At 12:21 PM 4/8/2005, Bill Shanks wrote:
>Shawn condescends and adds a little misdirection of his own (Denys would be
>proud of you):
>
>"thank you, you've now just confirmed what started this conversation.  Wirts
>incorrect and inflammatory statements about the state of stem cell
>research.  I was wondering if anyone would pick up on it.  So 1 point for
>figuring it out and -1 point for not knowing that an embryo is a fertilized
>egg."
>
>As long as we're keeping score, that's -1 for childishly whining "Wirt did
>it first!", -1 for doing the same thing he did (hasn't anyone every told
>you that 2 wrongs don't make a right?), and -1 for not knowing the
>difference between an embryo and a baby.
>
>Now, just a question: eventually some of the embryos you are so adamant
>about not "killing" will have to be destroyed anyway.  Would you then
>charge the person(s) that destroyed them with murder?  Will you say they
>have to be maintained for eternity?
>
>I also find it incredibly illogical that those who want to protect these
>embryos are usually in favor of the death penalty.  So much for the
>sanctity of life.

I'll leave out the mindless rambling and address this because it's the most
typical liberal talking point.  A baby is totally innocent, someone on
death row is not, they've been convicted of a heinous crime by a jury of
their peers, and have exhausted about 20 years of appeals.  I guess that
since you equate an innocent potential child with a violent criminal, then
it explains your point of view, which if I understand correctly is to kill
babies via abortion, kill potential babies, but let violent criminals live.

>* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
>* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *


Regards,

Shawn Gordon
President
theKompany.com
www.thekompany.com
www.mindawn.com
949-713-3276

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *