My feeling exactly.
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Museum discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On
Behalf Of Redcliffe State Historic Site
    Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2001 1:20 PM
    To: [log in to unmask]
    Subject: Re: CLONING FOR STEM CELLS


    What do this have to do with the museum community or the purpose of this
listserve?



    Casey Connell



    -----Original Message-----
    From: Barb Rexroat [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
    Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2001 12:36 PM
    To: [log in to unmask]
    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).