying farmers not to grow stuff.
I thought the legislation was only about whether the feds (as opposed to states and private concerns) should fund this research , and was not, to use Ann's word, about "restrictions" on the research. Can anyone clarify this?
The vote was to let 63 senators claim they support federal funding for ESCR and therefore curing little Johnny from some horrible disease. But they knew Bush would veto it and they knew they could not override it, so its politics and nothing more.Nothing's stopping it from happening.
Smilin' Jack: The Hyde Amendment is still in effect.Thank God.
Where's Bill Gates? -- he's flush with $60BThe Gates foundation is actually doing quite a lot to fund cures for diseases. -------------It will be interesting to see if interested researchers move to California (or out of the country) because of the better funding situations.
Smilin' Jack - Classy. Anyway, if you're better off than the wingnuts, aren't you paying less tax because of Bu$Hitler's tax breaks for the wealthy?John F - the bill was about federal funding of ESCR. There are no federal restrictions on the research itself.The political 'kabuki' going on here is the claim that Bush is "restricting" ESCR. In fact, when Bush created his compromise stem cell policy in 2001, he liberalized stem cell research by allowing federal funding (the first ever) for research on then-existing stem cell lines.Supporters of ESCR funding are asking for a further expansion of federal grants, not a reversal of a 'ban.'
JohnF: Restrictions on the use of federal funds.
Ann, How is refusing to pay for something you don't want and aren't obligated to have a "restriction"? Do I get to claim that the government is restricting me from owning a mansion? Did the feds restrict Alaska from building the Bridge to Nowhere?
Smiling Jack and everyone else confused, the veto was for fundingEMBRYONIC stem cell research.All other stem cell research goes on is AOK(from placenta/cord blood stem cells which they say are just as good or better than the cells of embryos). All privately funded embryonic stem research can also continue.By the way, it is just a theory that embryonic stem cells may be "better" than other stem cells AND so far no one is sure WHAT will come of the research on ANY stem cells. It's just HOPE.It drives me nuts that a) news media can't keep straight what kind of stem cells they are talking about and b) that the proponents of embryonic or other stem cell research behave as though it is "the ANSWER" and cure for all illness. Therefore, you are against embryonic stem cell research you are for Parkinsons. You are against Kyoto (the cure for Global Warming the way some people behave!) and that means you want to kill the planet.Ugh!
John F - the bill was about federal funding of ESCR. There are no federal restrictions on the research itself.Research facilities -- particularly medical centers connected with Universities and Biology departments -- rely a lot on government grants. But - we already know that. This isn't going to change while Bush is in office.It looks to me like this was a bit of political kabuki, designed to give moderate republicans a chance to disagree with the president. And the president got a chance to throw red meat to his base.
Cat,You're not being honest about the research. John Edwards told us:"We will stop juvenile diabetes, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's and other debilitating diseases. ... People like Chris Reeve will get out of their wheelchairs and walk again with stem cell research."Why can't those pie-in-the-sky Christian wingnuts stay out of the political process and let us sober, unbiased people make the policies for them?
"Research facilities -- particularly medical centers connected with Universities and Biology departments -- rely a lot on government grants."... And bad artists rely heavily on NEA grants. That doesn't answer the question of whether the research (or the art) should be done.Again: We're not cutting funding, we're not banning the research; we're refusing to expand it. It's a little dishonest to call that a 'restriction.'Has the government restricted children's television because they haven't increased funding for it?
There's one huge disconnect in the argument regarding this issue that I don't think ever gets addressed.If embryonic stemcells are as potentially medically useful as folks claim, why would public funds be needed at all?I don't see big pharma shying away from spending their own money on promising research.Given the tremendous number of ills that proponents of this research claim would be faerie-wanded away with just the right dose of embryonic stem cells, I can't help but wonder why Pfizer hasn't started an embryo assembly line using Chinese or Indian sperm and eggs to create these little miracle cures in a petri dish.(and for all we know, the Chinese government might be up to such a thing, already)I think the federal government over steps its boundaries and overfunds far too many projects, even if I disagree with why money is not being spent, I'm always gladdened when the federal government refuses to get involved in something.
Again: We're not cutting funding, we're not banning the research; we're refusing to expand it. It's a little dishonest to call that a 'restriction.'Well, if we're going to get specific, the government is refusing to fund the research. And there are practical effects of that decision. One of those consequences are that biological researchers in Universities will pursue other areas of research.
I can't help but wonder why Pfizer hasn't started an embryo assembly line using Chinese or Indian sperm and eggs to create these little miracle cures in a petri dish.The treatments might not be as profitable as other drugs that the companies are researching. And, remember, it is a advanced medical treatment, not a drug.
