Missouri Stem Cell Amendment

[abj13]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

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

Dismiss my post all you want, but you cannot actually expect to get away with blanket statements from your OP like:

"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."

You, yourself, are actually trying to misconstrue the debate, by simply labeling the section being about "human cloning." It isn't that easy. As you later posted on, there is a separation between reproductive and therapeutic cloning. And that is where public opinion obviously differs. Its therapeutic cloning the Initiative is allowing. By simply saying the initiative is allowing "human cloning," you are purposely lumping the two different definitions together, as if the Initiative was allowing reproductive in addition to therapeutic. Its not. Trying to drum up fear about the initiative, by suggesting its allowing, by your own words, "human cloning" is doing the very thing you are complaining about, deceiving others, providing "disinformation," and being disingenuous. It isn't a question of whether its cloning or not, the initiative is taking up the point that theurapeutic cloning is fine, while reproductive is not.

This is where my point comes in. Even if you want to erronously lump the two "types" of cloning together in the initative, it would have to suggest that any blastocyst has somesort of protected right that must be respected, and trumps other rights. This would mean there is a logical, objective measure of when rights can be confered, as opposed to the subjective, legal measure used when a concrete line needs to be arbitrarily drawn in the sand.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: senseamp

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.

Why is it that people from California are like teenagers on the internet, constantly trying to anecdotaly prove that their e-penis is the biggestestestest?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: abj13
Dismiss my post all you want, but you cannot actually expect to get away with blanket statements from your OP like:

"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."

You, yourself, are actually trying to misconstrue the debate, by simply labeling the section being about "human cloning." It isn't that easy. As you later posted on, there is a separation between reproductive and therapeutic cloning. And that is where public opinion obviously differs. Its therapeutic cloning the Initiative is allowing. By simply saying the initiative is allowing "human cloning," you are purposely lumping the two different definitions together, as if the Initiative was allowing reproductive in addition to therapeutic. Its not. Trying to drum up fear about the initiative, by suggesting its allowing, by your own words, "human cloning" is doing the very thing you are complaining about, deceiving others, providing "disinformation," and being disingenuous. It isn't a question of whether its cloning or not, the initiative is taking up the point that theurapeutic cloning is fine, while reproductive is not.

I misconstrued nothing. In fact, what I did was directly quote the entire section in an effort to point out that the authors of the amendment said that they would ban all human cloning, but then they only really banned reproductive cloning, and only some facets of reproductive cloning at that. If you consider my statement, which was using the amendment's own language, to be misleading, then how can you possibly claim that the amendment, which uses the same language, is not misleading? You simply can't do it, at least not in good faith.

This is where my point comes in. Even if you want to erronously lump the two "types" of cloning together in the initative, it would have to suggest that any blastocyst has somesort of protected right that must be respected, and trumps other rights. This would mean there is a logical, objective measure of when rights can be confered, as opposed to the subjective, legal measure used when a concrete line needs to be arbitrarily drawn in the sand.

Again, I didn't lump them together. It's implicit in the language of the amendment, intentionally put there to blur its reality. I pointed out the possible distinction, and now I'm the one being shady? This section of the amendment could be revised from the current language:
"No person may clone or attempt to clone a human being."
to
"No person may clone or attempt to clone a human being for reproductive purposes."

It's pretty obvious to me that this is an intentional deception. The authors hope someone will read through Section 2, think it sounds pretty good, and skip Section 6 altogether. If someone skipped Section 6, they would miss the entire purpose and direction of the amendment. This is what I like to call "BS".

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: abj13
Dismiss my post all you want, but you cannot actually expect to get away with blanket statements from your OP like:

"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."

You, yourself, are actually trying to misconstrue the debate, by simply labeling the section being about "human cloning." It isn't that easy. As you later posted on, there is a separation between reproductive and therapeutic cloning. And that is where public opinion obviously differs. Its therapeutic cloning the Initiative is allowing. By simply saying the initiative is allowing "human cloning," you are purposely lumping the two different definitions together, as if the Initiative was allowing reproductive in addition to therapeutic. Its not. Trying to drum up fear about the initiative, by suggesting its allowing, by your own words, "human cloning" is doing the very thing you are complaining about, deceiving others, providing "disinformation," and being disingenuous. It isn't a question of whether its cloning or not, the initiative is taking up the point that theurapeutic cloning is fine, while reproductive is not.

I misconstrued nothing. In fact, what I did was directly quote the entire section in an effort to point out that the authors of the amendment said that they would ban all human cloning, but then they only really banned reproductive cloning, and only some facets of reproductive cloning at that. If you consider my statement, which was using the amendment's own language, to be misleading, then how can you possibly claim that the amendment, which uses the same language, is not misleading? You simply can't do it, at least not in good faith.

This is where my point comes in. Even if you want to erronously lump the two "types" of cloning together in the initative, it would have to suggest that any blastocyst has somesort of protected right that must be respected, and trumps other rights. This would mean there is a logical, objective measure of when rights can be confered, as opposed to the subjective, legal measure used when a concrete line needs to be arbitrarily drawn in the sand.

