Missouri Stem Cell Amendment

[CycloWizard]

As some of you may know, St. Louis is trying to become the home of the 'Bio-Belt' - become the center for 'biotechnology' nationwide, similar to how Silicon Valley is the primary residence of the computing industry. Perhaps as a result of this push, one group has introduced a potential amendment to the state constitution, the "Missouri Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative." Anyone reading the first section of the bill would have a hard time disagreeing with its premises, at least from a pragmatic perspective:

(1) No person may clone or attempt to clone a human being.

(2) No human blastocyst may be produced by fertilization solely for the purpose of stem cell research.

(3) No stem cells may be taken from a human blastocyst more than fourteen days after cell division begins; provided, however, that time during which a blastocyst is frozen does not count against the fourteen-day limit.

(4) No person may, for valuable consideration, purchase or sell human blastocysts or eggs for stem cell research or stem cell therapies and cures.

(5) Human blastocysts and eggs obtained for stem cell research or stem cell therapies and cures must have been donated with voluntary and informed consent, documented in writing.

(6) Human embryonic stem cell research may be conducted only by persons that, within 180 days of the effective date of this section or otherwise prior to commencement of such research, whichever is later, have

(a) provided oversight responsibility and approval authority for such research to an embryonic stem cell research oversight committee whose membership includes representatives of the public and medical and scientific experts;

(b) adopted ethical standards for such research that comply with the requirements of this section; and

(c) obtained a determination from an Institutional Review Board that the research complies with all applicable federal statutes and regulations that the Institutional Review Board is responsible for administering.

No human cloning? I believe we can all agree that that's a good thing. Ethical research? Also good. No buying of eggs for research purposes? Very good, indeed. However, upon inspection of the remainder of the bill, it's clear that these are simply put up as a front to deceive voters. Later, the amendment defines the terms put forth in the initial portion. For example, 'human cloning' is defined in the following manner:

(2) ?Clone or attempt to clone a human being? means to implant in a uterus or attempt to implant in a uterus anything other than the product of fertilization of an egg of a human female by a sperm of a human male for the purpose of initiating a pregnancy that could result in the creation of a human fetus, or the birth of a human being.

So, if you voted for this initiative, which purports that "No person may clone or attempt to clone a human being," you're actually voting to define cloning in a way that will incontravertibly allow human cloning. Not only that, but this is actually changing the state's constitution to allow human cloning. In fact, this type of disinformation is the very foundation of this amendment. Example the second: blastocysts cannot be created "solely for the purpose of stem cell research." This is later defined:

(11) ?Solely for the purpose of stem cell research? means producing human blastocysts using in vitro fertilization exclusively for stem cell research, but does not include producing any number of human blastocysts for the purpose of treating human infertility.

So, whereas the initial face value of this statement is that we cannot create embryos to harvest for research, they've created a loophole by allowing unlimited embryos to be created 'for the purpose of treating human infertility'. So, instead of making 5-6, now they can make 100-200. Disingenuous? I think so.

Finally, the prohibition of 'valuable consideration' for eggs and embryos:

(17) ?Valuable consideration? means financial gain or advantage, but does not include reimbursement for reasonable costs incurred in connection with the removal, processing, disposal, preservation, quality control, storage, transfer, or donation of human eggs, sperm, or blastocysts, including lost wages of the donor. Valuable consideration also does not include the consideration paid to a donor of human eggs or sperm by a fertilization clinic or sperm bank, as well as any other consideration expressly allowed by federal law.

So, again, at face value we have a prohibition on buying or selling eggs and embryos. But, if you read how it's defined, it allows women to be reimbursed for all costs, lost wages, 'donation' of her eggs, and specifically allows 'the consideration paid to a donor of human eggs or sperm' by a clinic.

I'm not sure what the solution is, but I do know that the problem is that many or most bills, amendments, and other proposals put forth in today's legislatures and ballots are disingenuous and designed to mislead voters. This amendment is the quintessence of doublespeak. It purports one thing, but twists its own wording to allow the very things it pretends to expressly prohibit.

