Missouri Prop 2

[gonefishin]

Guess enough time and enough lawyers will figuer it out huh?

[3wt]

If there were no other reasons to oppose this ammendment, here is the sticker:

1.) There is obviously a controversial issue, and deserving of ongoing debate. Ammendment 2 seeks to take this issue out of scrutiny forever.

2.) Scientifically, this bill is misleading at best. At worst it redefines accepted scientific terms like cloning, and then bases it's "ban" on those falsey defined terms.

A no vote will not end the debate, it will not ban any research or cloning, it will only keep us from changing our minds. From both sides the truth is not being told. We need to just say no for now and regroup wtih the corret information.

[Wayne SW/MO]

From both sides the truth is not being told. We need to just say no for now and regroup with the correct information.

This statement does fly in the face of no 2, and I don't see that voting no in order to think it through further gains anything.

I think people should read it for themselves and quit listening to those who would distort the meaning, whether for or against.

If it passes than those opposed will still have an opportunity to change it, and it should be easier if it tuns out that people were mislead.

If it doesn't, and the fear that the people of this state are being shortchanged becomes a reality, then the amendment will be put forth again, with better evidence to support it. .

[hank franklin]

Both sides are distorting the issue, but the worst distortion is this assertion that taxpayer money will fund it. Show me where the amendment says that. Show me the dollar amount. Show me the funding source. Show me the bill in the legislature that authorizes it. Show me how the Republican legislature and governor are going to pass a bill that funds stem cell research. It's crazy.

It's an economic development issue folks. The stem cell business needs assurances that the research will remain legal in Missouri. The investment money will go elsewhere if the amendment fails.

A no vote won't ban stem cell research in Missouri. It will only assure that the R & D goes elsewhere.

The practical effect of a no vote is to ban, or at least strongly discourage, stem cell research in Missouri. But the research will remain legal elsewhere in the U.S., and in the world. If therapies are invented in France 10 years from now, therapies that will cure some dreaded disease, are we prepared to say no to that in Missouri?

The genie is out of the bottle, folks. The research will go on somewhere. It's a question of if we want to participate, or not.

[3wt]

Hank,

With all due respect, you have brought up all of the wrong arguments.

The economic issue greatly undermines the legitimate concerns. We can ensure economic success by any number of unethical practices. The argument here, and in any case like this, is not how much money we'll be out - ask Enron. My point is, we can't justify this on the "we'll make money" argument.

Again it all comes down to money at what cost, cures at what cost, scientific discovery at what cost. Until we answer those questions, which we haven't, we just cant say yes to this.

Look I'm all for biotech money in Missouri - I make my living through it. I'm all for cures. However, my ehtics are not situational. I can't say that a blastocyst is surely not human, and that we should sacrifice it.

We have in many ways advanced faster technically than ethically. We haven't slowed down enough to say "should we," not just "can we." Here's the opportunity, and we're trying to constitutionally protect against it.

[gonefishin]

This statement does fly in the face of no 2, and I don't see that voting no in order to think it through further gains anything.

I think people should read it for themselves and quit listening to those who would distort the meaning, whether for or against.

If it passes than those opposed will still have an opportunity to change it, and it should be easier if it tuns out that people were mislead.

If it doesn't, and the fear that the people of this state are being shortchanged becomes a reality, then the amendment will be put forth again, with better evidence to support it. .

In other words just haphazardly make it law then change it later.

Sorry but that dog dont hunt. I believe that getting it right the first time is the appropiate and prudent action.

[Wayne SW/MO]

In other words just haphazardly make it law then change it later.

I don't believe it is GF, I think its well thought out. Well thought out doesn't make it perfect, but its close. If religions can't agree to the moment procreation needs protection, how can a law? The Supreme Court couldn't and they said as much in R vs W.

The fact that the argument has turned to financial, in its self could indicate there is some fluctuation in principal.

To merely say,"Lets keep thinking about it" is something of a last gasp, isn't it? Couldn't that be construed as an indication that the argument against isn't holding up?

[gonefishin]

I don't believe it is GF, I think its well thought out. Well thought out doesn't make it perfect, but its close.

I think you are right on this one. I think it is well thought out and well written to meet the wants and desires of those who wrote it and decieve the rest of us.

[hank franklin]

I believe abortion should be illegal, except in some cases.

I believe stem cell research should be legal, except in some cases. Amendment 2 actually criminalizes "unethical" stem cell research.

What's the difference between abortion and stem cell research? Abortion serves no greater good whatsoever. Stem cell research however has the potential to serve a much greater good.

What if we had outlawed atomic bomb research in 1941? We'd all be speaking Russian or Deutsch.

The genie is out of the bottle with stem cell research, and we need to be on the cutting edge of it. To ban it would only invite others to use, or mis-use, it at their pleasure, and we would be at their mercy.

It's medical research with dicey ethics. No question. But to outlaw it? To me that's extremely short-sighted.

[gonefishin]

I have never said stem cell research should be totally outlawed or banned. We are already doing stem cell research so I see no need for a decitful special ammendment to the MO constitution protecting and funding research that is already being done. In fact having this up for ammendment to the constitution makes me believe there is more sneaky about it than meets the eye. If it was honestly legitimate there would be no need to ammend our constitution to make it legal. Looks to me like nothing more than protectionisim of a special interst group.