Again, I didn't lump them together. It's implicit in the language of the amendment, intentionally put there to blur its reality. I pointed out the possible distinction, and now I'm the one being shady? This section of the amendment could be revised from the current language:
"No person may clone or attempt to clone a human being."
to
"No person may clone or attempt to clone a human being for reproductive purposes."

It's pretty obvious to me that this is an intentional deception. The authors hope someone will read through Section 2, think it sounds pretty good, and skip Section 6 altogether. If someone skipped Section 6, they would miss the entire purpose and direction of the amendment. This is what I like to call "BS".

Clone of genitic meterial is simple a natural process. It is going to happen when ever you are working with single cells.

Is there anything wrong with making a liver cell divided so a person has more liver cells? Of course not. So then what is wrong with making an egg cell into a liver cell so that a person can have a better liver? With out such an exception it would be much harder to get any viable treatements.

The law does a lot more then just prevent repoductive cloning it prevents growing a fetus and then havervesting its organs.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: abj13
Dismiss my post all you want, but you cannot actually expect to get away with blanket statements from your OP like:

"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."

You, yourself, are actually trying to misconstrue the debate, by simply labeling the section being about "human cloning." It isn't that easy. As you later posted on, there is a separation between reproductive and therapeutic cloning. And that is where public opinion obviously differs. Its therapeutic cloning the Initiative is allowing. By simply saying the initiative is allowing "human cloning," you are purposely lumping the two different definitions together, as if the Initiative was allowing reproductive in addition to therapeutic. Its not. Trying to drum up fear about the initiative, by suggesting its allowing, by your own words, "human cloning" is doing the very thing you are complaining about, deceiving others, providing "disinformation," and being disingenuous. It isn't a question of whether its cloning or not, the initiative is taking up the point that theurapeutic cloning is fine, while reproductive is not.

I misconstrued nothing. In fact, what I did was directly quote the entire section in an effort to point out that the authors of the amendment said that they would ban all human cloning, but then they only really banned reproductive cloning, and only some facets of reproductive cloning at that. If you consider my statement, which was using the amendment's own language, to be misleading, then how can you possibly claim that the amendment, which uses the same language, is not misleading? You simply can't do it, at least not in good faith.

This is where my point comes in. Even if you want to erronously lump the two "types" of cloning together in the initative, it would have to suggest that any blastocyst has somesort of protected right that must be respected, and trumps other rights. This would mean there is a logical, objective measure of when rights can be confered, as opposed to the subjective, legal measure used when a concrete line needs to be arbitrarily drawn in the sand.

Again, I didn't lump them together. It's implicit in the language of the amendment, intentionally put there to blur its reality. I pointed out the possible distinction, and now I'm the one being shady? This section of the amendment could be revised from the current language:
"No person may clone or attempt to clone a human being."
to
"No person may clone or attempt to clone a human being for reproductive purposes."

It's pretty obvious to me that this is an intentional deception. The authors hope someone will read through Section 2, think it sounds pretty good, and skip Section 6 altogether. If someone skipped Section 6, they would miss the entire purpose and direction of the amendment. This is what I like to call "BS".

The speed with which you were able to cut through what you refer to as the BS in this bill indicates to me, and did from the first reading of your OP that there was no real intended deception. I think it only looks sinister to you because you do not want to go in that direction. Nobody was fooling anybody nor attempting to. How cool it will be to grow a new body and transplant the brain. Better yet will be the ability to upload onto a machine. Good bye Earth, this is AI Moonbeam going to check out what's past Mars. See ya all in a million years.

 

[ScottyB]

I still don't understand why people get so uptight about human cloning. Why? I, for one, welcome my organ harvest container.

 

[abj13]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

In fact, what I did was directly quote the entire section in an effort to point out that the authors of the amendment said that they would ban all human cloning, but then they only really banned reproductive cloning, and only some facets of reproductive cloning at that.

False. You purposely took a portion of the initative, singled it out, and carefully separated the qualifications, definitions, and meanings of the statement. One cannot just take a piece of legislation, butcher off defining terms, and claim they are purposely misdirecting. You are the one that is doing that. It would be the same as if you quoted President Bush saying "Iraq recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Niger," while leaving off the qualifying statement that it was according to British intelligence. What's next, does everyone have to define what every word means in every senetence? "So, what does 'what' mean? What does 'next' mean? What is this 'does' word? Who do you mean by 'everyone'?"

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
If you consider my statement, which was using the amendment's own language, to be misleading, then how can you possibly claim that the amendment, which uses the same language, is not misleading?

The Initative qualified what it meant by human cloning, with

?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."

You defined cloning as:

"There is no question that a blastocyst is human. Therefore, cloning blastocysts is human cloning."

