Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Posted: 10/22/2006 6:23:49 PM EST
Anyone research this thing? It's not what it claims to be. VERY deceptive.

Among other things it claims to ban human cloning but actually PROTECTS human cloning and abortion.

www.nocloning.org
Link Posted: 10/23/2006 12:41:33 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/23/2006 12:44:08 PM EST by kevikev9]
Wow. I went to that site and was amazed. The number of inaccuracies, contradictions, and bad science is appalling. They are tying to confuse those who do not remember anything from biology class. I can write a very long post dismissing the claims that website is presenting, but I'm lazy. Its kinda like reading HCI's website. In short, Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer is not a viable way to clone a human being. "Dolly" was not even 100% identical to her mother. The website leads believe that if this is passed, companies will start cloning human beings and harvest organs ala movies such as The Island. Not only is this banned, federally and internationally, the technology and knowledge to this is in its "embryonic stages." This amendment will not give eprmission to start cloning humans.

Abortion also has nothing to do with this amendment. They throw that in there to scare people. Stem cells only come from leftover(thrown away) fertility clinic stuff(sorry forgot what they are called) and from SCNT.

The website said something about this research being funded by tax money. The amendment doesn't say that. Didn't Bush sign a bill saying that this research would not be federally funded? I personally believe all reseacrch should be funded only by private investors, and not the govenment.

Okay all this stuff is kinda off the top of my head, and I'm no scientist, just stuff I learned from school. I'm not saying what you should vote for. I'm just saying do some reseach for both sides cause both probably have some bs. You have any questions let me know, i'll try to find the answer, or if anyone has some better info, chime in.

Here is a website I just found. Its for the "other side." www.missouricures.com/faq.php
Link Posted: 10/23/2006 1:10:32 PM EST
here is a link to the actual language;

www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2006petitions/ppStemCell.asp
Link Posted: 10/23/2006 1:10:48 PM EST
Just got back to this I was not able to post from work but what a convoluted mess that site is... All BS for God's sake don't confuse this stuff with facts!!!!
Thanks for posting up Kev! so I don't have to!
Link Posted: 10/23/2006 2:08:42 PM EST
After listening to the issue on two different radio shows, I'm voting AGAINST it, basically for these simple reasons:

'It states that all MO and govt funds must go to stem cell research first, and no reductions. (It was read verbatim from the bill, but I'm paraphrasing)

This locks in the state Constitution rules to protect private biotech firms. This stuff should be a law, not in the Constitution.

Finally, it says in the first pages, that the biotech won't pay for eggs, etc, but on like page 42 (?) it says in the small print they will.

I don't enshrine private firms in the Constitution, so I'll vote NO.
Link Posted: 10/23/2006 3:38:33 PM EST
I'm voting against it as well. While I think we need a lot of this research we DON'T need to much around with the state constitution to do it.

Justin W.
Link Posted: 10/23/2006 3:51:05 PM EST
Just to let everyone know, I am still undecided about this amendment. Not about human cloning or any of the other scientific reasons. The one doubt that I have is exactly what v188 mentioned in the above post. I really don't understand why this has to mess with the MO Constitution.

However I do disagree that there will be govt funding for stem cell. I read nowhere in the text about that. I'm not a lawyer, so maybe I missed something. If you goto the above link in the third post you can read it. I read number/article 5 several times. What I got from it was that the gov cannot restict funds designated for stem cell research. This may be a crappy example, but lets say a private entity wants to contribute funds to a govt funded school that has a stem cell research team. Some politician(s) thinks the research is immoral and wants to stop it. This person has direct or indirect control of the school's main funding and threatens to stop all funding to the school if they accept the money. I didn't read anything that says that our tax money will be used for funding. Thats the way I interpreted the text.

Of course with all this vague language, i'm sure there will be loopholes, just like everything else.
Link Posted: 10/23/2006 4:49:22 PM EST
Thanks kevikev9 for responding. Evidently we disagree on some things. The following is not a personal attack on you, but it's a place to spell out some of our disagreements. I welcome any ideas and info you have.
height=8
Originally Posted By kevikev9:
Wow. I went to that site and was amazed. The number of inaccuracies, contradictions, and bad science is appalling. They are tying to confuse those who do not remember anything from biology class. I can write a very long post dismissing the claims that website is presenting, but I'm lazy. Its kinda like reading HCI's website. In short, Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer is not a viable way to clone a human being.


Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer is the DEFINITION of cloning. Perhaps you meant it is not a viable way to clone a human being that will mature to be a healthy baby, child, adult, etc. SCNT is the current scientific definition of cloning. This initiative changes the defintion of cloning from its accepted meaning to a meaning not currenty used or recognized by science. That's dishonest.
height=8

"Dolly" was not even 100% identical to her mother. The website leads believe that if this is passed, companies will start cloning human beings and harvest organs ala movies such as The Island.


I am not solely concerned about scenes of blood and gore. Many people, and not just ignorant propaganda eaters, value both "the product of fertilization" and embryos formed by SCNT as individual human life. There is no better place to draw the line.
height=8

Not only is this banned, federally and internationally, the technology and knowledge to this is in its "embryonic stages." This amendment will not give eprmission to start cloning humans.


This amendment explicitly grants a constitutional RIGHT to clone based on the presently used and understood defenition of cloning--SCNT.

height=8
Abortion also has nothing to do with this amendment.


The initiative bans the implantation of an SCNT embryo. That means creating an individual human life and throwing it away before birth. That falls under the definition of abortion. It would be better to ALLOW reproductive cloning than to require the abortion of a clone, even if only at the embryonic stage of development.

The initiative bans the harvesting of stem cells from a human blastocyst after 14 days, but it also defines "blastocyst" as an entity that has not been implanted (subsection 6(1)). Therefore, when implanting embryos from in vitro fertilization there is no prohibition against harvesting stem cells from THOSE embryos. And that will be protected by the words "Any stem cell research...may be conducted in Missouri...subject to...only the following additional limitations and requirements". Whether or not you think it will be done, this amendment protects such abortions if the scientist chooses to do it.

height=8
They throw that in there to scare people. Stem cells only come from leftover(thrown away) fertility clinic stuff(sorry forgot what they are called) and from SCNT.


Embryonic stem cells only come from embryos. "Adult" stem cells come from all kinds of places and do not require destroying embryos. Adult stem cell research has already shown much more promise than embryonic stem cell research. Adult stem cell research is completely non-controversial, so there's no need to protect it with an amendment.

height=8
The website said something about this research being funded by tax money. The amendment doesn't say that. Didn't Bush sign a bill saying that this research would not be federally funded? I personally believe all reseacrch should be funded only by private investors, and not the govenment.


If the state ever decides to fund any biometical research of any kind we COULD be forced to pay for embryonic stem cell research because explicit exclusion of stem cell research from funding may easily be interpreted as unconstitutional "discouragement" or "disincentive" to conduct such constitutionally protected research.

height=8
Okay all this stuff is kinda off the top of my head, and I'm no scientist, just stuff I learned from school. I'm not saying what you should vote for. I'm just saying do some reseach for both sides cause both probably have some bs. You have any questions let me know, i'll try to find the answer, or if anyone has some better info, chime in.

Here is a website I just found. Its for the "other side." www.missouricures.com/faq.php

I visited the website.
Link Posted: 10/23/2006 5:48:05 PM EST
Good! A talking point.

Even if we don't agree on whether embryonic stem cell research is ethical, we value the design of our representative government.

You may support embryonic stem cell research. I oppose it. Fair enough. Once this amendment becomes part of the constitution, however, representative legislative review and oversite is gone. The amendment changes 45 sections of the existing constitution in ways that the vast majority of voters won't see before voting. And of the voters who do see it before voting, very few can predict the consequences before they are battled in the courts. And when they are battled in the courts, the amendment is already in place and is the law that the judges must honor. There is no legislative recourse.

If the majority of Missourians really want embryonic stem cell research, then they can have their way in the legislature and they can maintain legislative oversite of it via representative government.

Link Posted: 10/23/2006 8:02:03 PM EST
Thanks for the Great posts on this subject Turbo.

People need to hear about how deceptive and wrong this proposed ammendment is. Glad to see I'm not the only one to feels that way.

