Friday, November 03, 2006

Why I Oppose Missouri's Amendment 2


It looks like the KC Star isn't going to publish my essay on why I am against the cloning amendment that Missourians will vote on November 7th. And since it is important to get the truth out about this deceptive amendment I am posting it here. We need to continue to spread the word. The grassroots movement on this has been incredible but it is still an uphill battle since the other side has 30 million dollars mostly given by Jim and Virginia Stowers who own a biomedical research organization.

Last night there was a 30 minute debate on this on a local KC Station. They had a poll on their website which actually ended up showing 53% against the amendment. I know internet polls aren't usually very reliable but it is still encouraging. As is typical by the Drive By Media the guy that was against the amendment was labeled as a minister and not as a lawyer even though that is his profession. The Drive by Media and the liberals always try to paint people who are against morally indefensible things as anti-science. As you can see from my essay the science is all on our side. There are no successes from embryonic stem cells and no need to destroy human life. But because it violates our morals we are labeled anti-science.

Why I Oppose Amendment 2

I oppose Amendment 2 because I am against the cloning, experimentation and destruction of human embryos. The supporters of Amendment 2 claim that it bans cloning. On the first page of the amendment it says it does but if one goes to page 3 they will read that stem cells for the research includes those from, “Cell reprogramming techniques such as somatic cell nuclear transfer.” SCNT (somatic cell nuclear transfer) is the scientific definition of cloning. SCNT is the process in which Dolly the sheep was cloned.

I oppose experimenting on and destroying human embryos because they are each a life. In an article entitled "Spin City" Ryan T. Anderson, Assistant Director of the Program on Bioethics and Human Dignity at the Witherspoon Institute, said “Human embryos, as a matter of scientific fact, are human beings at a very early stage of development.” It is early life but it is still life.

I support Adult Stem Cell Research. Adult stem cell research has produced treatments for 72 diseases; yet embryonic stem cell research has produced none. In an article entitled "The Great Stem Cell Cover-up" Wesley J. Smith, a special consultant to the Center for Bioethics and Culture, said, “Based on the published science, there are 72 maladies for which human patients have received some benefit (which is not the same as being "cured") from adult stem cell or umbilical cord blood interventions. Meanwhile, embryonic stem cells have yet to demonstrate any human therapeutic use.”

One of the reasons embryonic stem cells aren’t producing any treatments or cures is because they tend to produce tumors. Ryan T. Anderson said this is probably why “private investors have been so reluctant to invest in embryonic stem cell research, thus creating the greater need for government funding.”

Regardless of what happens with this amendment, embryonic and adult stem cell research will continue in Missouri. I just do not want my tax money to pay for the cloning and experimentation on human life. That is why on November 7th I will vote no on Amendment 2.

For those seeking the truth about Amendment 2 I urge all Missourians to go to: http//www.sos.mo.
gov/elections/2006petitions/ppStemCell.asp
and read the entire amendment.

Previous Posts on Amendment 2:
Vote No on Missouri's Amendment 2--Update
Vote No on Missouri's Amendment 2
My Radio Debut & Missouri's Amendment 2 ads
Awesome Soundbites, etc...

Other Articles on Amendment 2:
Amendment 2 isn't worthy of Show-Me State--Kathleen Parker

No comments: