Pro-life issues in government, science and religion.

[Cleita]

These threads about Terry Schiavo and the anti-abortionists makes me think of another issue, the separation of church and state. It seems that not only did the Constitution address the separation of church and state but I think we need a provision for the separation of church and science as well. I think religion interfering with our scientific institutions is as bad as religion interfering with our government.

These right to life issues like a woman's reproductive health or helping terminal patients die with dignity are not really religious issues but medical issues that should be the provenance of the families and their doctors, no one else. We need laws that clearly state this.

[Malva Zebrina]

1. I wouldn't hold my breath

in this regime under the born again Christian Bush. And from the looks of it, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for Democrats to do it either. I agree the issue needs to be discussed, but who will do the discussing? Christian philosophers? Their record is not too encouraging because historically religion has held back the healing of human beings who were suffering and died by the thousands pehaps the millions, especially during the dark ages, because of their resistance to scientific discoveries.

We are certainly seeing it being continued now with the denial of stem cell research.

But the rich who are sick, can always go overseas to other countries that are working on this and possible be cured of their affliction. That's encouraging.

[toymachines]

2. but they would say it is morals not religion, or something like that

and that morals and ethics are inherently a part of science. we cant even make them hold up the separation of church and state, separating church and science would be all but impossible...but we could dream.

[Cleita]

3. ....

:kick:

[Quixote1818]

4. The problem is sometimes you are left not knowing what they wanted

and if that is the case then you would have to default to the probability of what they would want to do. Since only 7% in most polls say they would want to be kept alive on life support then you would have to go with the 93% chance that they would want the tube pulled. Sure you will miss 7% of the time but you will hit 93% of the time. You have to go with scientific probability if their is nothing else to go by. Unfortunately any bill will probably side with life and against the overwhelming odds that is what the person would want.