Missouri Ballot Initiative for Cloning

There are millions of eggs literally flushed down the toilet every month. So what if there is research involving discarded eggs?

I could point out dozens of ethincal questions related to the practice of medicine, but people disagree about treatments all the time from one doctor to the next. That is why there are second opinions.

The focus of stem cells is related directly to the pro life, anti abortion agendas. If they are so bent right to life initiatives, then why do they not value the protection of current life and quality issues, and the research that could help cure a slug of maladies and afflictions like diabetes and parkinsons?

Attempts to limit any new directions of research are denying potential life and quality of for millions of people. Stem cell research is a PRO LIFE ISSUE. How can anyone deny the promise of hope for the living because of a fanaticism to protect unused and discarded eggs? The worst case scenario of cloning humans is nothing but fear.

Looking to pigs and rats for sound human medical breakthroughs are limited because of genetic differences. Only the human race holds the secrets of cures for the human race. A few human cells have already provided great advances in medicine, with more to come. Stem Cell research is Pro Life!

There are millions of eggs literally flushed down the toilet every month. So what if there is research involving discarded eggs?

They are not "eggs". They are new human beings.

The ethic proposed is a newer variation of this one:

"If you're going to kill all these people at least take the brains out so that the material could be utilized"
Testimony of Dr. Julius Hallervordan
NAZI Doctors Trial; 1947.

Stem cell research is a PRO LIFE ISSUE. How can anyone deny the promise of hope for the living because of a fanaticism to protect unused and discarded eggs? The worst case scenario of cloning humans is nothing but fear.

Other than the fact that they are not "eggs", there is no "promise of hope" from the use of embryonic cells. Attempting to use them causes things like cancerous tumors. But even if they were "useful", what right do researchers have to use other human beings to conduct experimental research that kills the victim of the experiments? It is an ethic of cannabilism.

The scenario of cloning human beings is not merely an imaginary one. They are already attempting to clone human beings.

The purveyors of this particular Missouri ballot initiative have changed the definition of cloning to one that is unknown to science. Why? Why are they deceitful in their use of words if what they propose is so wonderful? Why do they lie about the word "cloning"? Cloning has nothing to do with "implantation". I think it is obvious that they lie about words and and feel compelled to ofuscate because they think that the ends justify the means, and they know that if the real pro-life voters of Missouri knew what they are up to, the measure would overwhelmingly be defeated.

It's an old tactic of various ideologies to commit verbicide against various victims to pave the way for their extermination.

There is nothing pro-life about killing others so that the victims' body part can be appropriated.

Cordially,

"what right do researchers have to use other human beings to conduct experimental research "

People give up their lives all the time to save others.
But real people have a thinking process that allows them to make life and death decisions.
embryos have no thinking process. So how can they be considered real people? They do not eat or think. They do not communicate. They are not attached to an umbilical cord.

Anyone who has died, who had an organ donor card, had their organs harvested so others may live. Is that unethical to utilize a part of another human so another may live? According to your analysis you must be against organ transplants because it involved experimentation in the early days of transplanting. Now it is an accepted practice because the beneficial nature of the process has been revealed and refined. I am sure there were many ethical questions during the early stages of transplant research, and many people fought to block the process.

I believe the same will be true in stem cell research.

And cloning of cells could provide replacement hearts, lungs, livers etc. I am in no way in favor of cloning complete humans. Unfortunately that is being done in other parts of the world and it is beyond our control.

There is nothing deceitful about the ballot initiative.

Either we want to continue research for cures, or we enjoy the status quo of suffering in society. I recently lost an Aunt to Parkinsons. Prior to that a grandmother. Could it be hereditary and something I will be painfully afflicted with in 5 or 10 years? Absolutely! Stem cell research provides hope that my generation may not have to suffer like the one before me. I think it is selfish to try to remove the hope for millions of people by blocking important medical research that already shows promises of benefit.

People give up their lives all the time to save others.
But real people have a thinking process that allows them to make life and death decisions.
embryos have no thinking process. So how can they be considered real people? They do not eat or think. They do not communicate. They are not attached to an umbilical cord.

