Posted on 10/30/2006 10:25:37 AM PST by jmaroneps37
The key issue has two parts. "Funds provided" refers to any future funding that is granted. By operation of this amendment, once granted, these funds can never be reduced, denied or withheld by action of the Missouri legislature.
The second part of that provision, "or eligible to be provided," may be read so as to require any request to the legislature for funding ESC research MUST be approved.
This amendment is dangerous! To read it in its entirety, go to the Missouri Secretary of State's website:
www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2006petitions/ppStemCell.asp
So like Michael J. Fox, you admit you havent read the ammendment? LOL
That is less likely than the mistake some are making in equating a bunch of cells with no sense of self as being the equvalent to a human being. Why not make it a capital crime to masterubate since the sperm is not being allowed to live on as a human being? Maybe that is the next step in right to life. Some in the right to life arena seem to have a fetish with eggs now.
Is that implied by "LOL... temper temper"?
Actually Fox's ad was in regard to stem cell research, and was most relevant to the MO Senate race- not Missouri Amendment 2. The same ad was run in NJ and MD, where there are also competitive Senate races.
As I said, perhaps instead of attempting to influence voter behavior and generate public support for stem cell research, Fox should use his resources to privately fund these efforts.
John Danforth, former Missouri Senator, ordained Episcopal minister, the man who officiated at Ronald Reagan's funeral, and someone I have a tremendous amount of respect for, has come out in favor of Amendment 2. I cannot imagine a man of Danforth's integrity favoring it if it allowed for human cloning.
If organs could be created in isolation, I would not have a problem with it. The problem is that using any technology that is remotely feasible in the forseeable future, these organs would have to be created by growing an entire body and killing it to harvest those organs.
I think you would agree with me that this is problematic.
The other big problem with human cloning, as evidenced with Dolly the Sheep, is that the cloned being is an inferior copy. Dolly the Sheep is long since dead, after a difficult life with multiple health problems. Should scientists (mad or otherwise) be permitted to create a human being that will be, inevitably, consigned to suffering and early death?
Imagine it. It is in there. The amendment "specifically" bans cloning. Clinton parsing here, it defines specifically that cloning involves implanting fertilized eggs into a womb. By rewriting the definition of what cloning is, anything done outside the womb isn't cloning. Even if it IS.
Did I mention that Danforth is also a lawyer? Not exactly one who would get snookered by fine print.
This is good news. :) I'm glad Rush spotlighted this.
Lawyer or not, this is cloning. If he doesn't understand that, maybe you're going to have to adjust your opinion of him. If you read the fine print, it's very clearly cloning. If a guy like me can read and understand it, Danforth ought to be able to as well.
You can't clone a piece of the body. It's all or nothing, at least at the present time.
When does life start?
Is it at conception? Is it when the embreyo is recognizable as a human? Is it when the fetus is born?
That is the cognizant question.
Good people can disagree on this.
My own view is that life starts at conception.
They considered cloning me, but seeing as how I have the strength and power of ten men it was deemed too dangerous.
I heard Danforth's own Pastor come out against this
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.