 

[Strk]

How exactly does this allow human cloning?

 

[Gigantopithecus]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
However, upon inspection of the remainder of the bill, it's clear that these are simply put up as a front to deceive voters. Later, the amendment defines the terms put forth in the initial portion. For example, 'human cloning' is defined in the following manner:

(2) ?Clone or attempt to clone a human being? means to implant in a uterus or attempt to implant in a uterus anything other than the product of fertilization of an egg of a human female by a sperm of a human male for the purpose of initiating a pregnancy that could result in the creation of a human fetus, or the birth of a human being.

So, if you voted for this initiative, which purports that "No person may clone or attempt to clone a human being," you're actually voting to define cloning in a way that will incontravertibly allow human cloning. Not only that, but this is actually changing the state's constitution to allow human cloning.

No, what they're allowing is the ex vivo development of blastocysts. The end result will not be a cloned human - this provision will allow for the cloning of human blastocysts. Not everyone thinks a blastocyst is a fully human entity.

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
In fact, this type of disinformation is the very foundation of this amendment. Example the second: blastocysts cannot be created "solely for the purpose of stem cell research." This is later defined:

(11) ?Solely for the purpose of stem cell research? means producing human blastocysts using in vitro fertilization exclusively for stem cell research, but does not include producing any number of human blastocysts for the purpose of treating human infertility.

So, whereas the initial face value of this statement is that we cannot create embryos to harvest for research, they've created a loophole by allowing unlimited embryos to be created 'for the purpose of treating human infertility'. So, instead of making 5-6, now they can make 100-200. Disingenuous? I think so.

This isn't the least bit disingenuous. This provision makes it legal for the thousands of unused zygotes that are otherwise thrown away by IVF clinics every year to be put towards the alleviation of human suffering via scientific research. What's disingenuous is the so-called 'culture of life' which says it's ok to throw away zygotes but not to use them to advance genetics & scientific medicine.

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Finally, the prohibition of 'valuable consideration' for eggs and embryos:

(17) ?Valuable consideration? means financial gain or advantage, but does not include reimbursement for reasonable costs incurred in connection with the removal, processing, disposal, preservation, quality control, storage, transfer, or donation of human eggs, sperm, or blastocysts, including lost wages of the donor. Valuable consideration also does not include the consideration paid to a donor of human eggs or sperm by a fertilization clinic or sperm bank, as well as any other consideration expressly allowed by federal law.

So, again, at face value we have a prohibition on buying or selling eggs and embryos. But, if you read how it's defined, it allows women to be reimbursed for all costs, lost wages, 'donation' of her eggs, and specifically allows 'the consideration paid to a donor of human eggs or sperm' by a clinic.

Again, wrong. This is a corollary of allowing otherwise unneeded IVF blastocysts to be used for research purposes. Women who donate eggs & men who donate sperm are already compensated monetarily for their services. This provision simply allows that legal practice to continue to occur.

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
I'm not sure what the solution is, but I do know that the problem is that many or most bills, amendments, and other proposals put forth in today's legislatures and ballots are disingenuous and designed to mislead voters. This amendment is the quintessence of doublespeak. It purports one thing, but twists its own wording to allow the very things it pretends to expressly prohibit.

I won't address the myriad other legislation which is undoubtedly scandalous, but it looks to me as if this one gets the subtleties of the science & ethics of stem cell research down just fine.


The bottom line is that if you think 'every sperm is sacred' ala Monty Python, then it's blatant moral hypocrisy to allow IVF clinics to throw away unused sperm, eggs, and zygotes rather than allowing them to be used for research. That's neither disingenuous nor misleading, that's insane.

I'm sure your solution would be to legislate that IVF clinics can continue business as usual & that Roe vs. Wade should be overturned to protect our 'culture of life' - but if the IVF clinics happen to produce too many zygotes, well, they should be tossed in the garbage along with the moldy leftovers (hey, that's just business!). I bet you think God didn't intend for the zygotes to be used to improve the lives of millions of humans - but He's cool with them getting dumped down the drain. :disgust:

In case you haven't noticed, there are two zeros (not one) between the 2 & the 6 this year.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
I'm not sure what the solution is, but I do know that the problem is that many or most bills, amendments, and other proposals put forth in today's legislatures and ballots are disingenuous and designed to mislead voters.

While this is true, let's not forget it is your heros that started this.

Now all of a sudden not so happy about eh?

What brought about the change of :heart: ???

 

[smack Down]

So, if you voted for this initiative, which purports that "No person may clone or attempt to clone a human being," you're actually voting to define cloning in a way that will incontravertibly allow human cloning. Not only that, but this is actually changing the state's constitution to allow human cloning.

Ok what is your definition of human cloning?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Gigantopithecus
No, what they're allowing is the ex vivo development of blastocysts. The end result will not be a cloned human - this provision will allow for the cloning of human blastocysts. Not everyone thinks a blastocyst is a fully human entity.

This is categorically false. There is no question that a blastocyst is human. Therefore, cloning blastocysts is human cloning. 'Cloning' is not the implantation into the uterus, as the amendment suggests.

This isn't the least bit disingenuous. This provision makes it legal for the thousands of unused zygotes that are otherwise thrown away by IVF clinics every year to be put towards the alleviation of human suffering via scientific research. What's disingenuous is the so-called 'culture of life' which says it's ok to throw away zygotes but not to use them to advance genetics & scientific medicine.

Yes, at face value, that's what it says. Of course, if you had bothered to read the part I cited, it specifically allows "producing any number of human blastocysts for the purpose of treating human infertility", thereby conveniently opening the door for excessive production of embryos. Of course, IVF clinics already produce an excessive number for the sake of convenience, but this negates any possibility of disallowing the production of excessive embryos simply for research purposes, as long as they were created in the same batch as those used for IVF.

Again, wrong. This is a corollary of allowing otherwise unneeded IVF blastocysts to be used for research purposes. Women who donate eggs & men who donate sperm are already compensated monetarily for their services. This provision simply allows that legal practice to continue to occur.

But in the initial portion of the amendment, it says that the donors will not receive "valuable consideration", which any reasonable person would read as payment. Instead, they are paid for this 'donation'. This is exactly why feminist groups are railing against this amendment, which will encourage the exploitation of poor women who are historically much less inclined to consider the risks of their treatments (which, in this case, are severe) to make a quick buck. Do you consider this ethical?

The bottom line is that if you think 'every sperm is sacred' ala Monty Python, then it's blatant moral hypocrisy to allow IVF clinics to throw away unused sperm, eggs, and zygotes rather than allowing them to be used for research. That's neither disingenuous nor misleading, that's insane.

I'm sure your solution would be to legislate that IVF clinics can continue business as usual & that Roe vs. Wade should be overturned to protect our 'culture of life' - but if the IVF clinics happen to produce too many zygotes, well, they should be tossed in the garbage along with the moldy leftovers (hey, that's just business!). I bet you think God didn't intend for the zygotes to be used to improve the lives of millions of humans - but He's cool with them getting dumped down the drain.

Wrong. I would outlaw the practice of IVF altogether, for reasons I have explained in several other threads. At the very least, I would restrict the number of embryos produced for this procedure to the number that will be implanted. Of course, rather than address these points, you'll just continue on with your rant about how I'm retarded for opposing your viewpoint. How do I know this? From your last statement, which implies moral relativism:

In case you haven't noticed, there are two zeros (not one) between the 2 & the 6 this year.

Because, in your view, things that are right and wrong now may not be right or wrong next year. The fallacies are flowing too quickly for me to track.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Gigantopithecus
No, what they're allowing is the ex vivo development of blastocysts. The end result will not be a cloned human - this provision will allow for the cloning of human blastocysts. Not everyone thinks a blastocyst is a fully human entity.