Link Posted: 10/24/2006 4:17:55 AM EST
LOL @ the term "Representative Government".
Link Posted: 10/24/2006 6:45:50 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/24/2006 7:44:27 AM EST by -Duke-Nukem-]
I'm voting yes. I'm all about legalizing cloning. I want as many spare parts for me running around as possible. Spare kidneys, spare skin tissue, a spare liver and perhaps a NIB brain or two versus the Abby Normal brain I currently have.



Link Posted: 10/24/2006 7:44:33 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/24/2006 8:37:46 AM EST
Amendment 2 is bad legislation, none of the rest matters.
Link Posted: 10/24/2006 1:55:34 PM EST
Turbo, I thank you for making your own judgment/decision on this issue instead of mindlessly obeying the ads. I believe your points are valid and truthful. It seems that the main disagreement that we have about SCNT is based on the definition of cloning and life. Even though there are many types of cloning, the major two are reproductive cloning and research/therapeutic cloning. They both start off using the same method in which an embryo is produced. This is where we disagree. I do not consider an embryo a human being. It is collection of unspecialized, immature cells. And of course discussing the topic of life is like beating a dead horse.

I am more concerned about the political portion of this amendemnt. I do agree with you on Adult stem cells, as well as umbilical cord cells, showing promise. Stem cell research is in its infancy compared to those two, and much more controversial. However it may yield more and better results than those two. Or it may not not, but we haven't done enough to find out. I would rather try and fail then to not give it a shot.

I am actually leaning more to voting no on this because of what Aero posted. It is simply a bad amendment, and there should not be any reason the government should be involved. However I scared that this will not pass, then on the next ballot there would be an amendment to ban all types of cloning. They could start banning adult stem cells, which(like you said) is non-controversial, but the govt doesn't care. All of our options will be gone.

I have to go now, and could not state some other opinions of mine. Hopefully I'll be on later.
Link Posted: 10/24/2006 5:30:50 PM EST
tag, tag, and tag.

i really thought i was going to vote yes. but there are alot of things that have been troubling me as of late with it.

the fact that it would be part of the constitution is about enough for me to vote no. that is an eye opener for sure.
Link Posted: 10/25/2006 5:28:37 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/25/2006 5:34:38 AM EST by GunNutSupreme]
I am also voting against it, and because of the wordage of this amendment if the state government goes into deficit status, funds for this amendment can't be cut. so that means that highway improvement, school improvement etc. would be cut because this amendment protects all allocated funds from being cut. It also allows any bio tech firm wanting to start said research in MO to apply and receive funds with nothing to control the allocation of these funds. MO taxpayers wiring blank checks to anyone that wants to do research in MO. This thing is a snowball rolling down the hill. Hope this helps the yes men out there. This will bankrupt our state and make it constitutional to do so.


Originally Posted By v188:
After listening to the issue on two different radio shows, I'm voting AGAINST it, basically for these simple reasons:

'It states that all MO and govt funds must go to stem cell research first, and no reductions. (It was read verbatim from the bill, but I'm paraphrasing)

This locks in the state Constitution rules to protect private bio tech firms. This stuff should be a law, not in the Constitution.

Finally, it says in the first pages, that the bio tech won't pay for eggs, etc, but on like page 42 (?) it says in the small print they will.

I don't enshrine private firms in the Constitution, so I'll vote NO.
Link Posted: 10/25/2006 5:30:19 AM EST
While I believe all avenues should be explored if it can help us to find cures, I will not be voting for this because of the VERY deceptive wording. on missouricures.org, they are very careful not to use the word "cloning" they use SCNT like its going out of style. this is a very deceptive amendment.
Link Posted: 10/25/2006 5:34:18 AM EST
I'll vote no. Even if they could produce "female companions" with extra large meat curtains, (I'm sure they'll be eventually be available via the underground) let Cali pay for this stuff. Clair McCattail is promoting this through an attempted emotional response, which generally doesnt work on guys unless theyre gay. So, be sure and talk to testicularly challenged people that are close to you so they can make an informed decision. I found myself coming home to the wife crying her eyes out over Michael J being sick. She was trying to find his home address to mail him our live savings for medical help. I explained to her we are not the UN and Michael J would be fine. I had to re direct her to baking a pie to get her mind off of it. Mean while I have changed our account #s, banned her from listening to the radio while I'm not with her and continue supporting her through assignment of womanly tasks and sex. Ok, I'm just kidding but, I will vote no.

