You nailed it exactly, RA. It is Orwellian doublespeak. The sheer evil of it makes me shudder as I read it.

Really, you are wasted on the other side.
Colleen | 08.30.05 - 6:44 am | #

"bank robbery: the polite notes of gratitude and regret would not be lost upon the tellers."

Hey, you only get to show regret and gratitude to dead bank tellers. No cheating or NARAL will get you.
Tess | 08.30.05 - 6:57 am | #

We're both atheists with respect to RCRC's god, Colleen.
The Raving Atheist | Homepage | 08.30.05 - 8:54 am | #

I could understand, not condone, but understand this regretful, sad acknowldgement of difficult choices if it werent for the fact that embryonic stem cell reseaerch is simply not necessary.

Between adult stems cells, cord blood, and the new, non-embryonic cells that are being found which combine the best of both adult and embryonic cells, without, seemingly, the problems of either of them, this debate is pointless.

I can only suppose that the true purpose of championing unnecessary embryonic holocaust is political and, I can't state this any other way, demonic.

Words, ideas, and motivations do matter. St. Michael, pray for us!

In Christ's peace,

Robin L. in TX
Robin L. in TX | 08.30.05 - 9:46 am | #

I've wondered if the push for hES (thanks for handy abbreviation) is that the genome could then be OWNED. If an individual unique embryo can be manipulated and destroyed (murdered) in the process, then it is far more "ownable" than cells taken from a living person, who would then have prior ownership over their own unique DNA structure.

Where there's ownership, there would therefore be money. Lots of it.

Is this legally logical?
Therese Z | Homepage | 08.30.05 - 9:51 am | #

Raving, a minor nit on a post most of which I agree with wholeheartedly:

Instead of respecting what you destroy, remember that destroying isn?t respectful.

With all due respect, I think the relationship between destruction and respect is a bit more complicated. We destroy animals to eat them, and this does not necessarily mean that we disrespect them (tho' unfortunately it often does). If we have treated an animal humanely and in accordance to its nature (not that this happens very often in "modern" agriculture), we may yet be free to slaughter the animal for food, again in accordance with its nature (and ours as the highest predator... so far).

It is absolutely true that destruction of a human embryo (or zygote) is equivalent to disrespect. The disrespect does not arise merely from the act of destruction, but instead from a failure to recognize the true nature of the human embryo and act accordingly.

Best regards
Steve Nicoloso | Homepage | 08.30.05 - 10:36 am | #

Colleen's last statement:
[i]Really, you are wasted on the other side.[/i]
sounded pretty disrespectful to those of us on the other side. I seem to recall getting a stern response and edit from Dawn for calling my oppsition "sad" a while ago. Where's the censor button here Dawn? I hope there is no double standard here for pro-lifers.
Left Brain | Homepage | 08.30.05 - 10:43 am | #

sounded pretty disrespectful to those of us on the other side.

Left Brain: She's protecting me from the RCRC -- they don't destroy what they disrepect.
The Raving Atheist | Homepage | 08.30.05 - 11:14 am | #

Left Brain,
It is no different than wishing someone from another ball-club were on your team. No disrespect to the other team.

"Lighten up, Francis."
John J. Simmins | Homepage | 08.30.05 - 11:15 am | #

Yeah, it's like rooting for the Giants and not those Bushleaguers from Los Angeles.
The Raving Atheist | Homepage | 08.30.05 - 11:25 am | #

Agreed, RA, but unfortunately, the Giants have a horrid offensive line and Eli is going to get hurt for keeps sometime soon - he's lucky Julius Peppers didn't break his elbow on that fumble two weeks ago.
Nightfly | Homepage | 08.30.05 - 1:13 pm | #

Hey, since RA is on "our" side (the pro-life one), and he's doing such a good job, can we stand on the sidelines and shout,

"RA, RA RA!"

or would that be too much?
Kate B. | 08.30.05 - 1:21 pm | #

Kate B., LOL!
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 08.30.05 - 1:36 pm | #

Kate B. Very funny. AR, AR, AR!!
John J. Simmins | Homepage | 08.30.05 - 2:27 pm | #

Ah!

Pirates!
Kate B. | 08.30.05 - 4:32 pm | #

I have written an entire discourse on the idiocy of that damned glossary on my blog. It took a while and I had to filter through a lot of crap and restrict myself to the least possible expletives possible... but hopefully none slipped through.

I've never seen so much propagandized crap in one place before.

Thankfully, the internet allows me as much discourse as I please.

On a lighter note, has anyone heard on the outcome of that lewd shirt?
Brian K | Homepage | 08.30.05 - 5:12 pm | #

From RCRC's web site:

"Should you choose abortion, adoption, or parenting?
Ultimately, only you can decide what is right for you. We believe that God has given us the gift of free will and blesses decisions that are made thoughtfully, with knowledge and faith. Be assured that, no matter what you decide, you are a person who is loved and valued by God.

We believe that life is a gift from God. In thinking about an unwelcome pregnancy, you should consider your own life as well as the new life you might bring forth. Your physical health and emotional well-being are sacred concerns. Only you know if you are prepared for the responsibility of bringing another life into the world."

They're all but saying "go get an abortion." Honestly, are these guys for real, or just a front for NARAL, PP, and others who profit from abortion?
Jim Jefferson | 08.30.05 - 7:25 pm | #

They're just a front, Jim. Planned Parenthood supports them. I believe NARAL does too.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 08.30.05 - 7:35 pm | #

Yeah, you'll find direct links to NARAL, PP, and a host of other pro-abortion organizations at RCRC's online resources page.
Jim Jefferson | 08.30.05 - 7:48 pm | #

Brian K - not much good news for the shirt, or anything else.
Nightfly | Homepage | 08.30.05 - 9:26 pm | #

Did anyone actually read this essay? It's a discussion of embryonic stem cell research as a difficult and unclear ethical issue. Since when does nuance and the recognition of ethical quandaries count as doublespeak?

Has anyone who's thrown around the terms 'orwellian' or 'doublespeak' actually read 1984? This author isn't trying to conceal the reality of ethical difficulty and intense controversy; quite the opposite. In the very last quoted sentence, for example, as well as her conclusion later on, she calls for people of all opinions to get involved in the discussion. By what twisted logic can this be characterized as avoiding the issue? I'm rather surprised, Colleen, that you consider an interpretation this obviously wrong a sign of RA's intellectual prowress; reasoning of this quality would be laughed out of a intro-level philosophy course.

Therese, I would point out that the abbreviation hES seems to come from the linked article itself.

Jim, how are you reading a passage that calls for careful reflection on potential life and a recognition of many possible options as blanket advocacy for aborting an unwanted pregnancy? Again, I am shocked at the ease which with everyone is making interpretations which run directly against the texts you're quoting.

Also, the inference that this organization is supported by PP, Naral, etc., because they link to those other organizations is absurd; by that logic, Dawn is directly funded by those "help after abortion" groups she links to whenever someone mentions actually having an abortion.
Noumena | Homepage | 09.03.05 - 2:10 pm | #