I could use some input as to how to vote on stem cell research

[rudeguy]

I don't wander into P&N too much but I could really use some input here. Prop 2 in MI is about allowing embryonic stem cell research. It is worded like this:

">A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION TO ADDRESS HUMAN EMBRYO AND HUMAN EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH IN MICHIGAN

The proposed constitutional amendment would:

Expand use of human embryos for any research permitted under federal law subject to the following limits: the embryos --

-- are created for fertility treatment purposes;
-- are not suitable for implantation or are in excess of clinical needs;
-- would be discarded unless used for research;
-- were donated by the person seeking fertility treatment.

Provide that stem cells cannot be taken from human embryos more than 14 days after cell division begins.

Prohibit any person from selling or purchasing human embryos for stem cell research.

Prohibit state and local laws that prevent, restrict or discourage stem cell research, future therapies and cures.

Should this proposal be adopted?"


This sounds pretty good to me, but there are all kinds of ads running saying that MI can't afford this. I agree that this state is going to be beyond broke very soon. I don't see any wording in the actual proposition that mentions state funding though.

Is there a good chance that the state would try to force funding for something like this? And if they did, would it be a good thing considering MI is trying to become known as the "it" spot for medical research.

My son has type 1 diabetes and stem cell research is supposed to be pointing them in the right direction to finding a cure for that. I also know that his school and our whole community is suffering from lack of state funds.

I am torn here, any input is appreciated.

 

[abaez]

Afford what? In CA every proposition has a fiscal impact statement - does your state have one? Considering a large part of stem cell research is privately funded, this may be FUD for those opposing it.

 

[Zorba]

More than likely if they did provide funding it would just come out of the money they are already giving to medical research. For example, MI might give $5M a year to medical research. Now some portion of that might go to stem cells. State research funding follows fads a lot of the time.

I see nothing wrong with using discarded embryos with parental consent,much before than just burning them.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: rudeguy
This sounds pretty good to me, but there are all kinds of ads running saying that MI can't afford this. I agree that this state is going to be beyond broke very soon. I don't see any wording in the actual proposition that mentions state funding though.

Bush never banned stem cell research. He merely restricted federal funding of it.

I don't know why such a useless state with a useless government would consider this kind of pork.

 

[halik]

YES

Opposition is made up of the coalition of catholic churches and similar holly rollers.

 

[rudeguy]

Originally posted by: halik
YES

Opposition is made up of the coalition of catholic churches and similar holly rollers.

That's what I am thinking.

Even though I am what some might consider a holy roller, I don't see anything wrong with using cells that are going to be disposed of anyways.

 

[Thump553]

winnar111's vast oversimplification is erroneous. Technically GWB did not ban stem cell research outright, but he restricted it to use of only a small number of stem cell lines that were already out. GWB's logic was something like this: an embryo, even if it never will be implanted is a blessed human life that cannot be destroyed but go ahead and keep using the fruits of those blessed human lives we have already destroyed. General scientific consensus then, as now, it that the scientific research possibilities of those few lines were already played out. As a practical matter, GWB effectively barred stem cell research in the US and we lost years of potential scientific progress.

Recently there has been some progress in developing stem cells from certain adult cells-but it's still too bad years and actual human lives were wasted to assuage GWB's religious quams.

As far as your question goes, I would undoubtedly say Yes. If we end up with another set of fundamentalist wackos in the White House (McCain is waffling on this point now) it's best that we have as much stem cell research as possible in the US before we totally cede this critically important scientific sector to overseas labs.

Heck, maybe you'll even get lucky and attract some industry to MI. That's a goal of that question.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: rudeguy

Originally posted by: halik
YES

Opposition is made up of the coalition of catholic churches and similar holly rollers.

That's what I am thinking.

Even though I am what some might consider a holy roller, I don't see anything wrong with using cells that are going to be disposed of anyways.

Either you believe in science or you don't.

It's that simple.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Thump553
winnar111's vast oversimplification is erroneous. Technically GWB did not ban stem cell research outright, but he restricted it to use of only a small number of stem cell lines that were already out. GWB's logic was something like this: an embryo, even if it never will be implanted is a blessed human life that cannot be destroyed but go ahead and keep using the fruits of those blessed human lives we have already destroyed. General scientific consensus then, as now, it that the scientific research possibilities of those few lines were already played out. As a practical matter, GWB effectively barred stem cell research in the US and we lost years of potential scientific progress.

