Missouri Prop 2

[3wt]

Quote from Al

"The initiative specifically prohibits human cloning. There is a vast difference between human cloning and using already existing blastocysts to clone stem cells."

False. This is taking a blastocyst and cloning it, just not growing it. The verbiage "cloning ban" are blatantly false in a scientific sense.

The ONLY issue here is whether a blastocyst is human. Scientifically it must be. Medically, you'll find differing opinions - many of which are agenda driven. I don't know what else to call something that is 100% genetically human, alive, and 100% genetically individual.

[Terrapin Station]

Actually 3wt, the stem cells are removed from the blastocyst before being placed in the petri dish where they are allowed to continuously divide (which is what they do naturally). Blastocysts as such are not cloned. And please remember that these are blastocysts that will 100% be discarded anyway.

[gonefishin]

Just a thought. Tysons has facilities for chicken egg production Do you reckon it would be a good move for them to get into human egg production. I mean whats the difference chicken eggs or human eggs. I suppose one is worth more than the other but other than that its all the same thing. I wonder how women would like their value being set only by the number of eggs they can produce. Once egg production fell off.......... I know what happens to chickes that stop producing eggs I wonder what would be done with women who stop producing.

Seriously the proponents of this issue are right. Women throw away their useful product every month or at least every month they arent pregnant and before menopause. I am just curious what kind of equipment is needed to collect the egg and how long women would have to wear it every month. Or would the egg just be forcefully sucked out of them. And I really wonder how they are going to get women to stand still for these procedures on any kind of a regular basis. I can hear their campaign now come in every month and we will pay you the huge sum of $20 to let us farm your eggs. But remember we will only pay you if your egg has been fertilized. Otherwise you just had this procedure at your expense.

Then there will come the whole issue of clone rights. As they are not naturally occuring do they have any rights? How about ownership or patent or copyright of the clone? Perhaps if this passes they can just clone theirselves up a few women which they own for no purpose other than to collect their eggs.

I think people should stop thinking about the possible end result of this issue and the how it will be done part and what the more far reaching ramifications are. I dont believe this is an issue that should just be rammed through and then deal with the fallout later.

[Phil Lilley]

I've been so busy on this remodel job I haven't had time to dedicate to this...

There's been alot of national media play on our plight... Rush, Katie, Micheal, O'Reilly... I liked the gal from talk radio last night on O'Reilly- she kept Bill on task.

At least they are talking about the issues- well some of them are.

Cloning.

Do we want humans cloned!?

This is the first step.

And why make it an amendment??? Because the people who are trying to pass this- the big drug companies- know it wouldn't pass in the house or senate because they know the facts.

[gonefishin]

I agree. They are trying to take the backdoor by running this as an ammendment. If it was legitimate they would not need an ammendment.

[Don]

Adult stem cell, yes; embryonic stem cell, no. From a conservative Independent, no on amendment 2.

Don

[3wt]

Terrapin,

SCNT, the proposed favorite method of creating stem cell lines require is cloning - flat out. I'm sure Dolly the Sheep's creators would take exception to the redefinition of the word cloning.

As for the discarded blastocysts from IVF: Just because they will be discarded does not change their status of humanity.

If you can answer the following question, you might have a shot at justifying embryonic stem cell research.

At what point is a human being 100% human and why?

[gonefishin]

Some other good questions are:

How long would only the eggs for IVF be of sufficent quantity for researchers?

How were the eggs for IVF sourced?

If there is some cure or new drug created who would actually own the patent, the woman who donated or the researchers?

Where and how would they source more blastocysts to meet future research needs?

If the ammendment were to pass into law how would their new sources of blastocysts be regulated?

If the supply of blastocysts they have are of sufficent quantity to produce all the stem cells ever needed for research wouldn't they in fact be cloning?

[Phil Lilley]

http://www.mdn.org/2006/STORIES/STOWERS.HTM

From http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/eibessent...ctor.guest.html

RUSH: One of these many articles about the "flap," as they are calling it, over the Michael J. Fox ad, is one in which they asked some professor about my remarks from a communications point of view. It was either in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette today or the Baltimore Sun. Both of those papers have done "analysis pieces" here, and of course I'm just being who I am: a bomb thrower or what have you. It's amazing after all these years. This is a communications professor, and these guys still don't get what happens here!

All of these experts, all of these learned people, and they still don't understand why this program is a success and why you're there and how we connect with each other. They just don't get it -- which is fine. I just find it amazing. These are supposedly informed and learned people. Anyway, they asked some professor about my remarks from a communications point of view. Now, why don't these same stories, why don't she's same journalists bring on scientists who can attest to the fact that the ad misleads about embryonic stem cells? Why don't they do that? Why don't they go out and ask somebody about the substance. You heard Diane Sawyer on Good Morning America yesterday with Sean Hannity. Well, if he believes it, if Michael J. Fox believes it, doesn't he have the right to say it?

Yes! Nobody is denying that. But when it's wrong and misleading, it's going to be called on, particularly in the political arena. Why don't they go out and get some scientists -- and, by the way, they are all over the place. I have, ladies and gentlemen, in the stack here, a list. I wish I could show this to you. I'm going to show it to the on the Dittocam just to get the effect of it. There's three pages of this. Let me zoom in here as best that I can. All right, there! Now, on the left side, this is "Benefits of Stem Cells to Human Patients." As you're looking at it, on the left side there is just one of three pages of diseases where adult stem cells have shown progress.

On this side, all the diseases that show progress on embryonic stem cells. Zip, zero, nada! Not one disease has been impacted by embryonic stem cell research. Three pages of this, ladies and gentlemen. A total blank slate here, and these are all the diseases where adult stem cells have proven beneficial (flipping pages). You can see a blank slate versus the text: brain cancer, ovarian cancer, skin cancer, testicular cancer, tumors abdominal organs Lymphoma, lymphoma, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, Hodgkin's lymphoma, acute lymphoblastic leukemia.... That's just some of the cancers adult stem cells are showing promise. Zip, zero, nada versus three pages of these things.

In fact, there are a total of 72 diseases, 72 afflictions that have shown promising results with adult stem cells. Zero for embryonic stem cells. This is a StemCellResearch.org fact sheet: "Adult Stem Cells v. Embryonic Stem Cells," effectiveness on various afflictions. Now, my question is: Why haven't the media brought on scientists who can attest to the fact that the ad misleads and misrepresents that embryonic stem cell research, as opposed to other stem cell research areas, not only is not going anywhere, but is potentially very dangerous as it is creating tumors in animals? Now, why can't the media find these scientists? Why can't the media find these scientists to attest to the misrepresentations that are in this ad?

Because they don't want to, ladies and gentlemen, because that's not the point! The point is not whether the ad is true or not. The point of the ad is to elect Democrats because the ad also claims that Republicans are not interested in curing these diseases. That's the point it tries to make: Vote Democrat: you who suffer might find a cure, might be cured. With Republicans you have no prayer. Now, I don't care who you are, and I don't care what your ideology. If you have any kind of a heart, if you have just a shred of a heartbeat, that ought to repulse you like you can't believe. You ought to understand how cruel it is to advance the notion that there are cures on the horizon when there aren't. I know we all need hope, but false hope is just plain mean -- all for the purposes of electing a Democrat?

[Phil Lilley]

At what point is a human being 100% human and why?

At conception. There is no other clear-cut point of life. My personal resource would be the Bible. God refers to the content of the 'womb' as people, not fetus's. He said He knows us "from the womb" or the beginning of life.

I don't believe science can ever define when life begins. Science can neither deny the existence of a Creator of life, so at some point science has to acknowledge the value the Creator has put on human life and protect it thereof.

I don't pretend to be a scholar. As a matter of fact, it's taken 5 or 6 tries to word this and it still doesn't sound the way I want it. But we are in the age where science is expanding into areas where it must be asked- "should we go there?" This is one. And the creators and backers of this amendment are trying to get the people of Missouri to OK a process that has not been defined properly. As a matter of fact, I think it's dangerous to ask the general public to vote in such a way because most are not able to understand it's possible far reaching consequences. Because the arena of education is TV ads, unregulated and bias... the one with the most money wins. And what is decided? If human eggs are bought, sold, cloned and destroyed for cures that are promised, not guaranteed.

The ad campaigned tells people definitively that a vote for Ad 2 may save the life of a loved one... why wouldn't everyone vote for that!! It's one thing to campaign in this way to elect someone to office and it's anther to campaign for an irrevocable state amendment dealing with extremely important science threshold such as this one.