I have every expectation that all of you supporting the ban on funding this research will decline the likely treatments and therapies it will lead to. When a loved one becomes seriously ill with a horrific disease that today cannot be cured, but quite possibly will be through the use of stem cells, I am sure you will let them continue to suffer because of your moral concerns.
Pastor Jeff: It's a restriction on how funding can be used. I didn't mean to disguise the fact that you can do research with money other than federal money. But the feds do tax us quite a bit, and then they dole the money back out as they decide. The restrictions they impose matter a lot.
This argument that because ESTR "might" have a cure for a horrible disease it should be allowed is a poor one both logically and ethically.First, if that is the only requirement, then Hitler's medical experiments in Germany were perfectly justified. After all, their research "might" have resulted in a break through.Also, why do I not hear from the elinghtened left on the restrictive patents the WARF holds. If they would just give away not only the stem cells, but the patented procedures as well, the world would be a better place. As I understand the logic - anything that might help in the cure of the disease should be mandated.Actually, this is a very typical argument from the left. Action A might have a benefit for group X so it should be done. If you oppose Action A you are a (bigot, neaderthal, hick, wingnut) even though there is little or no empirical evidence that Action A will actually achieve the goal.Adult stem cell research seems to hold the most practical upside, but not the most flamboyant. There is no devisive element to adult stem cells and thus no political advantage. Therefore, the left will literally ignore the benefits of other stem cell research on purely political grounds.In fact, Doyle will spend millions on this issue alone.
Ruth Anne, I admire your consistency. It's rare, especially when it comes to IVF.I, too, believe the only consistent position for one who believes human life is sacred is that life begins at conception. All other lines of demarcation are arbitrary. Therefore, for me personally, IVF is morally problematic. On the other hand, I know people who have had children using IVF. They are good people. Where there was no life, now there is life. Is what they did wrong? Not my call. It is not my place to tell people what is right and wrong. Ultimately, none of us knows. We only believe. But I am annoyed by those who are annoyed by opponents of government funded embryonic stem cell research. This isn't about raining on anyone's parade. We all want cures for diseases. We all want to live longer. But killing embryos is serious business, if you take this business seriously.
"...Bush's foes and the press frequently misstate his position, referring to a "ban on stem-cell research." In fact, the Bush policy places no restrictions on any kind of stem-cell research that does not receive federal money, or on federal funding of adult stem-cell research. It does limit federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research to those cell lines that were in existence at the time the policy was initiated, in August 2001, but prior to then there was no federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research, so that the policy actually liberalized the conditions for federal research grants. Supporters of research subsidies are asking for a further liberalization, not a reversal of a "ban.""http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/
Johnny Nucleo:Thanks. The "consistency" for which I strive is less rare than you think. In my circle, it's quite common. I disagree with you that "ultimately no one knows" what is right and wrong. How, then, did you arrive at your moral opposition to IVF? It's more than just mere belief, isn't it? My disagreement with IVF isn't that it creates life [a good], but that it creates life by separating the procreative element from the unitive element of the marital act. The exact reason is used to oppose artificial contraception. In one, the couple unites without being open to procreation; in the other, the couple procreates without uniting. Both wrong. I fervently agree with you that killing embryos is serious business. Many years ago, I stopped trying to be my own magesterium. Life's been great ever since.
Ruth Anne said: "I disagree with you that "ultimately no one knows" what is right and wrong."Actually I agree with you. I was trying to use a semi-detached voice. I am not Catholic, but I am very Catholic-esque.
Hey, Johnny:Come on in! The water's fine![Just in case no one ever invited you to join.]Is a semi-detached voice like a duplex?
Just Curious,Are you all against the use of IUDs for contraception?
Geoduck2:Don't know if that was asked of me, but Catholic teaching is to oppose all forms of contraception and abortifacients. I, personally, can see condoms and diaphraghms as "less worse" than other methods because they attempt to prevent sperm from meeting egg. IUDs and some forms of the pill, however, don't prevent a conception, they prevent an implantation of a fertilized egg. Too late in my book. The "method" approved by the Vatican is for married couples. It is Natural Family Planning [2 different types: sympto-thermal and Billings method] wherein the couple observes fertile signs and abstains from the marital act to avoid or delay or space a pregnancy, and engages in the marital act to obtain a pregnancy.Pharmaceutical companies don't much care for that method.
geoduck sez,Are you all against the use of IUDs for contraception? I am. And, like Ruth Anne, am against IVF and ESCR as well, and for the same reasons she mentioned. As for declining the gains of such research should any materialize: there is a great deal of moral philosophy that can be perused on the subject of "proximate" vs. "remote" cooperation with evil and the like. Dilemmas like that are best resolved on a case-by-case basis, involving questions such as whether accepting the benefit will lead to additional evil being done, whether accepting it leads to an ends-justify-the-means attitude, etc. But I'll tell you that I've so far felt unable to justify injecting my kids with any of the fetal-cell-line vaccines. It just... bothers me. (I acknowledge that reasonable people weighing the same moral question can and do come to a different conclusion, and I don't insist that I'm certainly correct to decline the vaccines.)Ruth Anne's right: This (consistency with regard to the moral status of embryos) is not such a rare position to take. I dare say it would be even more common if the public discourse tended to be more accurate. Not everyone is even aware that IVF involves destruction of embryos, or of how an IUD works. We, too, have friends who have used IVF to conceive their child(ren). The kids are wonderful and, of course, blameless. But I can't help being privately horrified that their parents were willing to, er, waste the kids' siblings in the process of obtaining them.