It was not restricted at all. States like California and New Jersey made attempts to enact their own programs without the Federal government's approval, and the private sector was and is perfectly capable of doing so.

 

[ScottyB]

It isn't going to cost the state any money. The opposition admitted lying about that aspect.

 

[L00PY]

The devil is always in the details, no?

I suppose it would depend on if there are existing state and/or local laws this amendment would invalidate. If there weren't any, I'd vote no. If there are such laws on the books, one question that I'd want answered is why the legislatures wrote the laws, why the executives signed them, and why those laws can't be repealed if the government and the people are against such laws.

I suspect the ads about funding are a complete red herring.

The line that bothers me a bit is: "Provide that stem cells cannot be taken from human embryos more than 14 days after cell division begins."

 

[charrison]

This has become a rather irrelivent point as adult stem cells are proving to be just as usefull as embryonic stem cells.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: abaez
Afford what? In CA every proposition has a fiscal impact statement - does your state have one? Considering a large part of stem cell research is privately funded, this may be FUD for those opposing it.

It isn't maybe, it is 100% total FUD. There has been a huge blitz from the opponents who keep trying to insist it will be paid for by the taxpayers of the state. They know their beliefs are out of step with the vast majority of the public in regards to stem cell research - so they are simply trying to squash reasonable legislation with fear mongering.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: rudeguy
This sounds pretty good to me, but there are all kinds of ads running saying that MI can't afford this. I agree that this state is going to be beyond broke very soon. I don't see any wording in the actual proposition that mentions state funding though.

Bush never banned stem cell research. He merely restricted federal funding of it.

I don't know why such a useless state with a useless government would consider this kind of pork.

He did ban stem cells. If you knew anything about them, his policy was nothing more than a sugar-coated "EF You" to medical research. He allowed only re-existing lines to continue in the US--NO NEW LINES TO BE CREATED.

of those 13 lines, 11 of them were well-known to be essentially useless. You can't keep a line going ad infinitum without the need for restoring it by creating new lines.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: charrison
This has become a rather irrelivent point as adult stem cells are proving to be just as usefull as embryonic stem cells.

absolutely, completely FALSE. try to post that dipshit family values article if you want. It will be tossed again just as fast as it always is.

Adult stem cells have only approached treating side-effects for the real procedures, which ES cells are designed for.

Adult stem cells have nowhere near the pluripotency of ES cells, and thus their viability in terms of potential treatment is 15%, at best, as that of ES cells.
In fact, the ONLY people who argue for adult stem cells being equal to ES are not scientists, are not medical researches, and have probably never been within 1 mile of a typical tissue culture hood. this means they have no business delving into this issue b/c they don't understand it, and never even attempt to understand the actual science behind it.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: rudeguy
This sounds pretty good to me, but there are all kinds of ads running saying that MI can't afford this. I agree that this state is going to be beyond broke very soon. I don't see any wording in the actual proposition that mentions state funding though.

Bush never banned stem cell research. He merely restricted federal funding of it.

I don't know why such a useless state with a useless government would consider this kind of pork.

He did ban stem cells. If you knew anything about them, his policy was nothing more than a sugar-coated "EF You" to medical research. He allowed only re-existing lines to continue in the US--NO NEW LINES TO BE CREATED.

of those 13 lines, 11 of them were well-known to be essentially useless. You can't keep a line going ad infinitum without the need for restoring it by creating new lines.

That's simply not true at all. The research could have continued without federal funding, and it did.

 

[CaptnKirk]

I saw bumper sticker about this subject just yesterday:

Vote 'YES' for Stem Cell Research -
Bush desparately needs new brain cells.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: rudeguy

Originally posted by: halik
YES

Opposition is made up of the coalition of catholic churches and similar holly rollers.

That's what I am thinking.

Even though I am what some might consider a holy roller, I don't see anything wrong with using cells that are going to be disposed of anyways.

Either you believe in science or you don't.

It's that simple.

Well, you have to believe that science is continually evolving and there are very few "truths" that we actually know. As pointed out to me yesterday in a similar discussion that yes we know that gravity is constant at 9.8m/s^2 but that isn't true everywhere and in all situations. Anything that we discover, we make new discoveries based off of that, which is difficult for a lot of people to comprehend.

