Hey kids, I don't think this is what I'm on the list for. Can we get back to business, please? Thanks, we now return you to your regularly scheduled programming... *:)Cecelia Ottenweller Redcliffe State Historic Site wrote: > 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] > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > -- Cecelia Ottenweller Program Coordinator The Jung Center 5200 Montrose Blvd. Houston, TX 77006 713-524-8253, ext. 16 [log in to unmask] "I'm not a model...A model's an imitation of the real thing." - Mae West