Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Missouri voters: Amendment 2 IS pro-cloning; vote no!

Posted on 11/03/2006 9:21:34 PM PST by Sun

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-73 last
To: landeraepi

OK, we're on to you now, but thanks for bumping this important thread to the top, so that voters will vote NO!


61 posted on 11/04/2006 5:27:21 PM PST by Sun (If we lose the Senate, the Dems will have control of the judiciary committee. Vote on Nov. 7)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: landeraepi; soccermom

soccerman signed on in 2000, and you just joined today, with one post saing that you were against it, and a bunch of posts saying that you were "confused."

ROFL

Another reason to vote NO for this proposition - look how desperate the antilife crowd is.


62 posted on 11/04/2006 5:31:26 PM PST by Sun (If we lose the Senate, the Dems will have control of the judiciary committee. Vote on Nov. 7)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07; All

"Dude, somatic cell nuclear transfer is cloning. The amendment specifically endorses SCNT, ie; CLONING.
Furthermore the amendment removes the purse strings from elected legislators and puts it in the hand of unelected technocrats, FASCISM.

Clear now?"

Yes, another word for CLONING is NUCLEAR TRANSFER!! (Remember when they started calling abortion "choice?")

Read this:

Doctors Group Assails Stem Cell Research Backer's Cloning Statement

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- A doctors group is taking issue with
comments made by a leading stem cell research advocate who it says wants to hide the
fact that his group supports the use of human cloning to create embryos solely
to be destroyed for their stem cells. The head of the International Society
for Stem Cell Research (ISSCR) recently urged embryonic research supporters to
get the media to stop using the term "cloning" to describe the creation of the
human embryos for research. ISSCR President Leonard Zon wrote in a memo, "The
negative connotation of the commercial term 'therapeutic cloning,' make[s] a
change in terminology necessary. Nuclear transfer should be used instead of
'therapeutic cloning.'" "If we use these terms consistently, the public,
journals, newspapers and magazines will follow our lead and use adequate
terminology," Zon added. David Stevens, M.D., director of the Christian Medical
Association takes issue with Zon's remarks. "When scientists want to do something the
public abhors, they simply change the terminology. They either deploy a
euphemism or use technical jargon that nobody understands," Dr. Stevens explained.
http://www.lifenews.com/bio481.html



63 posted on 11/04/2006 5:47:23 PM PST by Sun (If we lose the Senate, the Dems will have control of the judiciary committee. Vote on Nov. 7)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Sun

Yeah --- unfortunately, the amendment is probably going to pass. The "No" side was overwhelmingly out-spent. What's a few million fronted by a biotech couple when they stand to get tens of millions from Missouri tax-payers?


64 posted on 11/04/2006 6:31:59 PM PST by soccermom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: All

Amendment 2 - Bad medicine for tiny humans:

http://www.nrlpac.org/pdf/MO%20referendum.pdf


65 posted on 11/04/2006 6:32:29 PM PST by Sun (If we lose the Senate, the Dems will have control of the judiciary committee. Vote on Nov. 7)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: landeraepi

Welcome to Free Republic. You seem to be learning a lot very quickly. You are quite prodigious.


66 posted on 11/04/2006 7:12:13 PM PST by the808bass
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: the808bass

I saw this link in another thread, and it's the best review article I've read on the topic:



http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OGE4ZDdlM2QwNjAzODAwMjdiNTAyMjVmNWQzNjIwNDI=


67 posted on 11/05/2006 3:41:43 PM PST by Ethrane ("semper consolar")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: landeraepi
(5) “Human embryonic stem cell research,” also referred to as “early stem cell research,” means any scientific or medical research involving human stem cells derived from in vitro fertilization blastocysts or from somatic cell nuclear transfer. For purposes of this section, human embryonic stem cell research does not include stem cell clinical trials.

Do you know what somatic cell nuclear transfer is?

wikipedia

Notice: even the encyclopedia calls it "cloning". So the bill is full of doublespeak. It is a deception. It is supposedly banning cloning while making it legal to clone all in the same breath. I think that is it in a nut shell; in a very simple explanation.

Amending a Constitution of a State is a very serious matter!

68 posted on 11/06/2006 12:55:32 AM PST by Ymani Cricket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: landeraepi
I don't know if you realize this, but it's impossible for science (at least at this point) to clone a human being without a uterus. In order for a blastocyst to grow into a fetus, it MUST be implanted in a uterus.

With all due respect, your language is confused. If the embryo is not a human being before implantation, what kind of being is it? No embryologist in his right mind would ever stake his reputation on such an assertion because it is contrary to all known facts of science.

While it is true that in order for a blastocyst to grow into a fetus it must be implanted in a uterus, to say the blastocyst therefore is not a human being is a non-sequitar, and is categorically false. It is an incoherent category fallacy to confuse the accidental properties of a being with that being's essential nature. In this case the incidental properties are whatever stage of development that human being happens to be at. Accidental properties of human beings are such things as brown hair, blue eyes, age, height, etc. It is a fundamental mistake to confuse the incidental properties of human beings with the essential nature of human beings. The former vary, the latter does not. Any thing that possess the inherent, physical, self-directed capacity to grow and mature into an adult human being is already a human being.

Cordially,

69 posted on 11/06/2006 8:17:34 AM PST by Diamond
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Diamond; Forest Keeper
It is an incoherent category fallacy to confuse the accidental properties of a being with that being's essential nature. In this case the incidental properties are whatever stage of development that human being happens to be at. Accidental properties of human beings are such things as brown hair, blue eyes, age, height, etc. It is a fundamental mistake to confuse the incidental properties of human beings with the essential nature of human beings. The former vary, the latter does not. Any thing that possess the inherent, physical, self-directed capacity to grow and mature into an adult human being is already a human being.

Amen.

70 posted on 11/08/2006 10:30:52 AM PST by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg; Diamond
Well, I've officially torn my robes. :) I'm going to have to do some research, but I want to know how the deceptive ballot language got approved in the first place. Repub. Gov. Matt Blunt supported the Amendment, and certainly did not lift a finger to inform the electorate of the truth of what we were voting on. This is a firing offense.
71 posted on 11/08/2006 11:00:12 AM PST by Forest Keeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Forest Keeper
but I want to know how the deceptive ballot language got approved in the first place.

The deceptive language was challenged in court by our side and appellate judges approved the made-up Alice-In-Wonderland definitions of words. Big biotech invested 30 million dollars to confound the public and bought themselves a Constitutional Amendment.

Let the repeal petition begin. Let them spend another 30 million. We have the grass roots to win.

Cordially,

72 posted on 11/08/2006 12:20:58 PM PST by Diamond
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Diamond; Dr. Eckleburg
Let the repeal petition begin. Let them spend another 30 million. We have the grass roots to win.

Amen, and I am certain that we do. Once more Missourians find out how they have been duped, there will be Hillary to pay! Apparently, the Stowers have bottomless pockets, however, I wonder if they have the stomach to go through the bad publicity that they will get by going through another round of this. (I think they're in their 80's.) Anyway, I pray that "Missourians Against Human Cloning" or some other organization involved will stay alive and begin a challenge to this.

73 posted on 11/08/2006 2:50:14 PM PST by Forest Keeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-73 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson