Stem cell fight: Here we go again
“Judge rewrites proposed stem cell amendment” (Feb. 21) said that the ballot wording submitted by Secretary of State Robin Carnahan summarizing a proposed constitutional amendment to Amendment 2 needed to be changed according to the holding of the judge. The judge drafted different wording. The state Constitution specifies that the secretary of state is to draft ballot summaries. Ms. Carnahan stands by her wording. Here we go again.
I support stem cell research and have advocated in support of all stem cell research. I am disappointed that both sides have failed to adequately educate us about their positions and why we need to continue this fight.
Supporters of Amendment 2 spent over 30 million dollars and we seem to be non the wiser. Even more disappointing are the people who oppose it have spent large sums of money and used the churches as a venue to express their view point. Again spending huge amounts of time and energy expressing their view. Yet many of us stopped attending those churches because we did not see the evil in the research and did not like the constant comparison to abortion. Stem cell research manipulates cells in a lab dish to create specific cells that may help reduce human suffering. There is no body created, just cells. Could they become a body? Only if introduced to a womb, specifically out lawed. So those against embryonic stem cell research want to give protection to those cells equal to that of a child or adult. I hardly see the sense in that when the cells are being thrown away every day. If this research offends you, no one will force you to take advantage of it. We make these decisions every day. Some amongst us smoke, some refuse to have their blood transfused and others decline to take life saving chemo therapy. The Churches are a wonderful and powerful part of our community. I welcome there participation in this debate but common sense needs to prevail. This research will go forward with or without Missouri’s participation. Let’s not continue to fight but instead listen to each other. If this research does lead to effective therapies, some will be happy others not, but the research needs to continue and we need to understand what it is and is not. No babies are being made to harvest body parts and stem cell therapy will not cure all our ills: between those two extremes lies the vast majority of common ground where we all can agree and learn the science that supports the research and make informed decisions. Playing politics with science is a bad idea.
Liz de Laperouse
Ladue


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.