I take it that this is an "unmoderated" list, otherwise the moderator needs
to set some standards. where is the relevancy to "museums" here?
Bryan P. T. Lean
Manager, Museum Operations
St. Louis County Historical Society
[log in to unmask]
www.thehistorypeople.org
www.vets-hall.org
Vox: 218.733.7582 Fax: 218.733.7585
506 West Michigan Street Duluth, Minnesota 55802-1505
----- Original Message -----
From: "Greenwich" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2001 5:50 PM
Subject: CLONING FOR STEM CELLS
> . 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).
|