 

[imported_gardener]

rudeguy.

There is no funding mechanism in the bill, and no plans to fund it from the state treasury. Statements to the contrary are part of the smear campaign launched by Right to Life of Michigan and the Michigan Catholic Conference (aka "MiCAUSE")

Its important research, as you well know, and it looks to be a very reasonable bill, with adequate restrictions on use of fertilized eggs.

Its also good for the economy, and supported by the research industry. Clearly that's a separate issue, but I bring it up because MiCAUSE argues, deceptively, that its going to hurt the state budget.

My family in Grand Rapids, while quite conservative politically, supports Prop 2. My 8 year old nephew has a congential heart defect.

 

[imported_gardener]

Originally posted by: charrison
This has become a rather irrelivent point as adult stem cells are proving to be just as usefull as embryonic stem cells.

That's a lie, on its face, and you know it.

Why don't you call the medical research hospitals and tell them your amazing discovery.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: winnar111
That's simply not true at all. The research could have continued without federal funding, and it did.

"The" research? You mean "Some research" Perhaps you're unaware how much research is done at those things called "universities." A *lot* of research opportunities have been lost to countries like China and Korea because of federal restrictions.

Originally posted by: TallBill
Well, you have to believe that science is continually evolving and there are very few "truths" that we actually know. As pointed out to me yesterday in a similar discussion that yes we know that gravity is constant at 9.8m/s^2 but that isn't true everywhere and in all situations. Anything that we discover, we make new discoveries based off of that, which is difficult for a lot of people to comprehend.

It's been known for hundreds of years that it's not a constant 9.8m/s² everywhere. But, you're right about discoveries being made from other discoveries. It's the "standing on the shoulders of giants" again.

OP, by all means, "YES" to the proposition. It's a shame that some people think it's better to flush an embryo down the toilet to preserve the sanctity of life than to actually learn something from it which would lead to less suffering in the world.

 

[rudeguy]

So even with your disagreements, everyone thinks I should vote yes on this?

I am a registered republican and don't mind breaking ranks if its the right thing to do. The only thing that was really holding me back is the funding....and that seems to be a non-issue.

 

[Thump553]

Take a look at your state budget and I suspect you will find five million is basically chump change.

 

[L00PY]

Originally posted by: rudeguy
So even with your disagreements, everyone thinks I should vote yes on this?

I think that the majority of people here would agree that more stem cell research would be a good idea. If that's all this amendment said or did, it'd be easy to answer. One question about funding has been brought up and answered. What about others?

1) Are there any laws that would be invalidated by this amendment that might have unforseen consequences? For example, when Ohio enacted its amendment to "ban gay marriage", it may have weakened domestic abuse laws for unmarried heterosexual couples as well as lessening state provided benefits unmarried couples.

2) Does the language of the amendment to the state constitution provide a "start date for life" that might influence abortion laws? Do you care one way or another?

3) Is modifying the constitution in response to recent events and current public sentiments or political movements a good idea? See the Eighteenth Amendment.

 

[rudeguy]

Originally posted by: L00PY

Originally posted by: rudeguy
So even with your disagreements, everyone thinks I should vote yes on this?

I think that the majority of people here would agree that more stem cell research would be a good idea. If that's all this amendment said or did, it'd be easy to answer. One question about funding has been brought up and answered. What about others?

1) Are there any laws that would be invalidated by this amendment that might have unforseen consequences? For example, when Ohio enacted its amendment to "ban gay marriage", it may have weakened domestic abuse laws for unmarried heterosexual couples as well as lessening state provided benefits unmarried couples.

2) Does the language of the amendment to the state constitution provide a "start date for life" that might influence abortion laws? Do you care one way or another?

3) Is modifying the constitution in response to recent events and current public sentiments or political movements a good idea? See the Eighteenth Amendment.

I might have to check out P&N more often, I like the conversation here.

I am unsure how I would find out if other laws would be affected by this. I am by no means a lawyer. I am pretty familiar with the criminal law though

I don't have an opinion on abortion. I personally don't believe in it, but I don't know if it's the government's place to tell a woman what she can or can't do. But that's a different thread.

I love that you brought up the 18h amendment. That was a great lesson for our country to learn. I believe that change is necessary and that the worst case scenario is we can go back to the way things were. I don't see prohibition era gangsters opening up speakeasys selling stem cells.