Re: cloning as heresy (Re: Fresh Hell)
On Sat, 18 Jan 2003, Harmon Seaver wrote: > Ah, now I see. Before, I was thinking that he was talking about the passage > where Onan pulls out and spills his seed on the ground, which, somehow, became a > prescription against masturbation, although reading it, especially in context, > is clearly just about pulling out. Or possibly against birth-control. > "Thou shalt not pull out.", thus saith the Lord, "or in any other way deprive > thy partner of the power of thy final orgasmic thrusting." > > 8-) > > Weird, isn't it, that this became so associated with masturbation > that a very successful company -- "Onan" -- even would choose their > name for generators, i.e., "self power" or "do it alone", etc., from > that passage. Even weirder that it doesn't have the slightest thing to > do with jacking off, but with someone not willing to accept their (at > the time) societal duty to support his dead brother's wife and father > her children. The irony, of course, is what the Catholic Church would have to say if the brother-in-laws of modern widows resumed this practice. -MW-
Re: Fresh Hell
Morlock Elloi wrote: Funny, but I can't seem to find the passage in the Bible where it talks about cloning. In fact, I can't find any passage that even remotely impinges on the subject [...] wasn't there something about exclusivity of conceiving without fucking ? As a former believer and student of the Bible, I can assure you that there is no passage in the Bible that says that Jesus was, will be, our should be the *only* person conceived without the benefit of sexual intercourse. And what do you think in vitro fertilization is, anyway? Many / most American Christians stress that they rely on the Bible as their one and only source of religious truth. If so, they have absolutely no *religious* basis for objecting to cloning.
Re: cloning as heresy (Re: Fresh Hell)
On Sat, Jan 18, 2003 at 09:36:30PM +0100, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Sat, 18 Jan 2003, Major Variola (ret) wrote: > > > He's talking about parthogenesis. > > There must be several passages which could be interpreted that way. God > put Adam into a deep sleep, and fashoned Eve from his rib. Doable, if you > knock out one Y chromosome and inject another X from another cell. Ah, now I see. Before, I was thinking that he was talking about the passage where Onan pulls out and spills his seed on the ground, which, somehow, became a prescription against masturbation, although reading it, especially in context, is clearly just about pulling out. Or possibly against birth-control. "Thou shalt not pull out.", thus saith the Lord, "or in any other way deprive thy partner of the power of thy final orgasmic thrusting." 8-) Weird, isn't it, that this became so associated with masturbation that a very successful company -- "Onan" -- even would choose their name for generators, i.e., "self power" or "do it alone", etc., from that passage. Even weirder that it doesn't have the slightest thing to do with jacking off, but with someone not willing to accept their (at the time) societal duty to support his dead brother's wife and father her children. -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com
Re: cloning as heresy (Re: Fresh Hell)
On Sat, 18 Jan 2003, Major Variola (ret) wrote: > He's talking about parthogenesis. There must be several passages which could be interpreted that way. God put Adam into a deep sleep, and fashoned Eve from his rib. Doable, if you knock out one Y chromosome and inject another X from another cell. Must be a slow weekend, that we're discussing some random scripture.
cloning as heresy (Re: Fresh Hell)
At 09:44 PM 1/17/03 -0800, Morlock Elloi wrote: >>>1) Fucks up the prevailing religion doctrine. >>> >>Funny, but I can't seem to find the passage in the Bible where it talks >>about cloning. In fact, I can't find any passage that even remotely >>impinges on the subject. > >Provided that I had the christian cult in mind (where I am not an connoisseur), >wasn't there something about exclusivity of conceiving without fucking ? He's talking about parthogenesis. You know, a young unwed palestinian gets knocked up, has a schizophrenic bastard son who makes it big in the city, gets a following, and is WACO-ized, more or less.
Re: Fresh Hell
>>1) Fucks up the prevailing religion doctrine. >> >Funny, but I can't seem to find the passage in the Bible where it talks >about cloning. In fact, I can't find any passage that even remotely >impinges on the subject. Provided that I had the christian cult in mind (where I am not an connoisseur), wasn't there something about exclusivity of conceiving without fucking ? = end (of original message) Y-a*h*o-o (yes, they scan for this) spam follows: Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Re: Fresh Hell
Foolish Person. Thinking that the prevailing religious doctrine has anything to do with the Bible. PHM Paul H Merrill, MCSE, CISSP [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: "Kevin S. Van Horn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "cypherpunks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, January 17, 2003 19:23 Subject: Re: Fresh Hell > Morlock Elloi wrote: > > >>What would be the valid reason for the government to claim power > >>to regulate her egg, her skin DNA, and her uterus? > >> > >1) Fucks up the prevailing religion doctrine. > > > Funny, but I can't seem to find the passage in the Bible where it talks > about cloning. In fact, I can't find any passage that even remotely > impinges on the subject.
Re: Fresh Hell
>What would be the valid reason for the government to claim power >to regulate her egg, her skin DNA, and her uterus? 1) Fucks up the prevailing religion doctrine. 2) Gives subjects an extra degree of freedom - imagine black ghetto females giving birth to whities, uninfluenced by the local Bell curve ? There's a concept for undermining the society. 3) removes exclusiveness - powerful will get cloned regardless ow "laws". = end (of original message) Y-a*h*o-o (yes, they scan for this) spam follows: Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Re: Fresh Hell.
On Fri, 17 Jan 2003 18:51:47 +0800, you wrote: > > Matthew X wrote: > > > > http://www.moscowtimes.ru/stories/2002/12/27/120.html > > Global Eye -- Death Merchants > > By Chris Floyd > > Each day, one turns to the latest news from the bowels of the Bush Regime > > with Dorothy Parker's immortal words sounding in the mind like a tocsin: > > "What fresh hell is this?" > > > Ever since he seized office, Bush has taken every opportunity to derail or > > destroy UN efforts to provide reproductive health services to the world's > > poorest women. > > For "reproductive health services" read "forced abortion." That's what > the UN is purveying, and one of the few foreign policy decisions of this > administration that I agree with is cutting off the UN popucrats. Related to this line, I'm wondering why there have been no protests of the US FDA's position that it has authority to regulate cloning. This would include the process by which a woman provides her egg and her skin cell for cloning and reimplantation into the uterus. Why aren't the "pro-choice" groups assailing this infringement on a woman's "reproductive rights" and this intrusion by the government on women's bodies? Her egg, her skin cell, her uterus... How come there is no groundswell of women's groups about this intrusion? Are those groups really just about abortion, and not about "reproductive freedom"? What would be the valid reason for the government to claim power to regulate her egg, her skin DNA, and her uterus?