Anyone who has died, who had an organ donor card, had their organs harvested so others may live. Is that unethical to utilize a part of another human so another may live? According to your analysis you must be against organ transplants because it involved experimentation in the early days of transplanting. Now it is an accepted practice because the beneficial nature of the process has been revealed and refined. I am sure there were many ethical questions during the early stages of transplant research, and many people fought to block the process.

How can embyros be considered real people? That's like asking how slaves can be considered real people. They are the offspring of human parentage and thus members of the human race. Or do you buy into the "sub-human" category? What level of "thinking" is required for a person not to be considered fair game to being enlsaved, or killed by other people for his body parts?

The Nuremberg Code

The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.
This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved, as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that, before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject, there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person, which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment.
The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity.
The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature.
The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study, that the anticipated results will justify the performance of the experiment.
The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.
No experiment should be conducted, where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.
The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.
Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability, or death.
The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment.
During the course of the experiment, the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end, if he has reached the physical or mental state, where continuation of the experiment seemed to him to be impossible.
During the course of the experiment, the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and careful judgement required of him, that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.

"Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law No. 10", Vol. 2, pp. 181-182. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1949.]

Read that in light of what you have written and get back to me.

Cordially,

6.The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.

This is a paramount description of the afflictions science has set out to remedy or cure. The humanitarian importance of a cure for Alzheimer's or cancer or diabetes would save millions of lives from sufferage.

These parameters were set out because of heinous experiments by NAZI's, on live human beings. The kind of human that eats and talks and breathes should never be subjugated to deadly experimentation or torture.

Nothing there about embryos. I would assume that the definition of living as set out in the Nuremburg Test only applied to walking and talking humans. Probably because genetic research was in it's infancy and the subjects of the above mentioned experimentation were named at birth.

I have never heard of an embryo being named or given a birth date for at least a month beyond having established conception. The naming can only take place after the sex has been determined.

An embryo that is artificially inseminated has two purposes. One is to fulfill the wishes of a couple who desires childhood. The other is for an established research parameter. An embryo willingly given in the name of research is not intended to fulfill childhood.
The research embryo is not an aborted fetus.
The research embryo is not an abortion of convenience, unlike the abortions a pregnant woman would seek out as a method of birth control.

I am not in favor of abortion. But I do not consider a research embryo an abortion. It is a gift to science.
A child is a gift to a man and woman. And it appears there are plenty of children being born. Some unfortunately are born into bad circumstance of environment etc. We need to focus on the children already named and birth dated.

The humanitarian importance of a cure for Alzheimer's or cancer or diabetes would save millions of lives from sufferage.

The ends does not justify the means:

“The victims of this Buchenwald typhus test did not suffer in vain and did not die in vain . . . people were saved by these experiments.” (Dr. Gebhard Rose, NAZI Doctors’ Trial, 1947)

These parameters were set out because of heinous experiments by NAZI's, on live human beings. The kind of human that eats and talks and breathes should never be subjugated to deadly experimentation or torture.

The "kind" of human? There are degrees of human? You say, "...the kind of human that eats and talks and breathes"..."nothing there about embryos." This seems like a tacit acknowledgment that embryos are human, which must mean that you think that there is a kind of human being who has human rights and a kind that doesn't. Where did you get that idea?

What do you think is the source of human rights? There are only two choices. Either human beings have rights because they are human beings; that these rights are inalienable because they are inherent in human nature, or human beings have rights because other human beings say so. If human beings have rights only because other human beings say so, human rights are not inalienable because human nature does not change, but human wills do.

Take your pick. Either all humans are persons and have rights, or only some humans are persons, and only those who are given rights by others have rights, and those with sufficient power can 'dehumanized' any group they want: slaves, Jews, or human beings in their embryo stage of development.

I have never heard of an embryo being named or given a birth date for at least a month beyond having established conception. The naming can only take place after the sex has been determined.

In the first place, the sex of the new individual human being is determined at conception. The fact that you were not given a name by some other human being at that moment of the beginning of your life does not mean that you were not you. The fact that you were not born until a certain number of months later does not mean that you were not you.

