Liz,

The ideas that “no babies are being made to harvest body parts” and that Amendment 2 “outlaws cloning” because it prohibits implanting the embryos into a womb stand against the universal medical definition of cloning. This is not a pro-life spin. You can check with the Mayo Clinic or the Association of American Medical Colleges. The AAMC website says…”Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT) or THERAPUTIC CLONING involves removing the nucleus of an unfertilized egg cell, replacing it with the material from the nucleus of a “somatic cell” (a skin, heart, or nerve cell, for example), and stimulating this cell to begin dividing. Once the cell begins dividing, stem cells can be extracted 5-6 days later and used for research. The AAMC supports on-going research into SCNT and has endorsed legislation that would allow such research to flourish.”

To say that it is not a clone until implanted (ala Amendment 2) is bad science. Amendment 2 did not ban cloning, it only banned the attempt to impregnate a woman with a cloned embryo. I don’t care what side of the issue I fall, I do not want an Amendment to my state constitution to be scientifically inaccurate for the sake of generating revenue for the state.

This is a moot point…
Scientists have already proven that they don’t need embryonic stem cells for research. There are other means creating/harvesting stem cells that result in the same medical breakthroughs. Why keep beating a dead horse when you can move on and get the same results.

The issue with embryonic stem cells, is that I don’t trust the government or private companies to stay within the ethical bounds of the law. There are just too many ways to circumvent and manipulate legislation to basically do anything with the embryos.

this is a futile argument, since the right wing religious nutjobs are hellbent on sending us back to the middle ages with regard to medical advancement. they truly believe that “faith” trumps science, which in and of itself is such an asanine philosophy. we can argue until we’re blue in the face, but these extremist zealots will never go away. they scream and shout about how abortion kills babies, but you don’t see them rushing to the adoption agencies to help those that were born. they are just whiners. nevertheless, i am very happy amendment 2 passed in missouri, and i am confident that justice will prevail in favor of the original ballot measure.

I commend the author on a well thought out letter.

To the opponents of stem cell research - no one will force you to participate in stem cell research, and no one will force you to use any cures derived from that research. Your opposition to stem cell research is fine with those who support it. All the Pro Cure people ask is that you don’t force your private decision on others. Not everyone shares your religion, or your exact interpretation of morality. It is very frustrating to have someone you disagree with try and mandate your actions. In other words, you are free to not participate, we just want to be free of your meddling.

However, I know this won’t happen. The people who believe they know the will of God will not give up until they have imposed their will on everyone. They do not accept other moral interpretations – only theirs is correct. Defenders of the faith like JG (Roman Catholic) won’t even accept other Christian interpretations, they are all wrong – only he and other “true believers” know the truth. There can be discussion with people like this, but it’s a sham. They will never change their view, because their religion tells them what’s right – and nothing else matters.

In the end, the laws are up to the people. When it comes time to vote, we each have to search our own beliefs. Is a lump of cells more important than a dying child? What can be said of a religion that advocates suffering over hope? Only you can answer these questions. I can say vote for hope, and JG can say vote for his religious belief – but it’s still up to the voters. The voters already approved Amendment 2 once, but people like JG won’t stop. Freedoms will always be under attack, and only constant vigilance can defend them

Don’t sleep at the polls – otherwise, you may wake up in a different world.

Let’s evaluate natural cloning. Some creatures clone themselves, some engage in homosexualiy, and others switch genders. If you examine nature closely, the diviersity of reproduction in animals staggers the imagination. Some creatures clone themselves, some engage in homosexuality, and others switch genders….Not a Frankenstein process invented by modern scientists. In nature, some creatures can be born male and become female, or, vice versa….Is that abnormal? Of course not……In the animal kingdonm there is no abnormal - just survival and adaptation amid changing conditions.

Don’t listen to the “Jesus Camp” people…… who try to dictate nature.

When the Citizens of MO voted on Amendment 2, we were all very much aware of the science taking place. We all understood SCNT. There’s no need to try to redefine it for us. That was all done during the last election. We understood what we were adding to our Constitution and the voters approved it. The opponents made their case the last ime with all of their definitions and the citizenry rejected their arguments. The Citizens of Missouri have already decided what they believe a clone to be. The citizen’s definition may not agree with some minority’s religious beliefs, but the definition is accepted by many, many, Religions, and Denominations.

The voters approved SCNT and all Embryonic Stem Cell Research that are also legal in the USA annd all the other states. They rejected the attempts of opponents of medical research and life saving cures to criminalize our Doctors and Patients. We want the freedom to seek legal therapies for our ailments without being prosecuted.

The reason for Amendment 2 was to protect the people in the state of Missouri from having beneficial medical treatments outlawed for them. Yet citizens of every other state could receive them without the threat of huge fines and going to prison. That’s what we voted for. That’s what we want.

Recently, it was announced that a new source of stem cells was discovered. They are called Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells. They are very new and a lot of uncertainty exist on their ability to be used in therapies. But, IPSC’s would have never been discovered if it were not for the knowledge gained in SCNT and Embryonic Stem Cell Research. New medical discoveries are taking place daily from the knowledge derived from research that opponents to Amendment 2 want to ban in our state.

