Right on, Barb. I am by no means a fundamentalist but my rather liberal
beliefs still do not allow for murder or experimentation with an unborn
child.
Ross Weeks Jr.
Historic Crab Orchard Museum & Pioneer Park
Tazewell, Va.
http://histcrab.netscope.net
----- Original Message -----
From: "Barb Rexroat" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2001 12:35 PM
Subject: Re: CLONING FOR STEM CELLS
> While you can split an atom, you can not completely separate
church and
> state as long as church goers vote and whether you think they are right,
wrong
> or zealots, they vote for our government representatives who make these
> difficult decisions. The government doesn't always please us, that's for
> sure. It's very easy for you to criticize the president when you are not
the
> one trying to please the entire country.
> Furthermore, you will NEVER convince me that an embryo is not one
of
> God's children. If scientists want me to believe that because of the
process
> of evolution man has not always looked the way he does today, why can't I
> expect scientists to believe that an embryo can be a human even if it
doesn't
> look like we do.
> It's very easy for you to say that people who are against cloning
an
> embryo are zealots. You don't know me, how can you label me? I would
argue
> that scientists can be zealots for their beliefs as well.
> Just keep in mind that just because someone disagrees with you
doesn't
> mean they are "wrong" any more than you are "right" or "wrong." Religious
> people are not against science. Last time I checked we all had a right to
our
> opinion and many of us disagree with embryo cloning. That is OK.
> When it's all said and done, if I'm wrong, so what; but if
scientists
> who disregard God's will are wrong, they have one hell of a price to pay.
> Barb
> At 03:50 PM 11/26/01 -0800, you wrote:
> >. The science community, those interested in the right to choice,
> >those wanting to see humane scientific progress, must restore to the
> >science community the right to make scientific definitions , and not
> >give it to religious fundamentalists. Religions defining scientific
> >organisms or defining anything in the sciences, through law, violates
> >Separation of Church and State.
> > It's based on a religious definition, adopted by the "dead or
> >alive" pro-death penalty President, that "human life (e.g., a baby)
> >begins at conception.
> > A six-cell embryo is hardly a "baby" or a "human being." It's
> >argued that an embryo is "potentially" a human being, therefore "human
> >life."
> > The same "potential" could be claimed for an egg or sperm or a
> >"gleam in the eye." It's literature, or poetry, and all fine, but it's
> >not science. It makes no more sense to claim this for a new embryo, than
> >to say a woman's egg is a "baby;" or that a sperm is a "human life." The
> >only difference is that intercourse (or another method) fertilized the
> >egg, making it an "embryo." This is the scientific definition of that
> >level of life.
> > That's why science called it an embryo, not a baby: Because it
> >is still scientifically *different* from a sentient, independent human
> >being. That is, until the religious right browbeat the defining of
> >scientific terms into law along its own biases.
> > Hypocrisy enters the fray when we hear Bush and others say,
> >"it's wrong to kill one innocent human being even if to save others from
> >an evil disease." This, from the people who tell us we must accept
> >"collateral killing" of innocent people in the greater good of stopping
> >evil.
> > The issue to re-fight now is again for Separation of Church and
> >State, of Church and public, of Church and Science.
> > It's one thing to resist cloning human beings (or placing a
> >cloned embryo into a womb). This is not proposed.
> > The whole procedure takes place using one's own genetic
> >material, altered and returned, to heal a sick organ, spine, etc., and
> >should be a right of "choice" in the control of one's own body.
> > The only "ethic" here lies in the power struggle of zealots
> >further dictating to the state and to science.
> >Bob Fink
> >
> >=========================================================
> >Important Subscriber Information:
> >
> >The Museum-L FAQ file is located at
> >http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed
> >information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail
message
> >to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read
"help"
> >(without the quotes).
> >
> >If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to
> >[log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read
"Signoff
> >Museum-L" (without the quotes).
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Barb Rexroat
> Grants and Contracts Administrator
> Comptroller's Office
> Illinois State University
> ph 309-438-5694 fax 309-438-8245
> [log in to unmask]
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:
The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).
If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).
|
