Missouri Prop 2

[gonefishin]

Sounds about right. Like I said earlier it is about time people started thinking about the hows of this issue rather than the might be's.

[Al Agnew]

I wasn't going to say anythung else about this but have to comment once more on the cloning thing. SCNT is at the heart of this matter, and very simply it is the cloning of cells by taking nuclear material (DNA) from one cell and transfering it to another from which the nuclear material has been removed, then stimulating the division of that cell to produce more cells just like it.

Where it gets sticky is that, when you're talking about doing this with stem cells, it's using cells that, given the right stimulus, can become any organ in the body. So, when you get right down to it, you could argue that any embryonic stem cell is a potential human being. You wouldn't even HAVE to clone the cell, just take it out of the already existing blastocyst, stimulate it to divide, and presto, you got another blastocyst (embryo) just like the first one.

So, what you have are at least a couple of ways to look at it. One, if you believe that a "human" at conception is fully human and entitled to all human rights, then NO interference of that embryo should be allowed, and also no iv fertilization, let alone abortion, should ever be allowed, because it interferes (lethally) with the development of that embryo into a human. No exceptions.

But such a view, while being the only truly consistent black and white one, is shared by relatively few of us. Most would make exceptions, whether they be exceptions on abortion in order to protect the life and health of the mother or in cases of rape or incest, or iv in order to allow couples to have children they otherwise couldn't.

Now here's another way to look at it. In embryonic stem cell technology, the theory is to take the DNA out of a stem cell, put it into another cell, and stimulate that cell to start dividing while also differentiating into the specific organ you are looking for. You don't need nor want a copy of the whole potential human you started from. Remember that 14 day prohibition in the initiative? It's there probably because when you get much past 14 days of development, the cells in the blastocyst are starting to differentiate into what will become organs.

So, in a way, intent really does matter. That stem cell taken from an embryo is not much different from a cell taken off the skin of your nose. Both cells have all the DNA in the individual, except that in the stem cell that DNA is still open to everything, while off your nose all the DNA is turned off except the part that makes nose skin. And, it's really very little different from the adult stem cells that so many of you are for working with. If the goal is to stimulate those adult cells to turn back on all their DNA so that they can become any organ of the body (and that IS the goal), then each of those individual adult stem cells becomes no different from an embryonic stem cell. THEORETICALLY, they could also be stimulated to divide and become a cloned human. But, in reality they are just cells, and just like the embryonic cells, the goal is to clone the CELL and stimulate it to become a specific organ. Funny how nobody is arguing that an adult stem cell, let alone a nose skin cell, is fully a human OR capable of being used to clone a human.

So when you're talking about this kind of science, the distinction between what is a human life really does begin to blur. Is a single cell a human being? That's what a fertilized egg is, no more, no less. Is a group of less than a hundred cells, each no different than the other, a human being? That's what a blastocyst is, no more, no less. If somebody handed you one and had you look at it under a microscope, you wouldn't have any idea what it was, and you certainly wouldn't recognize it as human. If they told you what it was, it would then become life with the potential to become a human and nothing else (outside of genetic manipulation, which is another whole topic of discussion). But would one cell taken from it be human in itself? And more importantly, would that cell, stimulated to divide and multiply AND start specializing into a specific human organ, THEN be a human?

Yep, you can take that cell and theoretically put it in a petri dish and stimulate it to divide and follow its own course, and eventually you'd end up with an embryo that you could implant in a womb and grow into a baby. Or you can put it in the same petri dish and stimulate it to grow into a pancreas. So is it human or is it not?

There ain't no easy answers, except to ban ALL interference with the natural development of a fertilized egg into a human baby. If that's your take on it, fine. You gotta be against in vitro, abortion in ALL cases, adult stem cell research, the whole ball of wax. Otherwise, you're making exceptions just like everybody else. Some make exceptions at one point, others at another.

My take on it is, we're talking about fertilized eggs that would otherwise be thrown away. That's what happens in iv fertilization. The parents can opt to have the extra eggs (which are almost always produced in the process) thrown away, or kept on ice until they are no longer viable or they are sure they won't need them. By the way, it costs quite a bit of money to store the frozen eggs, which the parents must pay. Personally, I have no problem with not giving a cluster of totally undifferentiated cells(no beginnings of a brain, heart, or anything else recognizable) fully human status, so I have no problem with using them to produce something that is a human organ but not a human, in order to help those with serious diseases. I, just like the VAST majority of people in this country and on earth, would have a BIG problem with using them to clone another human being. That's why, to me, intent matters. And that's also why the fear that this is just the first step to human cloning is pretty irrational. Opposition to stem cell research is a valid viewpoint...that's where you're drawing that line. Others will draw the line at a different place, and their's will be just as valid a viewpoint. Opposition to it because you believe it is human cloning is questionable, to say the least.

[Phil Lilley]

I appreciate you taking the time to post, Al. And I respect your knowledge and viewpoint.

I believe the future holds great discovery and clarity in this and many other manners in science. I chose to vote no on the amendment for that reason... not to draw and hard and fast line now when science still isn't clear. But maybe it will never be. We'll see.