This is categorically false. There is no question that a blastocyst is human. Therefore, cloning blastocysts is human cloning. 'Cloning' is not the implantation into the uterus, as the amendment suggests.

This isn't the least bit disingenuous. This provision makes it legal for the thousands of unused zygotes that are otherwise thrown away by IVF clinics every year to be put towards the alleviation of human suffering via scientific research. What's disingenuous is the so-called 'culture of life' which says it's ok to throw away zygotes but not to use them to advance genetics & scientific medicine.

Yes, at face value, that's what it says. Of course, if you had bothered to read the part I cited, it specifically allows "producing any number of human blastocysts for the purpose of treating human infertility", thereby conveniently opening the door for excessive production of embryos. Of course, IVF clinics already produce an excessive number for the sake of convenience, but this negates any possibility of disallowing the production of excessive embryos simply for research purposes, as long as they were created in the same batch as those used for IVF.

Again, wrong. This is a corollary of allowing otherwise unneeded IVF blastocysts to be used for research purposes. Women who donate eggs & men who donate sperm are already compensated monetarily for their services. This provision simply allows that legal practice to continue to occur.

But in the initial portion of the amendment, it says that the donors will not receive "valuable consideration", which any reasonable person would read as payment. Instead, they are paid for this 'donation'. This is exactly why feminist groups are railing against this amendment, which will encourage the exploitation of poor women who are historically much less inclined to consider the risks of their treatments (which, in this case, are severe) to make a quick buck. Do you consider this ethical?

The bottom line is that if you think 'every sperm is sacred' ala Monty Python, then it's blatant moral hypocrisy to allow IVF clinics to throw away unused sperm, eggs, and zygotes rather than allowing them to be used for research. That's neither disingenuous nor misleading, that's insane.

I'm sure your solution would be to legislate that IVF clinics can continue business as usual & that Roe vs. Wade should be overturned to protect our 'culture of life' - but if the IVF clinics happen to produce too many zygotes, well, they should be tossed in the garbage along with the moldy leftovers (hey, that's just business!). I bet you think God didn't intend for the zygotes to be used to improve the lives of millions of humans - but He's cool with them getting dumped down the drain.

Wrong. I would outlaw the practice of IVF altogether, for reasons I have explained in several other threads. At the very least, I would restrict the number of embryos produced for this procedure to the number that will be implanted. Of course, rather than address these points, you'll just continue on with your rant about how I'm retarded for opposing your viewpoint. How do I know this? From your last statement, which implies moral relativism:

In case you haven't noticed, there are two zeros (not one) between the 2 & the 6 this year.

Because, in your view, things that are right and wrong now may not be right or wrong next year. The fallacies are flowing too quickly for me to track.

I hope to GOD the Democrats win both the Senate and the House, and we get a Democratic president in '08 so we can finally support stem cell research in its entirety at the federal level. Religious whackos and nutjobs like yourselves will soon find yourself in the minority. The majority of Americans want stem cell research and we will no doubt see a reversal of Bush's policies if we get a moderate Republican or Democrat as president.

 

[Genx87]

Minnesota's transportation amendment is the same. They are claiming they want all automobile excise taxes and fee's to go to transportation only. A good idea at face value except it requires a min of 40% of that money to go to mass transit and no more than 60% to roads. No min on roads and mass transit can take upwards of 100%.

So in the end, where do you think this is really going to go? To special interest lobbyists licking their chops at the chance to land multi-million dollar state contracts for mass transit nobody is going to use.

The whole sell job is to reduce hardships on the avg driver when in fact it is just more welfare for mass transit.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: smack Down
Ok what is your definition of human cloning?

From Wikipedia:
Human cloning is the creation of a genetically identical copy of an existing, or previously existing, human being or growing cloned tissue from that individual.

Really, there are two types of cloning, which the Wiki article also discusses and defines fairly well:

In reproductive cloning, the cloned embryo is implanted in a woman's uterus. This should develop into a normal baby, its only distinction being that it would be almost genetically identical to the DNA donor. Scientific knowledge of normal and abnormal development could also be found.

