Missouri Prop 2

[Brian Sloss]

I have been reading this thread with some interest and I got to say, a Rush L. passage will never convince me of anything. Ads in politics are often misleading. Well, he is a 3 hour a day political ad. And before anyone asks, yes I have listened to Rush, Hannity and Bill plenty. I spend a lot of time in the winter in a car and often pass the time with talk radio. Why does the media not trot out scientists who disagree with the potential for stem cells? Because there are very few if any involved in this field that don't see the potential. I understand that a lot of people on this board will never agree with me on this subject and I respect everyone and their reasons for disagreeing with me, but I support stem cell research. By the way, how many people are against invetro vertilization? I bet a lot of people know someone who has had a child through this process. There are loads of eggs fertilized to do this. They are then frozen and eventually discarded (thrown out, destroyed). I think if the producers of said eggs (ie mom and dad), agree to donate the extra eggs to research, they should have the right. Also, I don't have a problem with the state or Federal gov't helping to fund the research. For that matter, I believe they have the moral obligation to do so. I hope I don't regret posting what I'm sure is an unpopular opinion on this subject.

[Phil Lilley]

I support stem cell. I don't support cloning.

Just around the corner - scientist will be creating humans- manipulating

genes to try to create the perfect human. I bet it's already being tried in some parts of the world now.

Could this issue - cloning - be a stepping stone?

Why does the media not trot out scientists who disagree with the potential for stem cells?

They have... again- we are talking about embryonic, not adult. There's isn't anyone on either side of this discussion saying stem cell research is bad. It's creating and then using fertile human eggs for research I have a problem with. This amendment will make it legal.

[3wt]

Phil,

I absolutely agree with you, but don't expect everybody to buy into the Bible. That being said all is not lost. We don't need everybody to believe the Bible, just to admit that we don't want to kill innocent humans. Now, scientifically the beginning of a new human organism is at conception. If nobody can come up with a better pinpoint on the beginning of life and justify it beyond any reasonable doubt, then we can give embryonic research of any kind a free pass. Until then we must go by our idea of not killing innocent humans and ban any kind of embryonic research.

The real argument is not religious, not political, and not about cures or the possiblility of cures. It's about once and for all getting a scientific backbone and admitting what science has known for a long time now. Human life begins at conception. The problem is that this will kill embryonic research and abortion. So agenda driven scientist will still dodge the question and make it about cures (read money/political affiliation).

Just a biochemical engineer's take on it. If you can find a flaw in my logic, please point it out; if not vote no on 2.

Brian,

I hear you, but you must realize those frozen embryos are not just hunks of cells, they are individual humans. You're right, don't listen to Rush. Go out and try to find somebody who can explain to you why a embryo is not a human without resorting to emotional arguments about cures. If those frozen embryos are human, then embryonic stem cell research is murder.

[Brian Sloss]

3wt,

Isn't leaving the fertilized eggs in a constant frozen state wrong then? I mean, we have probably millions of these fertilized eggs. By your logic they are human beings right now, so we better start lining up the women to get implanted. Because how cruel is it to freeze a live human being? Of course I'm being over the top, but by the logic that you lay out, that would be the only humane thing to do. I understand everyones passion on this subject and I respect the religous beliefs that bring so many to the conclusion that they have, but I respectfully disagree. And I also know there are those whose christian, jewish or other faiths that bring them to the exact opposite conclusion. I also feel that the only consistant opinion with the notion that embryonic stem cell research is wrong, would be that invitro fertilization is wrong. Does anyone want to outlaw that practice?

[Phil Lilley]

Why would we want to enshrine a billion-dollar industry in our state constitution when the science is changing so fast?

[Wayne SW/MO]

If nobody can come up with a better pinpoint on the beginning of life and justify it beyond any reasonable doubt

What about the point when stem cells become cells to produce the necessary organs for human life?

We have to assume that each egg and sperm is unique, otherwise wouldn't the offspring be clones?

The argument seems to keep returning to cloning, which is pretty much universally rejected, but both sides makes references without hard facts to support their charges, or so it seems.

[Phil Lilley]

Wayne- I wish I could find the answer... I've looked. Both sides claim- the amendment strickly prohibits cloning- the amendment would allow cloning (loopholes in the language).

To be honest, I don't know.

[3wt]

Brian,

I'm no hypocrite. I can't argue with you. I don't care if it sounds over the top, but I can't come up with a legitmate argument justifying IVF. Can you make an argument for it without emotional plea about infertility? The same logic applies, stem cell cures at what cost and fertility at what cost?

As a culture and society we absolutely cannot assign value to humanity, and then in the same breath assign humanity ARBITRARILY. That means if we don't know when to assign humanity, we MUST err on the side of life.

Like I said, take the religion out of it and we still value human life. Are your Christian, Jewish and other friends scientists? Do you realize that as a whole we (Americans) are greatly scientifically illiterate? Do you realize how easy it is to have the wool pulled over our eyes?

There is only one issue of any worth in this debate. Can we say without any reservation that blastocysts are non-human. All other arguments are smokescreens.

Wayne,

Once the stem cells are removed from the blastocyst (which dies), the cells are no more a life than a stem cell removed from an adult. In a sense they All cells are clones of eachother by virtue of how they reproduce BUT this is not the same as human cloning as you are not replicating the organism as a whole.

Scientifically there's a big difference.

Now, the amendment protects SCNT, which is inargualby a cloning technique. The people invovled with this amendment have hijacked the term cloning to refer only to cloning an embryo and then GROWING the clone in a uterus. This has never been the accepted use of the term, and is pretty much a flagarent example of agenda-driven science.

[gonefishin]

Great arguments guys. You three (3wt, Phil, Wayne) are certainly more articulate than I am. I agree with you 3wt the american public gets the wool pulled over their eyes all the time and never figure it out. THis issue isnt any different. They are saying cloning is banned but that is exactly what they will be doing.

I still wonder where all the eggs they have in storage supposedly for IVF came from. Did they take extras from the women who were having the procedure? If they took more than they needed because there might be some that didnt work then did not offer to return them to the woman, isnt that theft? If the value of the eggs is high enough isn't that felony theft? If this is the case who will actually own the rights to any resulting treatments or drugs? And finally isnt this simply exploitation of women?

[Phil Lilley]

Marsha (my wife) said that women in 3rd world countries are already selling eggs for cash and food... and some are actually dying from the procedure (infection). I'm not linking the people backing this amendment with this, please don't get me wrong. There are alot of terrible things happening to people all over the world and this is just one. But I'm afraid if the tables are turned on embryonic stem cell acceptability in this country, other countries will follow OR the US will start getting their eggs from the easiest and cheapest source... just like WalMart and other companies do now.

She mentioned at a summit 4 years ago, this subject came up and alot of 3rd world countries were very much against it because they knew their people who be the ones exploited by the harvesting of human eggs. Sorry- I don't have anything to back that one up- just what she said. I'll have her google something up later tonight on it.