DC Willy, interesting. Please be sure that if the loved one in question is above the age of consent, I'll let them make the decision. If it's my daughter, then the question becomes, should I use the fruit of the poisoned tree? I haven't decided yet.While I debate that, please consider the linked article on the ethics of using data derived from medical experiments on prisoners. And while doing so, I implore you to reject scientific advances in the areas of hypothermia treatment for you and all your relatives, while campaigning for the EPA to use all available data in regulating phosgene gas (disclaimer: I do not know the status of EPA regulations on phosgene at this time).
"We, too, have friends who have used IVF to conceive their child(ren). The kids are wonderful and, of course, blameless. But I can't help being privately horrified that their parents were willing to, er, waste the kids' siblings in the process of obtaining them. "I'm sorry, I just don't get it. If your friends had been normally fertile, 50-70% of her eggs fertilized over the months she was trying to get pregnant would have been "wasted" -- they would never have implanted, just like the frozen eggs that never got inserted in the uterus, and just like the eggs inserted into your friend's uterus that never implanted. What makes those artificially created eggs any different than the many naturally fertilized eggs that don't implant, that the couple never even knows about? Do you think every time a woman who is trying to conceive (or not using contraception) it is a morally significant event, since there is a decent chance a fertilized egg that failed to implant is being expelled, resulting in the death of a person? If you were in a burning building, and there was a child that had to be carried and a portable freezer with backup power full of 50 frozen embryos (you could only carry one out), would you save the frozen embryos, since it would be one child versus fifty?
Sorry, second sentence should read:Do you think every time a woman who is trying to conceive (or not using contraception) HAS A PERIOD it is a morally significant event, since there is a decent chance a fertilized egg that failed to implant is being expelled, resulting in the death of a person?
A clear case of a smarmy religious convert shoving his catechism down our throats. Lord help us if Jimmy Carter had ever vetoed a bill based on his religious convictions...and we're not even going near John Kennedy (or any other "cath-a-lick").This is the best Karl Rove can do? Wow, has he lost his touch.
me,What on earth do you mean by "morally significant event?" I'm not trying to be obtuse, just to understand your question precisely in order to answer it. Do you mean "an action that is morally wrong?"
Everyone is talking about embryos and stem cells. Nobody is talking about election year politics. I think that makes this a very successful example of election year politics. If only Tom DeLay were still around I would be absolutely sure this law was passed just with the intention that Bush could veto it!
Bearing: What I meant by that was to ask if the event was one of those kinds of things that you needed to mark by some ceremony or remembrance, like a funeral or a birth -- an event the family should mark as significant morally. Maybe should have said legally significant. sorry to be so unclear. :)
me,I'm repeating myself but I wrote a post on this called People Seeds. It's basically an argument that actual life, as distinct from potential life, begins at implantation. If so, then the moral argument about doing something to prevent implantation becomes, "Who decides?" Is everything that isn't from human will, from God?That said -- I admire the moral consistency of people who won't use IVF because they hold the natural process of conception and the human embryo sacred.
me,thanks --- I'm so glad you clarified because (obviously) I thought you meant something entirely different.Very early embryo loss (not due to contraception techniques or abortion) (a) isn't willed or caused by anyone AND (b) doesn't usually even make itself known. So, no, I suppose not. (You will find some people who argue that it is immoral to have sex when the woman suffers from a luteal phase defect or some such condition that carries a high risk of natural embryo loss. I do not agree, but I certainly respect anyone who chooses to abstain in that circumstance.)But many women who experience miscarriage after they become aware of a pregnancy do, in fact, mourn and memorialize such losses. I'm not sure what that has to do with IVF/ESCR destruction of embryos. Morally speaking the losses in that situation are quite different, because that destruction is willed; it is performed as an overt act; and it is known to have occurred.