Therapeutic cloning could be used to provide replacement organs. Or tissue for people who have had theirs damaged. The cloned embryo would contain DNA taken from the transplant patient. Before nuclear transfer, the cell would divide to form an embryo and stem cells would be removed. Stem cells could develop into any tissue or organ. These cloned organs would be compatible with the person's immune system, so no immunosuppressant drugs would have to be taken after the operation. However, no therapies have been developed yet from this procedure.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

Your points are simply moot:
1. Whether blastocysts are fully human or not is not something science can objectively determine. I acknowledge this, you seem to not realize it. I acknowledge the destruction of potential human lives is not good. However, I think the destruction of blastocysts to improve the lives of living people is acceptable. Especially when they're going to get destroyed anyway.

2. You think this bill will lead to the creation of a burgeoning market in blastocysts for research purposes. I don't; there are already enough being thrown out by IVF clinics.

3. You seem to think any woman who donates their ova for purposes of IVF or research is only out to make a quick buck & doesn't understand the risks of the complicated procedures entailed. I disagree & I don't think the feminists' fears are rational. (But not thinking in lockstep with an entire end of the political spectrum probably doesn't occur to you.)

4. Then pardon my assumption that you, like the vast majority of Americans, think the practice of IVF is morally acceptable. I'm sure you'd have no trouble looking infertile couples in the face & telling them "God doesn't want you to have children," since you obviously have no trouble looking at the millions suffering from neurodegenerative diseases, autoimmune disorders, & scores of other maladies, "I'm sorry, we could most likely find treatments & maybe even cures for your conditions, but to do so would mean the destruction of pre-fetal tissue & that makes my God angry."

The conservative's stance is one of despicable cowardice, requiring only a vociferous protestation that the status quo is satisfactory.

If history teaches us nothing else, those of us who like to question, like to think, & are willing to take risks in hopes of improvement will always prevail, dragging luddites like you kicking & screaming along with us. The beliefs that there is something better in this life & that only people can effect the changes required have always & will continue to triumph.

We'll see publically funded stem cell research in the US within the next decade. By the time we're on our deathbeds, schoolchildren will boggle at how anyone could have even entertained the notion it was 'wrong' - much like you & I boggle at the idea that once, black folks were slaves. It's called moral relativism, & it's the very foundation of a dynamic Constitution. Too bad the authors of the Ten Commandments hadn't thought of 'amendments' 6,000 years ago. Or do you think we should replace the Constitution with the Ten Commandments?

 

[piasabird]

I think the big fear here is that people will start selling body parts.

St Louis has a big market in the health and medical research Industries for the surrounding region.

Most people living in southern Illinois know that if you want to go see a good doctor, you have to go to St Louis, MO.

 

[theeedude]

Bio-Belt in Missouri? BWAHAHAHAHAHA.

 

[nageov3t]

what's so bad about human cloning?

 

[DealMonkey]

I draw the line at human cloning, but honestly I don't care how many days-old fetuses are tossed in the name of IV fertilization or stem-cell research. And I think a lot of other people agree with that position.

Besides San Diego is already a huge bio-tech region and then add the $3Bil over 10 years California agreed to spend on embryonic stem cell research. So St. Louis is a little late to the game, dontchathink? 🙂

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: loki8481
what's so bad about human cloning?

Two dubyas. :shocked: 'Nuff said.

 

[abj13]

The entire stem cell debate is dependent on ones logical construction of what human "items" receive rights protecting them. As evident in our legal system, adults receive the "maximum" amount of rights available to humans, with adolescents receiving far fewer (cannot smoke, drink, vote, drive...). This is what defines our nature of law, and logically it makes sense. We aren't going to give something rights for the heck of it, something receives rights because there is a logical framework in which we can grant rights. Adult males can be drafted, so they should also be allowed to vote. Likewise, human A cannot murder human B, as that would invade into the individual rights of human B. The same goes for a metastic cancer cell that has invaded into an axilliary duct, while it may have human genes, it does not receive rights protecting it against harm. Nobody cares that billions of epithelial cells are sloughed off for the greater protection and health of a human being.

