Missouri Prop 2

[3wt]

Wayne,

Just to clarify, no the stem cells themselves are not life. As an anology, killing a blastocyst for it's stem cells could be like killing somebody for an organ, that could then be kept alive and used for cures.

Stem cells are different from sperm and eggs in that they have a complete set of DNA (sperm and eggs each have 1/2 a set).

Human cloning and cloning a human being are not different terms. They are being used for cloning a human, and cloning a human with intent to allow it to grow before you kill it. It's scientific hair splitting and it really irks me.

Again, this only makes sense if we assume that we have to default to humanity from the point of conception, since we can't prove otherwise.

[Al Agnew]

3wt, I understand your points. As for the two things on which you disagree with me, my point is that embryonic stem cells have all their DNA "turned on". They can become anything in the body. So, theoretically it would be possible to get them to divide and do just what they are designed to do...produce a fully formed human being. Obviously that's still theoretical, but it's a small jump from what is being attempted in the research right now, which is to stimulate them to produce specific organs. The question, however, is whether you are cloning stem cells or cloning an entire blastocyst in order to obtain the stem cells. Cloning stem cells is not the same as cloning a blastocyst.

Your point about killing the blastocyst in order to obtain the stem cells is correct. Here again, we can argue all night the ethics of killing a blastocyst for stem cells that will otherwise be allowed to die anyway, as happens in iv fertilization. My viewpoint is still that we all draw the line somewhere, and if you draw it at conception, you gotta draw it there no matter what, or make exceptions. One of my exceptions would be blastocysts that are never going to become humans, anyway. I'm sorry, but I cannot consider a 50 cell blob to be a fully realized human. My definition of humanness falls somewhere else. But it isn't an easy question, for any thinking, feeling person, because there will always be points where you have to decide between the embryo and a living, breathing human, whether it be a Michael J. Fox or a victim of rape or a woman who may die if she carries a pregnancy to term or "just" a woman who absolutely psychologically and/or economically can't handle having a baby. A few of us will allow no exceptions, a lot of us will allow the exception somewhere along the line. Your default position, that conception is the only sure point, puts the life of the fertilized egg above that of anybody and everybody else, and thus it's not an easy position, either.

Guys, I respect all of your viewpoints, and this has been an interesting and maybe valuable discussion, since it has gone a whole lot deeper than the TV commercials. Vote your conscience on this issue. I will mine.

[MTM]

I just read were the people behind this bill, a couple by the name of Soures (Spelling ?) Anyway they are the ones behind this bill. they have spent over 28 million to get this bill passed. They claim it is do to them both having had cancer. But in truth there companys will make Billion's of dolors if this bill passes. You might want to do a little looking before deciding on this bill. Seems to me there is always someone making a lot of money off of these bills. Ron

[Brian Sloss]

There is almost always someone who is going to make money off of changes in public policy whether it be tax cuts or funding for different programs. That is what happens in a capitalist society. The question remains, does society benefit a greater good with this legislation? I beleive it does, so I am voting yes. As for an earlier question about emotion dictating ones decision on this matter rather than the facts. Well, whatever side you come down on, in the end it is an emotion based decision. You can't avoid it. If you think that embryonic stem cells are destroying human life even at the earliest stage (fertilization), your emotions and morallity won't let you vote yes. If you draw the line (as Al says) elsewhere and allow for exceptions, you may want to vote yes. I am voting yes. But don't kid yourself, it is an emotion based decision. There are obviously those on this board who know the science better than I (Al and 3wt) and appreciate your input and respect your thoughts. Thanks for the discussion, and vote on the 7th.

[gonefishin]

I just read were the people behind this bill, a couple by the name of Soures (Spelling ?) Anyway they are the ones behind this bill. they have spent over 28 million to get this bill passed. They claim it is do to them both having had cancer. But in truth there companys will make Billion's of dolors if this bill passes. You might want to do a little looking before deciding on this bill. Seems to me there is always someone making a lot of money off of these bills. Ron

Truer words were never spoken Ron. Now before people start ranting about this being a capitalistic society.... Understand I am all for capitalisim. What I am against is the public footing the bill so some person or group of people can become wealthy. I havent noticed anybody knocking my door down offering to fund a business for me and I would be willing to bet Phils business isn't funded by taxpayers dollars. People like us have to work for what we get. Why should a select few be different?

If they want to legally research stem cells and fund their own research that is fine and they should reap the rewards of any resulting knowledge. If on the other hand they are funded by the taxpayers then any resulting knowledge should by law be made public so that all can reap the rewards.

[gonefishin]

I just read were the people behind this bill, a couple by the name of Soures (Spelling ?) Anyway they are the ones behind this bill. they have spent over 28 million to get this bill passed. They claim it is do to them both having had cancer. But in truth there companys will make Billion's of dolors if this bill passes. You might want to do a little looking before deciding on this bill. Seems to me there is always someone making a lot of money off of these bills. Ron

Truer words were never spoken Ron. Now before people start ranting about this being a capitalistic society.... Understand I am all for capitalisim. What I am against is the public footing the bill so some person or group of people can become wealthy. I havent noticed anybody knocking my door down offering to fund a business for me and I would be willing to bet Phils business isn't funded by taxpayers dollars. People like us have to work for what we get. Why should a select few be different?

If they want to legally research stem cells and fund their own research that is fine and they should reap the rewards of any resulting knowledge. If on the other hand they are funded by the taxpayers then any resulting knowledge should by law be made public so that all can reap the rewards.

[Wayne SW/MO]

Soros isn't in the drug business, while I don't have much respect for him or his meddling in US politics, I doubt that he is involved in this one.

Sounds like an attempt to turn conservatives who support the research.

[Champ]

George Soros: Libral Political Activist

Jim Stowers: Head of American Century Investments. Invlolved in Stowers Institute for Medical Research. Provided much of the funding for the Amendment 2 Initiative.

[Wayne SW/MO]

Jim Stowers: Head of American Century Investments. Invlolved in Stowers Institute for Medical Research. Provided much of the funding for the Amendment 2 Initiative.

The Institute (Stowers Institute for Medical Research) is recognized by the IRS as a medical research organization, it is a Missouri not-for-profit corporation, and is a 501©(3) charitable organization.

If thats true then there doesn't seem to be a finacial conflict. American Century Investments is a mutual fund company.

[Don]

Interesting and informational about MO Prop 2.

http://www.moroundtable.org/