 |
 |
Marjorie, I'm a new member of this list. Would you mind sending me the names of committee members? I have homes in both New Jersey and Florida so I'll be able to write to Senators from either state. Thank you for the extra effort you put into this list. Bill **************************** -----Original Message----- From: Marjorie L. Moorefield [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Sent: Saturday, September 16, 2000 7:13 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: USA Today: Stars urge stem cell research funding Phil, How anyone can look at, and listen to the persons who testified for Stem Cell Research in the Senate hearing, and not see the pain and suffering , and the need for a cure, is beyond my comprehension. However, I have lived long enough in this old world, to know it's a waste of time and energy to try to change anyones mind over stem cell research. Either they are for it or against it, any of us can propose good, articulate arguments, and its not going to change their mind. Save your energy and concentrate on the people who will vote for this. Rev. Saltzman will not be given a chance to vote, but Senator Sam Brownback will, they are both from the same State, so concentrate on Sen. Brownback. BOTTOM LINE: Only the elected Senators and the elected members of the House of Representatives are the one who will be allowed to vote. We need to concentrate our energy on getting them to vote YES. I sent the list the URL to find their elected officials, I'm depending on all members of this list who believe in Stem Cell Research to contact their elected officials and even send messages again to the list of Senate members on the committee who held these hearings. I posted their names and addresses to the list also. We have our work cut out for us, and less than a month before the vote is called, so please everyone, concentrate your energies where it will do the most good. just me, Marjorie At 06:19 AM 09/16/2000 -0400, you wrote: >The USA Today report contains this: > >"... [Pastor Russell] Saltzman, who has diabetes, said just >because the embryos were going to be discarded doesn't mean it >is right to use them for medical research. 'We should not use >human life for the benefit of human life,' he said. > >[snip] > >"'We're dealing with flesh and blood people now who feel and deal >with real debilitation right now and our obligation is to those who >are here,' said [Mary Tyler] Moore, who suffers from juvenile >diabetes and chairs the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation International." > >My take: > >The pastor appeals to abstract principles, while the patient >advocates appeal to human needs. So the two sides are talking >past each other, and the disagreement continues. > >The former may think he is on higher moral ground or has a >superior argument because of this appeal to principles. But what >good are they if they do not take human needs into account? > >No question that our patient advocates are very articulate and >persuasive in arguing based on the terrible burdens of disease and >about the benefits of stem cell research. > >The hearing witnesses who attempt to argue form principles were >all opposed to stem cell research. There were no bioethicists or >representatives of religion among the witnesses favoring stem cell >research. I believe that our position would be strengthened by >making an appeal to principles as well. But I'm having a hard time >trying to articulate such an appeal. > >Hilary, I think you are getting there when you write: > > > Should that anonymous cluster of cells not be given the right to > > save my life - or at least improve its quality? Does anyone have > > the right to deprive that cell clusters of it s moment of glory? > >Phil Tompkins