Yet, with stem cells and conceptuses up to the implantation stage, can we logically place a framework on them to justify their protection? Ultimately, it breaks down due to the ability of the conceptus to "transmogrify" itself. If one were to define the conceptus as an individual, this inherent ability of the conceptus to twin and form two separate conceptuses runs against the logical framework. How can something that is defined as an individual suddenly decide to become two, genetically identical "individuals?" The logic simply blows up. In addition, the conceptus has no guarantee that it will actually be something in the future, remember, the probability that a conceptus will survive until parturition is 30%. So not only do you have an "individual" that can decide to twin (or tripicate), but it can suddenly halt in development. Can you really confer rights to something that can spontaneously decide to be 0, 1, 2 or 3 individuals? Where do you draw the line? If I starve a single blastocyst, am I really starving nothing, if you define it as such?

The logic here is in that messy gray area. Obviously something, IMO logically and biologically changes from fertilization (day 1) to parturition (at least 5-6 months) that creates an individual that has rights that needs to be protected. But where is that line? You cannot make it at fertilization, the logic breaks down. Post-implantation? Neuralation? Pharyngeal/Brachial arch formation? Formation of a two chamber heart? I don't think there's a clear cut answer that is founded in logic, backed with biological and medical evidence. Therefore, I don't see how we can logically and legally protect something, ie a blastocyst with its inner mass cells.

Well, the argument may become the idea of potentiality, the conceptus may become something in the future that has rights that enable protection (or that we find future evidence that it is something). But the argument needs clarification. We would have to protect it because it might be something, not that already is something with protection rights. How could one argue that the potential development of the conceptus trumps the potential health benefits an adult could gain from utilizing this "potential" thing? I don't see a logical way in which to say that we MUST guarantee protection to this potential thing.

For example, there may be a point in which the start of adulthood could be described by a single hormone at the age of 16. Should we then decide to change our logical framework of adult protections to start at 16, just because the possibility exists? Should we also trample the rights of adults, many who are parents of 16-17 YOA, just because the possibility exists? One cannot confuse the fallacy of probability. Just because it may occur, it does not mean it will occur. Thus, there is no guarantee towards anything suddenly changing in its logical framework, thus there's no reason why to predicate ourselves by trying to adjust for a future shift in the logic. You have to work with what we know today.

And the logic simply doesn't work with individual rights for conceptuses up to implantation. So this entire idea that we are protecting something that is human with rights (or has the potential to be), which must be respect over other's rights, to me, is an illogical conclusion.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
I hope to GOD the Democrats win both the Senate and the House, and we get a Democratic president in '08 so we can finally support stem cell research in its entirety at the federal level. Religious whackos and nutjobs like yourselves will soon find yourself in the minority. The majority of Americans want stem cell research and we will no doubt see a reversal of Bush's policies if we get a moderate Republican or Democrat as president.

Personal attack? Check. Reference to anything I actually said in the OP? Nope, not seeing it. Not sure how you're still around.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Minnesota's transportation amendment is the same. They are claiming they want all automobile excise taxes and fee's to go to transportation only. A good idea at face value except it requires a min of 40% of that money to go to mass transit and no more than 60% to roads. No min on roads and mass transit can take upwards of 100%.

So in the end, where do you think this is really going to go? To special interest lobbyists licking their chops at the chance to land multi-million dollar state contracts for mass transit nobody is going to use.

The whole sell job is to reduce hardships on the avg driver when in fact it is just more welfare for mass transit.