I would assume that the definition of living as set out in the Nuremberg Test only applied to walking and talking humans.

The assumption is unwarranted. A moments reflection upon the history of your own existence would demonstrate self-evidently that you were living when you began to exist.

The Nuremberg principles require the voluntary consent of the human subject, and require the subject to have legal capacity to give consent;

to be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved, as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that, before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject, there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person, which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment.

The human subject at such an early stage of development does not and cannot meet any of these requirements as a fit subject for human experimentation. Not to mention the requirement that "proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability, or death." Using human embryos violates every one of these strictures.

I am not in favor of abortion.

Why not? If some human beings have the unrestrained power to determine which human beings have human rights and which human beings don't have human rights, what's wrong with it? Besides, prenatal babies don't eat and talk or breath air. Why are you not in favor of them being cut up, burned, having their arms and legs torn off and their skulls crushed, mutilated and discarded, or perhaps just grown to harvest their body parts? If only some human beings have rights, and only for those that are bestowed by other human beings more powerful than them, you leave yourself no principled reason to reject ANY of it.

Cordially,

Thank you for the intelligent discussion. It is obvious this subject is an all or nothing affair. Both sides of the subject stand to lose something and stand to gain something.

I don't believe you responded to an earlier query about organ donations and transplants. What is your stand on that issue?

I believe that the donation of a few embryos to science can lead to cures for family and friends suffering from diabetes and parkinsons and spinal cord injury etc.
I also believe that if every embryo is grown full term, there would be thousands of additional children without a chance for adoption. Our orphanages are full now with unadopted children. Who would assume the responsibility?

Is it not irresponsible to bring a child into being when there is no means or intent of giving that child proper care?
Is it not irresponsible to deny potential life saving medicines and techniques from those who are otherwise going to suffer?

The saying" The road to hell is paved with good intentions" probably applies to both sides of this issue.
We have sick people who need to be cured and extra embryos could hold the key to a cure.
And we have extra embryos that some think should be allowed to grow up just because they want them to since they are a living organism.

I side with the sick people whom I know are suffering.
They say so. I can see them suffer. And I will vote for stem cell research because it can help millions of people now and in the future.

And I thank you in return for the civil discussion.

I don't believe you responded to an earlier query about organ donations and transplants. What is your stand on that issue?

I will answer and then I will ask again a question that you have not answered. As a matter of personal conscience only, I tend not to favor it. I also think there are also some public policy problems and some medical/psycholocal issues with it. But at least with organ donations and transplants the donations are (usually) voluntary. The moral problem occurs where the taking of the organs is not voluntary, as with the deliberate destruction of entire human beings in the embryo stage, and sometimes with adults who have not really given their consent. It's getting to the point where some people are DEMANDING to have other peoples' organs, even if that means the deliberate taking of the victims' lives.

I return to the moral premise that all humans have the right to life because all humans are human. All humans have instrinsic dignity and, therefore, are essentially equal. The most basic of all moral rules, the Golden Rule is that you should do unto other as you would have them do unto you. If you expect that others should treat you fairly and justly and not kill you for your body parts then you don't have the moral right to kill the innocent for their body parts. It is not fair, and it is not just. If you would not be killed, do not kill.

The question I asked earlier that you did not respond to is what do you think the source of human rights is? Are they intrinsic, that is do human beings have human rights simply because they are human beings, or, conversely, do human beings have rights only if some other human beings say they have rights?

I believe that the donation of a few embryos to science can lead to cures for family and friends suffering from diabetes and parkinsons and spinal cord injury etc.
I also believe that if every embryo is grown full term, there would be thousands of additional children without a chance for adoption. Our orphanages are full now with unadopted children. Who would assume the responsibility?

Is it not irresponsible to bring a child into being when there is no means or intent of giving that child proper care?

So the solution to these problems is to kill these persons?

Cordially,

"The question I asked earlier that you did not respond to is what do you think the source of human rights is? Are they intrinsic, that is do human beings have human rights simply because they are human beings, or, conversely, do human beings have rights only if some other human beings say they have rights?"