Garrison,
Do you really believe a scientist in a lab who artificially manipulates cells is engaging in a “natural process” like the ones you talked about in nature? I would say that many of the scientific processes involved with SCNT do a better job of dictating nature than the “Jesus Camp” people who actually have no ability to dictate nature, but only can vote their conscience on issues of morality.

I find it funny that people of faith who speak out based on our consciences are chastised for wanting to “impose our will” on everybody. How are we any different from people like Nom who want to impose their idea of morality people like myself?? You say that you are wrong in my opinion, but everything you rant about indicates that you think I am wrong in your opinion. So why the double standard? I realize you love pointing out how unevolved my intellect is and how I am so irrational, and absolutist and yadda yadda…but to what purpose?

Sure, we can choose to not use the cures generated from cloning, but our tax money still goes to fund it. That was the purpose of the amendment to Amendment 2. It did not repeal the amendment, nor is the intent to ultimately repeal it. It simply amended the scientifically incorrect wording that allowed for cloning to take place (as stated in #1) and made sure tax dollars aren’t spent to fund research on cloned embryos so those of us that disagree with it don’t have to pay for it and can truly sit on the sidelines and be free to not participate as Nom so wonderfully suggested. Looks like you got your wish.

JG,

You said : “I find it funny that people of faith who speak out based on our consciences are chastised for wanting to “impose our will” on everybody. How are we any different from people like Nom who want to impose their idea of morality people like myself??”

You really seem to be struggling with this, so I will try and make it clear – we aren’t telling you to do anything. Furthermore, we aren’t trying to tell you you can’t do anything. We are making no demands on you – what so ever. On the other hand, you would like to make it illegal to act in ways you disapprove of. You would like to prosecute these people for opposing your idea of morality. You would like to use the blunt instrument of the law to beat into submission those who disagree with you.

I don’t know how to make it clearer. At this point I have to assume that if you still don’t understand the difference, it’s because you choose not to.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to silence you. You can proselytize all you want. All I want is the freedom to ignore you if I want.

JG…..
No double standard here.
In arguments over such moral issues as cloning and same-sex unions, we humans often cite what we believe to be “natural.” But if you examine nature closely, the diversity of reproductive strategies isn’t so simple….Some creatures clone themselves, some engage in homosexuality, and others switch genders. The Komodo dragron creates offspring without the help of a daddy dragon. These virgin births are a form of cloning. Species of fish can reproduce by cloning. In nature, some creatures can be born male and become female….Is that abnormal?

As we conduct our very necessary debates over critical issues, let’s leave nature out of it.

The issue …, is that I don’t trust the government or private companies to stay within the ethical bounds of the law.

Gaucho, neither do I. Because of this distrust I assume you are against government eavesdropping and wiretapping without warrant. I guess you also are against giving the government unfettered access to our personal telecom records.

In fact, why don’t we just keep the government out of our private lives whether that be reproductive, personal conversations, library records, internet activites, etc.

Why don’t opponents of embryonic stem cell research just take a hint: Missourians voted YES on Amendment 2 AS IT WAS WRITTEN. Nobody needs to be enlightened about the “truth.” We are not stupid. Just because you are upset about the outcome doesn’t mean you know something that everyone else doesn’t. We weighed the pros and cons of this amendment ad made our decisions accordingly. YOU LOST. GET OVER IT. THE VOTERS HAVE SPOKEN.

Jfrem, as we saw with concealed carry, the will of the people is not the final voice. Like it or not, we don’t really live in a democracy.

What it comes down to is that those that oppose stem cell research are unable to provide a reason that is not based on a religous belief. There is no legal reason why the this ballot initiative needs to be overturned, rewritten…or anything.

The majority of Show me staters voted for it and that shold be good enough.

Re: “Furthermore, we aren’t trying to tell you you can’t do anything. We are making no demands on you – what so ever.”
Ms Clinton said, and Mr Obama agreed “It is our moral duty to provide health care insurance to all Americans.”
I personally find no moral imperative upon myself to provide anyone with medications for gastric reflux or the flu. If people are invoking libertarian ideals with respect to stem cell research let’s have it — No government funding for any human stem cell research or any other research for that matter. You demand taxes for stem cell research, and if I don’t pay them it’s off to jail.
Sticking to the libertarian ideals everyone seems to espouse here, the only rights of the government are to protect life, liberty and property (most people agree in that order). Some people believe any human life has the right to protect itself. It is a legitimate argument to say government (deriving its rights from the individual) should protect the human life present in human stem cells. It is also your right to argue that those stem cells are only property and belong to the researcher and should be protected as such.
I prefer to err on the side of protecting life over property myself.

Goucho, please enlighten us. Which scientists have “proven” that we don’t need embryonic stem cells for research? And what is the source of these cells you claim offer the same potential as embryonic stem cells. I am quite sure the research community will be eager to hear.

And what is currently preventing private companies from doing whatever they want with embryos? I think that’s referred to that as a moot point.