|
Post by Paws on Nov 1, 2006 3:49:09 GMT 12.75
Is it just me or does it seem to anyone else that Hollywood has a way of making folk seem to think that because they play bits on the big screen that what they have to say is more important than what anyone else has to say? Does Michael really think that stem cell research using viable human embryos isn't harmful or is he just playing a part? How does that particular opinion line up with fish hurt? Is anyone else having difficulty making sense out of his recent rants ?
|
|
|
Post by Mars on Nov 1, 2006 5:39:35 GMT 12.75
He's an actor and gets paid for it. Nothing more. I caught part of the "ad" as MSNBC was "discussing" it. I watched about 5 seconds of his shake and rattle then turned the TV off. To me it sounds like he's afraid to meet his Creator.
|
|
|
Post by Toby Benoit on Nov 1, 2006 6:05:00 GMT 12.75
After living so long in the limelight, he seems to be grasping at whatever he can to keep a feeling of importance. So, no longer able to act he wants to throw his hat into the political ring on the side of Stem Cell Research. My impression is that of a man trying to keep as much attention on himself as he can.
Folks were getting upset about Limbaugh slamming the guy, but an public figure who weighs in on a oitical issue is fair game in my book. Limbaugh said he looked like he hadn't taken the medication so that he's look more pitiful. Fox later admitted that he hadn't taken the medication that day.
Limbaugh apologized for being harsh and Fox used the incident for a ten minute slot on the nightly news with Katie Curic.
A joke. They want government funding for their immoral science projects, but theres billions of dollars already available in the private sector from pharmaceutical companies. Our government does NOT need to fund their research and Fox should spend his time getting right with God rather than trying to find just one more way to get his face on TV.
He's seeking the same pitiful notoriety as Christopher Reeves received and it's really sad.
|
|
|
Post by Paws on Nov 1, 2006 6:38:26 GMT 12.75
Reeves and I exchanged letters and viewpoints shortly before he died. Neither of us changed our mind. I find his and her death so close together and at such early ages to be somewhat eerie. Makes me wonder.
|
|
|
Post by Carter Northcutt on Nov 3, 2006 2:42:20 GMT 12.75
I really don't care what they say.
|
|
|
Post by Paws on Nov 3, 2006 4:18:04 GMT 12.75
But Carter, it seems that so many others do. You know there was a report that the number of "Pro stem cell research" folk ju8mped by four percent following his advertisement.
|
|
|
Post by g8rhed on Nov 7, 2006 5:05:53 GMT 12.75
Well, big day in Missouri tomorrow. The toll of Amendment 2 voting will ring across the country - whichever way it turns out.
Won't bore you with the entire article but,...morality and science aside this is the best one-liner why Amendment 2 is bad law:
October 27, 2006
Please Ignore the Man Behind the Fetal Stem Cell Initiative’s Curtain By Kenny Simpson "Proponents of Missouri's proposed fetal stem cell proposition are more concerned about receiving a blank check from the taxpayers than science."
|
|
|
Post by g8rhed on Nov 7, 2006 5:20:30 GMT 12.75
The Amendment is mostly about enshrining a politcal cash cow, but the moral consequences are what the country will suffer if it passes. Though I agree that government should protect life, especially of the most defenseless, removing the responsibility of protecting life from the individual violates the philisophical premis of self-ownership. Our liberty is based on self-ownership and private property - this is a philisophical basis that is independent of moral values. When government enters the realm of moral judgement - it essentially removes responsibility from the individual. The consequence of that meddleing is the sacrifice of liberty.
This issue has no merit for government restriction on the basis of self-ownership and no public funding of any kind should be involved. Let the private sector that benefits from the research provide the capital. Then they are entitled to the spoils of profit. If researchers cross the line in their methods, then the individuals that can prove damage must take the issue to court.
I will vote against the personal measure for reason which include the immorality of cloning, but beyond that, liberty dictates that my morals not be forcefully applied to others. The real issue is that of private property and do we own and control what is ours. The answer: De-criminalize private property (ie: do not permit taking private property for public use - which is the product of your labor = money) and self-ownership will dictate the issue. Then, if by free exchange, one party is morally outraged by the actions of another, let them prove in court (and with their own funds) how the other party may be liable for damages. Each case is then decided upon it's own merits, and private property is not consumed for public use.
|
|