[Brian Sloss]

I agree with Al. As for can I have an opinion based on facts and not emotional reasons. I bet that goes back to Mr Fox's commercial. A lot of people got bent out of shape about that one saying he was faking and that his commercial was below the belt because he has parkinsons. That is bunk. He has every right to speak out and his opinion is very valid. Not many people have a better perspective than those who stand to be helped potentially by more and better research. To not include them in the debate would be like discussing your life in front of you, and not letting you speak. Is it emmotional on some level? Yes. Is it fair? Yes. Are my friends scientists? For the most part, no they are not. Though I do no some people who teach science on the College level. My Dad was a college math professor for years. I can't say I've talked to any of his old collegues in a few years, so I can't give their opinions for sure, but I would bet they would be for Prop 2. I don't think science as a community is organized to pull the wool over peoples eyes to get money and create a fully cloned human being. Science is not the enemy in my mind, the scientists are in my opinion trying to understand the physical world and help the human race. It is that simple.

[Phil Lilley]

Fox- tell me why he can be fine during the taping of the show he's on and not during a taping of a commercial. I can understand a live interview, not being able to control his body but not the commercial. I also understand his passion on the subject. I don't agree though with making it political, which he and others have.

It's just gotten messy, as most elections do.

[Wayne SW/MO]

The cloning issue in the amendment is no different then gun laws, they can use cloning to produce stem cells, but not a human being, the same as the law that allows you to buy buy and fire a gun, but not to comment murder with it.

I have to ask, Jesus allowed the blind to see and the cripple to walk, was he taunting us with his ability, or encouraging man to higher goals?

[gonefishin]

Al: Absolutley fantastic post. Very clear and concise. Your knowledge of the subject is apparent. It doesnt however change the fact that I am going to vote no. NOw I want you to understand it is not the research that I am voting against. I am voting against the way the ammendment is written. There are way to many loopholes and backdoors for it that are wide open to serious abuse of the law.

[3wt]

Al,

I’m with you except on 2 points:

1.) It’s not about whether you hold the viewpoint that life begins at conception, it’s about whether you can prove it doesn’t. If not, we can’t take the risk.

2.) Your analysis about “cloning” stem cells is not exactly right. The point is that once you perform SCNT, and clone a blastocyst, you must get the stem cells out, which kills it. If you could do this on only existing embryos from IVF without harming them, the issue would pretty much go away (except mass producing embryos just so you can take the shotgun approach to getting pregnant is still pretty morbid, and ethically questionable). Stem cells cannot be grown into a human, so the cells dividing is not cloning. So you can definitely be for adult stem cell research and against embryonic.

Brian,

No, the scientific community as a whole is not a conspiracy. You might be surprised how incredibly cutthroat it can be for funding though. I spoke with a colleague whose father is a professor of some type of medicine as SLU. He said that stealing information, falsifying data, and doing other unethical practices occur much more than you know.

Here’s the thing, most scientists take a purely naturalistic approach to reality. This system really does not allow for the existence of morals or ethics. These concepts are imposed by society either by belief in a higher power or by arbitrary rules for advancing the society. The problem is why does science protect human life at all? From that standpoint I would much rather save Michael J. Fox than a lump of cells with no real human characteristics besides genetics. Now, you get into the real slippery slope where the ends can ALWAYS justify the means – If you can kill one human to save ten, then you should.

If we do assign humanity to anything, then we do so scientifically. But if we want that to be a special status, we must do so outside of science.

I wasn’t commenting on Michael J. Fox, and will have to disagree with you on one thing – People in the middle of issues usually have WORSE judgment on them. Being in the middle of this introduces emotion and bias. Taking a step back from things like this should offer clarity.

Wayne,

Not really on with the analogy. As I pointed out to Al, he is incorrect on exactly what part of the issue is being taken exception to. You have to kill a human blastocyst to get the stem cells, no way around that. If you have a sense that those embryos might be humans, then you should not kill them.

gonefishin,

Good point about the wording of the bill, but again, if you believe that embryos at any stage might be alive, you should vote against this ammendment based on the research.

Just as a general comment, I appreciate that we all have well developed viewpoints, and haven’t fallen back on the “it’s just a religious belief” argument. I think we’re all discussing the right part of this issue.

[Wayne SW/MO]

If you have a sense that those embryos might be humans, then you should not kill them.

I agree in principle, but given the fact that Blastocyst stem cells in themselves aren't life, then are they any different then the egg and sperm? Or are they precursors?

My analogy with guns was an attempt to point out that while the bill allows human cloning, it doesn't allow cloning a human being.

In Roe vs Wade the Supreme Court wrestled with the beginning of life, even reaching back to the Greek civilization looking for answers. This isn't meant as an endorsement of R vs W, but I simply pointing out that the exact moment that life as we see it, is fleeting.

[MTM]

I am a two tour disdabled vet. I have had 4 major surgery's anyone of which I could have died from. I know more about pain and pill's than Mr Fox ever will. I believe I have a right to question anyone about anything that I do not agree with them on when it is political in nature. I gave a lot for that right.

It is my understanding that Mr Fox didn't even read to bill before making his commercial. That alone would disqualify anything he had to say in my book. Just because he is a movie star holds no water with me. He is just another person with an opinion. And his opinion dosen't count in my book not when he dosen't even know what the bill is about. He even admitted that he didn't agree with all of it. But he is still standing by it. Amazing!

I do feel sorry for Mr Fox but even though he is sick he has no more right to an opinion than anyone else. It is up to all of us to read each bill and to know for sure what is in it. To bad more of our Politician's don't do the same. Ron