Pat Oliphant by Pat Oliphant

Pat Oliphant

Comments (36) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. meetinthemiddle

    meetinthemiddle said, about 4 years ago

    If you accept that a soul starts when sperm meets egg, you can follow the logic that this research is wrong.

    What I don’t get is that these fertility clinics have thousands of these blastocysts that they’re destroying anyway - flushing down the toilet - because people don’t want to pay their freezer bills anymore.

    If you agree with the logic above, how does it make more sense to flush them down a toilet than use them in research?

  2. Weakstream

    Weakstream said, about 4 years ago

    I think your on to something,

  3. pavlov

    pavlov said, about 4 years ago

    looks like the judge might be a Darwinian

  4. motivemagus

    motivemagus said, about 4 years ago

    meetinthemiddle - and since the majority of fertilized eggs in fact fail to embed in the uterine wall and therefore are naturally or spontaneously aborted (that’s the technical term, I understand), what do these people think of that?

  5. cartwrights

    cartwrights said, about 4 years ago

    Meetinthemiddle and motivemagus: good comments.

    And I hear no complaining from the right about “activist judges.”

  6. Libertarian1

    Libertarian1 said, about 4 years ago

    I think there was major overreaching and inappropriate activism on the part of the judge. Stem cell research will provide major therapeutic breakthroughs as time progresses.

    Nevertheless I see very little comment that the clause, upon which he based his opinion, was signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1996. But some blame where it belongs. He owned a veto pen.

  7. edrush

    edrush said, about 4 years ago

    “when the 5 month old fetus John recognized Him” ????? That’s one of the funniest things I’ve heard yet in this bizarre argument.

  8. pavlov

    pavlov said, about 4 years ago

    Congress wrote the the law and was signed into law by clinton.

    At any rate adult stem cell research has been showing more promise at this time than embryonic so maybe they should divert the funds there until this mess is cleared up.

  9. Jade

    Jade GoComics PRO Member said, about 4 years ago

    “meetinthemiddle - and since the majority of fertilized eggs in fact fail to embed in the uterine wall and therefore are naturally or spontaneously aborted (that’s the technical term, I understand), what do these people think of that?”

    • I believe one state tried to make it a law that a miscarriage was illegal, natural or otherwise.

  10. dtroutma

    dtroutma GoComics PRO Member said, about 4 years ago

    Yes, Jade, several attempts have been made to make miscarry a crime. Ban tampons!

    A human embryo is NOT statistically more likely to become a person than a stain.

    As they’re now substituting DNA to create cloned critters, the accepted notion of an egg or embryo being any specific species is getting quite clouded.

    We’ve had a number of world leaders who raise the question of whether even ADULTS have a “soul”, let alone embryos.

  11. bhfuhr

    bhfuhr said, about 4 years ago

    The court did not decide based on ethics. It was based on a specific law that Obama decided did not apply. He was wrong.

  12. ChukLitl

    ChukLitl GoComics PRO Member said, about 4 years ago

    Life is hard for a blastocyst, with the potential to become a doctor, lawyer or Pope, but currently a waste byproduct of someone’s attempt to concieve “naturally.” My psychic powers tell me they’d rather sign the organ doner card than go in the dumpster.

  13. lonecat

    lonecat said, about 4 years ago

    RichardSRussell – thank you for the best laugh I’ve had in a long time. Or as the young ones say, ROTFLMFAO. (What’s the “F” stand for? No, don’t answer.)

  14. lonecat

    lonecat said, about 4 years ago

    There is so much neat work going on in neuroscience now – it is just so fascinating what is being discovered about the brain and how it works, I’m a total amateur, of course, but gosh I just admire this work so much. Anyone who wants to talk about souls and psyches and such – if you don’t read about neuroscience you’re just missing the greatest game in town. I’m not saying you’ll stop believing in the soul – how can I predict? – but you’ll learn something fascinating about how sensing and moving and thinking and feeling actually happen.

    Religious discourse is non-falsifiable. That’s one meaning of Jesus’ injunction not to put God to the test. So religious discourse doesn’t advance. It’s as true or as false now as it ever was. Maybe that’s good, maybe that’s bad, but there it is. Scientific discourse is falsifiable – the point of doing an experiment is to put nature to the test. So scientific discourse does advance. Again, that may be good and it may be bad, but that’s how it works.

    If you think that religious discourse is sufficient, you’re never going to learn all the neat stuff that science can tell you. If you want to learn more about nature, then science is the way to go. If you don’t care to learn more about nature, hey, it’s your choice.

  15. motivemagus

    motivemagus said, about 4 years ago

    By the standards the religious anti-science people are proposing, I’d avoid getting a dermal or even scrubbing too hard – you’re rubbing off (rubbing out?) potential human lives. Tweeze a hair? If you pull out the root, you’re pulling out a cell with your DNA in it. Potential human life. By the way, charlie, some religions do not believe the soul enters the body until later in development. And you do know that no Gospel was written until a century after the facts, right?

  16. Load the rest of the comments (21).