"But many women who experience miscarriage after they become aware of a pregnancy do, in fact, mourn and memorialize such losses."I totally understand that. I do not understand why an early embryo loss is not exactly the same thing as the loss of the frozen embryos inserted into the uterus that do not implant or the loss of the frozen embryos. They are exactly the same thing: but when the woman naturally loses an embryo, no one knows about it and no one mourns. Natural embryos that have something wrong with them often do not implant -- what about the frozen embryos that have something wrong with them that will not allow them to implant succesfully? If they are babies, should we implant them in a woman just to make sure, to give them a chance at life? I just don't GET this idea. Doctors implant 3 or so embryos, knowing normally only one survives -- are they murderers? But they were giving one out of three a good chance of actually developing into a person, while if they only implanted one embryo its chances would be much worse. What do people who think embryos are babies think we should do with all the frozen ones? Not deliberately dispose of them or do research on them obviously, but just let them sit in the freezer until they are no longer viable for implantation? That's the only "natural" death they can have, I guess. Sorry for the rambling, I just cannot comprehend . . .
Sorry for the rambling, I just cannot comprehend . . .I don't get it either.I just don't understand how people can belive that a woman who uses a IUD is a murderer. (The fertilized eggs can't implant with a IUD.)
I am personally conflicted on the issue but have given it plenty of thought. I have MS and stem cell research holds some potential for a cure although I'm not delusional about ESCR being the quickest and only path.But I respect the view that conception is the beginning of life. I have come to my own compromise and I don't feel the need to impose it on others or use it to judge others.Since there are embryos that will not be implanted and are destined for eventual "destruction" I am ok with their use for research. I am ok with the government restricting funding to existing lines (current policy). I am not ok ever with creating embryos for research.
"Smiling Jack and everyone else confused, the veto was for fundingEMBRYONIC stem cell research.All other stem cell research goes on is AOK(from placenta/cord blood stem cells which they say are just as good or better than the cells of embryos). All privately funded embryonic stem research can also continue.By the way, it is just a theory that embryonic stem cells may be "better" than other stem cells AND so far no one is sure WHAT will come of the research on ANY stem cells. It's just HOPE....Ugh!!!"To be more precise (and fairer):http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/health/chi-0607190211jul19,1,5676240.story?ctrack=1&cset=true
Geoduck 2: I never equated IUD-using with "murder." I consider it a grave sin, a moral wrong, but I cannot in a blanket statement call it murder. Murder requires a specific knowledge, intent, means, motive, etc. It's lacking here from what I've seen in most cases.
Murder requires a specific knowledge, intent, means, motive, etc. Right, which is why implanting 3 embryos into a woman's uterus, even expecting that only one or two will survive, isn't murderous. Nor is the creation of the embryos. In fact, once the embryos have been created, the only moral thing to do with them is to implant them in a human womb, in an effort to allow them to survive. It is, I believe, immoral to create embryos via IVF. It is certainly immoral to destroy them. It's not immoral to implant them.So, I would say to "me" that the loss of embryos that have been implanted in a woman's uterus is not dissimilar to the incidental loss of embryos in the normal course of uncontracepted human sexuality. But the act of deliberately destroying them is murder.me: But they were giving one out of three a good chance of actually developing into a person, while if they only implanted one embryo its chances would be much worse.What you mean is that by implanting 3 embryos, the likelihood of a pregnancy being sustained is increased (because there are 3 possible embryos and not just one that can implant). To the individual embryo, the likelihood of survival to birth is probably not greater if it is implanted along with others.
Ruth Ann said: "Come on in! The water's fine! [Just in case no one ever invited you to join.]"That's very sweet. I gotta tell you, though, the confession bit freaks me out. It would take days, months, years.
I never equated IUD-using with "murder." I consider it a grave sin, a moral wrong, but I cannot in a blanket statement call it murder. Murder requires a specific knowledge, intent, means, motive, etc. It's lacking here from what I've seen in most cases.Murder is a legalistic term. Perhaps you see the use of the IUD (and the birth control pill) as manslaughter or unintentional homicide? Anyways, I don't understand his how something smaller then the dot on the end of this sentance, that consists of ten cells, can be viewed as a human being. It's fine that I don't understand it; but it is one of those things that I find baffling.
johnny nucleo: That's very sweet. I gotta tell you, though, the confession bit freaks me out. It would take days, months, years. Nah, couple of hours, by appointment, max. Feels good, too --- lots better than a therapy session. :-)geoduck, I sympathize with the "baffling" thing. It took me a long time to come to where I am on this issue, but now that I'm here, logic forces consistency.
Geoduck2: As I said, I consider the use of an IUD a sin. I am fully aware that I am obligated to moral standards by virtue of my membership in the Roman Catholic Church. I joined it and I try to live by its rules.You were once the size of the period at the end of this sentence. And you're human. It seems you have a problem with where the line is drawn. Tell me, then, where do you draw the line? When weren't you human and when did you become human? That answer, wherever the line is drawn, has consequences.Johnny Nucleo: Every priest I know has instructed to list your sins briefly and in summary form. 10 commandments takes only a few minutes to recount in summary form. They really have heard it all.
Post a Comment