I beg to differ. I was born and raised in Minneapolis, and always relied heavily on Metro Transit (though it was the MTC in those days). As an adult I don't use it as heavily, but MT's bus transit and the light rail are real success stories - light-rail ridership has exceeded projections, justifiably encouraging further development of light rail. I look forward to more light rail and the construction of the Northstar project. I will certainly vote Yes on this measure, and look forward to its passage. Fortunately (albeit apparently not from your standpoint), Gov Pawlenty is very much in favor of the measure and of Northstar, and so is Mike Hatch.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Gigantopithecus
Your points are simply moot:
1. Whether blastocysts are fully human or not is not something science can objectively determine. I acknowledge this, you seem to not realize it. I acknowledge the destruction of potential human lives is not good. However, I think the destruction of blastocysts to improve the lives of living people is acceptable. Especially when they're going to get destroyed anyway.

Wrong. Blastocysts are fully human by virtue of their genetics. You are arguing over whether something that is human is a person, which is a totally different subject that I have addressed very thoroughly in previous threads.

2. You think this bill will lead to the creation of a burgeoning market in blastocysts for research purposes. I don't; there are already enough being thrown out by IVF clinics.

I didn't say it would create such a market. I simply stated that the law claims to disallow the development of said market while actually doing the opposite.

3. You seem to think any woman who donates their ova for purposes of IVF or research is only out to make a quick buck & doesn't understand the risks of the complicated procedures entailed. I disagree & I don't think the feminists' fears are rational. (But not thinking in lockstep with an entire end of the political spectrum probably doesn't occur to you.)

No, I said this will preferentially affect poorer persons. I can prove this on an abacus. Nice personal attack though. It went well with your strawman, I must say.

4. Then pardon my assumption that you, like the vast majority of Americans, think the practice of IVF is morally acceptable. I'm sure you'd have no trouble looking infertile couples in the face & telling them "God doesn't want you to have children," since you obviously have no trouble looking at the millions suffering from neurodegenerative diseases, autoimmune disorders, & scores of other maladies, "I'm sorry, we could most likely find treatments & maybe even cures for your conditions, but to do so would mean the destruction of pre-fetal tissue & that makes my God angry."

Again with the ad hominems in lieu of any rational thought. It must pain you greatly to think that someone can actually argue against IVF, abortion, or stem cell research without referencing religion, as that casts out all of your arguments. for your bigotry.

The conservative's stance is one of despicable cowardice, requiring only a vociferous protestation that the status quo is satisfactory.

Yours is simply that change is satisfactory, regardless of what the change is from and what it is to. Change for the sake of change is the height of folly, especially when that change leaves us worse off than when we began, yet you're so caught up in your Republican bashing that you don't even care at this point. Unfortunately for you, I'm not a Republican, nor even an all-around conservative.

If history teaches us nothing else, those of us who like to question, like to think, & are willing to take risks in hopes of improvement will always prevail, dragging luddites like you kicking & screaming along with us. The beliefs that there is something better in this life & that only people can effect the changes required have always & will continue to triumph.

If history teaches us nothing else, it's that those who exercise unethical behaviors will be taken to account. The most obvious, major example is the Third Reich, who also happen to be (to my knowledge) the last power to engage in human cloning and similar research.

We'll see publically funded stem cell research in the US within the next decade. By the time we're on our deathbeds, schoolchildren will boggle at how anyone could have even entertained the notion it was 'wrong' - much like you & I boggle at the idea that once, black folks were slaves. It's called moral relativism, & it's the very foundation of a dynamic Constitution. Too bad the authors of the Ten Commandments hadn't thought of 'amendments' 6,000 years ago. Or do you think we should replace the Constitution with the Ten Commandments?

Moral relativism is fallacious. Right and wrong do exist as constants, not variables that are functions of time. How you perceive right and wrong may vary with time, but right and wrong themselves do not. Let me know where you find me stating that I believe the Constitution should be replaced with the Ten Commandments, or anything even remotely similar. Until then, .

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Bio-Belt in Missouri? BWAHAHAHAHAHA.