You aren't using the same language as the initative. You can sit there saying you use the same phrases, despite the apparent different definitions of cloning you use versus what the initative uses. Sex to me may mean only anal or vaginal, it may not mean the same to you. Just because you use sex in a sentence, doesn't mean you have the same meaning as me. That's the entire purpose of why the initative defines its terms, so the lawyers and legislatures cannot misconstrue the statements into meaning building a billion dollar bridge is fine.

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
It's implicit in the language of the amendment, intentionally put there to blur its reality. I pointed out the possible distinction, and now I'm the one being shady?

You cannot simply point out saying they ban "human cloning" without reading the rest of initative, where they explictly define what they mean. Where is this legal precident that only one needs to read the first couple lines of a legislation, and ignore the rest of the text?

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
This section of the amendment could be revised from the current language:
"No person may clone or attempt to clone a human being."
to
"No person may clone or attempt to clone a human being for reproductive purposes."

And how do you define "reproductive purposes." That's the entire purpose of Section 6. To define terms used. And if they used your statement, guess where they would define it? Yes, Section 6!

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
It's pretty obvious to me that this is an intentional deception. The authors hope someone will read through Section 2, think it sounds pretty good, and skip Section 6 altogether. If someone skipped Section 6, they would miss the entire purpose and direction of the amendment. This is what I like to call "BS".

So let me get this straight, when you sign a contract, loan agreement, or mortgage and simply don't read the entire agreement, its the writer of the contract's fault? That's absurd logic. "Boy I didn't read that section that said I had to pay my loans back, too bad for the bank."

This isn't something like Georgia's stickers about evolution, where they failed to qualify what they meant by evolution as a theory. Missouri is doing the opposite, they are purposely defining it as such.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The speed with which you were able to cut through what you refer to as the BS in this bill indicates to me, and did from the first reading of your OP that there was no real intended deception. I think it only looks sinister to you because you do not want to go in that direction. Nobody was fooling anybody nor attempting to. How cool it will be to grow a new body and transplant the brain. Better yet will be the ability to upload onto a machine. Good bye Earth, this is AI Moonbeam going to check out what's past Mars. See ya all in a million years.

I only found the deception because I read the whole amendment. I, being an average, lazy American, would normally read only the first bits to see what it was all about, then make up my mind. I only delved further due to the controversy surrounding the bill which, at first glance, seems fairly uncontroversial.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: 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.

It does in the sense that the stem-cell research issue comes down to a matter of faith. Either you believe they (* the human embryos involved) are full-fledged sentient humans capable of surviving on their own and deserving all of the rights associated with being a "person" (in the legal sense) or not.

You believe one thing and I believe another and never the two shall meet.

It's purely a subjective decision and there's no science to prove it one way or another.

As for the bill itself being deceptive, I think ballot initiatives have definitely gone that direction. A cursory glance never gives you the full story and the arguments pro/con are both convincing. The legal-ese that is required to fully understand these initiatives and what they will do is truly daunting.

I bet a lot of voters rely on a proxy to advise them how to vote. Some entity that has presumably studied the legislation and can report on its true effects.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The speed with which you were able to cut through what you refer to as the BS in this bill indicates to me, and did from the first reading of your OP that there was no real intended deception. I think it only looks sinister to you because you do not want to go in that direction. Nobody was fooling anybody nor attempting to. How cool it will be to grow a new body and transplant the brain. Better yet will be the ability to upload onto a machine. Good bye Earth, this is AI Moonbeam going to check out what's past Mars. See ya all in a million years.

I only found the deception because I read the whole amendment. I, being an average, lazy American, would normally read only the first bits to see what it was all about, then make up my mind. I only delved further due to the controversy surrounding the bill which, at first glance, seems fairly uncontroversial.

I am tempted to believe that all bills are written that way.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
It does in the sense that the stem-cell research issue comes down to a matter of faith. Either you believe they (* the human embryos involved) are full-fledged sentient humans capable of surviving on their own and deserving all of the rights associated with being a "person" (in the legal sense) or not.

You believe one thing and I believe another and never the two shall meet.

It's purely a subjective decision and there's no science to prove it one way or another.

But I wasn't debating the morality or ethics of stem cell research. I was pointing out the ridiculousness of this particular piece of legislation as a case study in what's wrong with America today.

As for the bill itself being deceptive, I think ballot initiatives have definitely gone that direction. A cursory glance never gives you the full story and the arguments pro/con are both convincing. The legal-ese that is required to fully understand these initiatives and what they will do is truly daunting.

I bet a lot of voters rely on a proxy to advise them how to vote. Some entity that has presumably studied the legislation and can report on its true effects.

Which is what I said in my OP.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I am tempted to believe that all bills are written that way.

Which was the point of the OP. We lost our way when we lost the transparency of government.

 

[mchammer]

Does anyone have any info on the realistic prospects of stem cell techniques? The way everybody is talking about it makes it sound like it is guaranteed to solve most of the major diseases facing people. I think that some of this has got to be hype at this stage.