I would like to think that human rights are intrinsic. But the state of reality pretty much dictates that human rights are controlled by the elite. If the elite class has some kind of humanitarian guidance, perhaps religous in nature, human rights are spotlighted. But we also know that some religions place little value on human rights eg: Islam. Islam places the value of life in the lowest of contexts. Christians place the value of life in a higher context. Christians also will do whatever it takes to save people from afflictions or starvation or other forms of sufferage. If that includes providing the means to cure people, I believe whatever possible should be done as long as the intent is for the good of mankind.

As for the sale of organs, I agree with you. It is a voluntary donation. But as in everything regarding health, big money has been the trump card over good intention.

As for an embryo, who is the owner of the embryo? The donor is the owner. If a donor contributes an embryo to research, it is no different than a donor offering a kidney or a lung or a heart. I do not believe it to be unethical for any donor to volunteer a body part. But if the donation involves monetary gain to the donor, then it becomes unethical.

If embryonic research for cures is successful, then it should be done. If after a given amount of time the claims are not realized for the potential cures, then embryonic research should be abandoned.

As in any form of science, there has to be risks taken to prove or disprove theory. Perhaps there should be a timeline on embryonic research? If no progress has been found then the question could be revisited by voters. On the other hand if there are indeed breakthroughs, the initiative should progress.

The solution to the orphans is not to kill them. But their existance and care should be a priority over the existance of an embryo. I understand that you will place the born and unborn as equal. But the realistic perspective is that there has to be a different priority placed on the value of life as it progresses through different stages.

Sometimes there are hard decisions to be made. But those life and death decisions are the ultimate of personal decisions. We may learn nothing. Or we may learn a lot. But as I have stated. The decision to donate an embryo to science is a personal decision. The only need for the state or other people to be involved is to oversee that the limits to research are not overstepped. That is why we are voting yes on the stem cell initiative. The initiative puts the research out in the open where it can be monitored. This is a much better scenario than causing the research to go underground where there would be no oversight or public information. We definitely do not want stem cell research to go underground. We have to monitor the research before any future public benefit can be determined.

I would like to think that human rights are intrinsic.

Respectfully, no, you don't want to think that human rights are intrinsic. That is why you endorse the morally bankrupt idea that one human being can be owned by another:

"As for an embryo, who is the owner of the embryo? The donor is the owner."

But the state of reality pretty much dictates that human rights are controlled by the elite.

I guess as long as you are one of the elite it's ok with you. But you should not expect that you should be treated as having human dignity by those more powerful than yourself since you are unwilling to acknowledge that same intrinsic dignity in others less powerful than yourself. Fair is fair.

. I understand that you will place the born and unborn as equal. But the realistic perspective is that there has to be a different priority placed on the value of life as it progresses through different stages.

A different priority placed on the value of WHAT? Did you say, life? You know, if your life is not protected what else is there? Why do you think there should be a different priority placed by OTHER PEOPLE on the value of one's life? Bless your heart o zarkman, but that is insane.

If a donor contributes an embryo to research, it is no different than a donor offering a kidney or a lung or a heart.

The proposition that there is no difference between a part and a whole is scientifically, logically, and morally absurd. A human embyro is a complete human being, not a part of a human being, a being incapable of giving his consent to be killed so that his body can be used for "science". It is wrong to experiment on other people without their consent and especially when it is known that the experiment will kill the subject.

Sometimes there are hard decisions to be made. But those life and death decisions are the ultimate of personal decisions. We may learn nothing. Or we may learn a lot. But as I have stated. The decision to donate an embryo to science is a personal decision. The only need for the state or other people to be involved is to oversee that the limits to research are not overstepped.

What if I said that the decision to own a slave is a personal decision, and that the only need for the state or other people to be involved is to oversee that the limits to slavery are not overstepped, and to insure that slavery is out in the open where it can be monitored, with proper oversight and public information?

You leave yourself no principled basis to disagree with what I just said if you say that there are some human beings (embryos) who can be owned and disposed of by other human beings older and more powerful, more elite than themselves.

You might want to read sometime C.S. Lewis' classic The Abolition of Man for some insight into the futility of the Paradise engineering nightmare world that you endorse with such good intentions.

Cordially,

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.