You're right. St. Louis is a medical wasteland. We don't have any good medical schools here, nor any good hospitals, nor even much research in this area. The Cortex Cooperative between Washington U, SLU, and UMSL won't help this cause either.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I draw the line at human cloning, but honestly I don't care how many days-old fetuses are tossed in the name of IV fertilization or stem-cell research. And I think a lot of other people agree with that position.

But this doesn't really address anything that I said.

Besides San Diego is already a huge bio-tech region and then add the $3Bil over 10 years California agreed to spend on embryonic stem cell research. So St. Louis is a little late to the game, dontchathink? 🙂

St. Louis has been in the game for a long time. I personally doubt that there will be a single 'bio-belt', as centers for such research already exist all over the country. I only said that to give people who aren't from around here perspective on the long-term goals in this area, as it is a publically-stated position in our government that we should strive to develop it here.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: abj13
And the logic simply doesn't work with individual rights for conceptuses up to implantation. So this entire idea that we are protecting something that is human with rights (or has the potential to be), which must be respect over other's rights, to me, is an illogical conclusion.

OK, but that's not what I was talking about in the OP. I've debated that ad nauseum elsewhere.

 

[Moonbeam]

Cloning seems to be a fast way to improve the human race no? Just make, say, 100 copies of all superior people, those of beauty, physical prowess, and brains and keep doing it for hundreds of years. Eventually every will be born beautiful, athletic and bright. It would save figuring out all the genes to order up your kid according to your specs. Lets get started right away. I can see some trepidation on the part of males contemplating a genius wife, but that will pass as men become intelligent too.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Genx87
Minnesota's transportation amendment is the same. They are claiming they want all automobile excise taxes and fee's to go to transportation only. A good idea at face value except it requires a min of 40% of that money to go to mass transit and no more than 60% to roads. No min on roads and mass transit can take upwards of 100%.

So in the end, where do you think this is really going to go? To special interest lobbyists licking their chops at the chance to land multi-million dollar state contracts for mass transit nobody is going to use.

The whole sell job is to reduce hardships on the avg driver when in fact it is just more welfare for mass transit.

I beg to differ. I was born and raised in Minneapolis, and always relied heavily on Metro Transit (though it was the MTC in those days). As an adult I don't use it as heavily, but MT's bus transit and the light rail are real success stories - light-rail ridership has exceeded projections, justifiably encouraging further development of light rail. I look forward to more light rail and the construction of the Northstar project. I will certainly vote Yes on this measure, and look forward to its passage. Fortunately (albeit apparently not from your standpoint), Gov Pawlenty is very much in favor of the measure and of Northstar, and so is Mike Hatch.

They lowball the ridership, beat it and proclaim success. Has that hiawatha line alleviated the congestion they claimed it would? Will the northstar alleviate the congestion on 94 like they promise it will? Instead of growing our freeway system beyond the idiocy of 2 lanes, they will build trains to nowhere at 3x the cost and not help the congestion issues within the city.

I dont have a problem with mass transit but lets stop subsidizing it. The ridership is pathetic as is with govt funding to keep the costs low. Let the people who ride the bus pay their fair share for the costs of maintenence, gas, and degradation of the roads at 4x the rate of cars.

I will make a prediction on the northstar.

It will cost more than promised. When it is done it wont help alleviate congestion. They will lowball the ridership and proclaim its success when 5K people use it and ask for more funding. While this is happening the northern corridor will turn from rideable to gridlock.

Take the billion they are going to spend on a train and add another lane of highway on the outer ring and up 94 past Moticello. That will alleviate the congestion issues more than mass transit can ever dream.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: senseamp
Bio-Belt in Missouri? BWAHAHAHAHAHA.

You're right. St. Louis is a medical wasteland. We don't have any good medical schools here, nor any good hospitals, nor even much research in this area. The Cortex Cooperative between Washington U, SLU, and UMSL won't help this cause either.

Welcome to the real world. While your little state is still debating penalties for cloning, stem cell creation, etc, California is 100% behind stem cell research and is putting money on the table to build the real Bio-belt. If you want to compete, you are just going to have to get with the program.