Link Posted: 10/25/2006 6:05:02 AM EST
Ok, WTF is an "extra large meat curtain"?
Link Posted: 10/25/2006 6:07:29 AM EST

Originally Posted By Cavalry99:
Ok, WTF is an "extra large meat curtain"?


This may be new sig line material.

IM will be sent on what meat curtains are.
Link Posted: 10/25/2006 6:29:23 AM EST
I just read Nascar's IM to me. Ok, you learn something new every day.
Link Posted: 10/25/2006 11:16:49 AM EST
I am a libertarian and originally I was going to vote yes but as soon as I saw that dumb ass michael j fox doing the herky-jerky on TV and supporting mccaskill/stem cell research Idecided I am voting against it.
Link Posted: 10/25/2006 1:22:53 PM EST

Originally Posted By AeroE:
Amendment 2 is bad legislation, none of the rest matters.


Nuff said.
Link Posted: 10/25/2006 8:47:04 PM EST
Did anybody know that the whole campain for this thing is being bank rolled by two bio-engineering investors out of KC? They have dumped like 30 million or some obscene amount of money to get this passed. They themselves would profit greatly from the research.

If they got it passed and they're companies that they have financial control over develop a patent for a cure that is derived from this sort of research (by the way, I oppose embryonic, love the adult stem cell research. Wife and I donated cord blood for this)...any way, if they developed a patent off this scam, they make

Billions and billions and billions.........
Link Posted: 10/26/2006 5:53:27 AM EST
My wife and I also donated cord blood from the 1st child and will when the 2nd comes in 6 months.
Stem cell research is good, but cloning human embryos is BAD!
Link Posted: 10/26/2006 6:56:48 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/27/2006 6:00:06 AM EST
After listening to my right-wing radio station all day yesterday (980AM), like every other day, I had my mind changed on Amendment #2.

I will have to vote NO and it has absoutely nothing to do with moral or scientific reasons. It has to do with the fact that it will impose far too many changes to the State Constitution for my comfort, and more importantly they're being sneaky buggers about it and not telling us what it all entails.

Call me skeptical or a cynic or pessimistic or paranoid, because I am all of those. But for some odd reason I just don't have the level of trust in Big Brother that was felt in years past.

I'm also voting no on #3, the tobacco tax, because I know darn well that they'll just find more ways to misuse and steal that money too.

Come to think of it, if they can't or won't spell out for me in detail what each issue is, and what it will affect, I'm going to vote NO on it just due to my healthy skepticism.

Say, did anyone see that there's a 3rd candidate for MO State Senate and he's openly pro-gun?
Link Posted: 10/27/2006 3:35:38 PM EST
I haven't heard much from either side on the tobacco Amendment 3, but I was just noticing that like Amendment 2, it affects a lot of existing sections in the constitution.

According to the notes at the top of each amendment, I counted the following:

Amendment 1 replaces 1 section
Amendment 2 "may change, repeal or modify" 45 sections or subsections
Amendment 3 "may change, repeal or modify" 35 sections or subsections
Amendment 6 replaces 1 section
Amendment 7 replaces 1 section

Link Posted: 10/28/2006 3:32:44 AM EST
Just an additional bit from my point of view. Both the stem cell and tobacco tax puts more power in the .gov's hands and that is something I am totally against.

Link Posted: 10/28/2006 7:13:38 AM EST

Originally Posted By GaryM:
Just an additional bit from my point of view. Both the stem cell and tobacco tax puts more power in the .gov's hands and that is something I am totally against.


+ A MILLION!
Link Posted: 10/29/2006 4:22:04 AM EST
Thought this article "Amendment 2 and the economy" was interesting, helps explain what's going on and why.

www.stltoday.com/stltoday/business/stories.nsf/story/2195F1DE43A5214A86257215000CCEEE?OpenDocument
Top Top