Re: [QUAD-L] Viewing the "Big Picture"

[Oconnelldb]

Jim, How do you feel about us killing cows and chickens to eat?  What about euthanizing dogs and cats at the pound to control the population?  Do rats and monkeys fall into the protected group?   How about killing flys and mosquitoes - they feed the larger animals you know.   In a related point - our Catholic priest said today birth control like condoms, creams and IUDs are a violation of God's natural law but family size can be regulated by practicing abstinence during times of fertility.  He didn't cover vasectomies or tubal ligations but I think those would be considered violations of natural law as well.   As long as 'God's natural law' is the topic, where do you think artificial resuscitation figures in?  If you blow somebody's lungs up a few times and he comes out of it is that different than breathing for him the rest of his life?  The lines get pretty fuzzy. Dave P.S. I believe in the natural law that the strongest survive and the rest are at their mercy.     In a message dated 7/23/2006 2:15:12 P.M. US Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: At 01:27 PM 7/23/2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It is not ok to kill people. We are talking about exploiting the availability of human tissue. Just stem cells. These are not and never will be humans. These are unassigned cells. They have no thoughts, no ambitions, no sense of self, and most importantly, no womb. If I gave you all the pieces of a an automobile, you would not own a car. Even a good mechanic would only own junk because of the  lack of tools. It isn't the big picture, its the small minds.   john Just another thought about what should be considered "a human life". At this point in time, I do believe that a human egg and human sperm make a human being from the time they are joined, from that point the zygote contains all the 46 chromosomes need to be human and it continues to develop. When NASA scientist talk about "life on Mars" they are talking about microscopic bacteria. ALH84001 - The Life on Mars meteorite On August 7, 1996, an historic press conference was held at NASA Headquarters in Washington DC. News that scientists had found evidence of life in a Mars meterorite had leaked out, and NASA had to make an announcement. A few minutes before, President Clinton made these remarks at the White House before heading out on a trip to California:     "This is the product of years of exploration and months of intensive study by some of the world's most distinguished scientists. Like all discoveries, this one will and should continue to be reviewed, examined and scrutinized. It must be confirmed by other scientists... I am determined that the American space program will put its full intellectual power and technological prowess behind the search for further evidence of life on Mars." At the press conference, several scientists from NASA and Stanford University announced their findings -- they confirmed that they had found evidence of ancient, fossilized, microscopic life from a Martian meteorite, known as ALH84001. Implications of Mars Life While the life they talked about was only microscopic, it has several implications for us macroscopic creatures. If life on Mars is ever proven to exist (or have existed at some point in time), it would mean that the creation of life is not something that happens because of freak chance or divine influence, but is in fact a probable occurrence given the right conditions. Even further, if all that life requires is an aqueous solution like liquid water to grow and thrive (which is the current theory), then the universe is literally teeming with life. The suspected liquid water oceans on some of Jupiter's moons (Europa and Callisto) could be filled with life, and life could still be present underneath the Martian surface, where liquid water and thermal energy are still present. (source: http://www.marsnews.com/focus/life/ ) No one called those scientist "nuts" or "lunatics". President Clinton called them "some of the world's most distinguished scientists." If that's what scientist consider "life" then why not, on the basis of a complete biological analysis, the living human embryo - from the moment of the union of the gametes - should be considered a human being with a well defined identity? (paraphrased from the document "Scientific and Therapeutic Use of Human Embryonic Stem Cells" http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdlife/documents/rc_pa_acdlife_doc_20000824_cellule-staminali_en.html ). Given the right conditions, the human embryo will continue to develop and grow. ---- Jim Lubin               [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://makoa.org/jim disAbility Resources: http://www.makoa.org Please Help: Inkjet & Toner Cartridge Recycling   Dave www.daveoconnell.com c3-inc-1967