I personally feel HUMAN life needs to be protected when possible. Hmm, let me rephrase that to innocent human lifes. I do believe in the death penalty for violent criminals when their crime can be proven without any doubt. When it comes to non-human life (animals and insects), treat them humanly but I have no problem using animals for food or medical research. I do not agree with People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.
If you think protecting human embryos is an extreme position for someone to take, be thankful that a person who shares the principles of PETA is not running things, there would be no medical research at all that involved using animals.
At 02:59 PM 7/23/2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jim,
How do you feel about us killing cows and chickens to eat? What about euthanizing dogs and cats at the pound to control the population? Do rats and monkeys fall into the protected group? How about killing flys and mosquitoes - they feed the larger animals you know.
In a related point - our Catholic priest said today birth control like condoms, creams and IUDs are a violation of God's natural law but family size can be regulated by practicing abstinence during times of fertility. He didn't cover vasectomies or tubal ligations but I think those would be considered violations of natural law as well.
As long as 'God's natural law' is the topic, where do you think artificial resuscitation figures in? If you blow somebody's lungs up a few times and he comes out of it is that different than breathing for him the rest of his life? The lines get pretty fuzzy.
Dave
P.S. I believe in the natural law that the strongest survive and the rest are at their mercy.
Dave www.daveoconnell.com c3-inc-1967
