A Soldier from the 1st Stryker Brigade Combat Team, 25th Infantry Division, takes time to play with Iraqi children at a medical screening, in Mosul, Iraq.
RECENT CONTENT:
» Earmarks up and down
August 19th, 2008
» Stevens makes nice profit
August 19th, 2008
» Musharraf resigns control
August 18th, 2008
» Downturn is good news
August 17th, 2008
» Russian attacks looming?
August 17th, 2008
Missouri's stem cell amendment is deceptive fraud
By: Doug Edelman | Submitted on: 10/24/06EDITORIAL - A statewide ballot initiative in Missouri is attracting an unusual amount of national attention. Missouri's Amendment 2, also known as the "Stem Cell Initiative" is being promoted as the way to guarantee availability to Missourians of "life saving cures" resulting from stem cell research. As Missouri tends to list to starboard, and has always been a bellwether state, reflecting accurately upon the nationwide sentiments for decades – this contentious issue has drawn a great deal of attention well outside the borders of the "Show-Me" state. If this amendment passes in Missouri, it is sure to be (forgive the pun) cloned elsewhere.
The Amendment guarantees funding and provides protection from regulation for embryonic stem-cell research. It offers a blank check to biotech firms engaged in such research as the amendment denies the state the right to limit, restrict or deny state funding to anyone involved in embryonic stem cell research!
Where do these embryos come from? Cloning. Human cloning.
Proponents of the amendment deceptively claim that the process is not cloning, and that the amendment prohibits cloning a human being. They eagerly highlight language which "forbids human reproductive cloning.
This is patently false and deceptive. The language of the amendment specifies a prohibition on reproductive cloning… the cloning of a human embryo intended to implant in a womb and develop into a birthed person. Great. But it also requires state funding for the creation of human embryos which then legally MUST be destroyed. This is certainly fodder for an ethical debate which the deceptive language is designed to defuse or minimize.
Proponents of Amendment 2 also deny that the creation of these embryos IS cloning. Let's examine this denial.
The process by which these embryos are created is identified in the language of the amendment as "Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer" (SCNT). In laymen's terms this involves the replacement of the nucleus of a human egg cell with the nuclear material from a body cell from a live human "donor". This nucleus contains the genetic code of its "parent". The egg then has the full compliment of 46 chromosomes (as would a fertilized egg) and it begins to divide and live as an embryo. (Hence – embryonic stem cell research can be conducted upon it!) It is human, it is an embryo, and if implanted in a uterus and provided time, oxygen and nutrition, it would become a person. A genetic carbon copy of the person who's somatic cell's nucleus was transferred into the egg. If this seems like cloning… that's because IT IS cloning!
Cloning is defined as the process by which a copy of an organism is created asexually, by replacing the nucleus of an egg of the species with the nucleus from a cell of a fully developed individual of that species. This is the very same process that was used to clone Dolly the sheep, and is the ONLY process by which cloning takes place. Therefore the language of the amendment, referring only to "Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer" when speaking of the process which the amendment would protect and force state funding of - and then highlighting a prohibition against "cloning" (referred to in this case AS CLONING) for reproductive purposes of creating a fully developed human being (as if there is a distinction between the processes) is deceptive and disingenuous. All it really means is that these cloned embryos are created for the sole purpose of destroying them.
Abe Lincoln once stated "How many legs does a dog have if you call a tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg."
Calling cloning by another name doesn't make it something other than cloning. There is an obvious and egregious attempt to obfuscate and cloud the clear understanding of the issue in order to avoid putting off those who have strong ethical issues with cloning human beings. Deceptive practices in the promotion of any legislation is reason enough to question whether the legislation is worthy of passage!
But the amendment is bad law for other reasons. Let us, for a moment, put aside the ethical morass concerning cloning of human embryos and look at some other aspects of this dangerous amendment.
The proponents state that this law will "assure Missourians access to lifesaving cures and treatments" resulting from embryonic stem cell research. No amendment is necessary to accomplish this. If embryonic research in Massachusetts or California yields a promising treatment, Missouri residents are in no way restricted from benefiting from it. Another deception. Restriction of state funding for embryonic stem cell research in no way restricts the access to treatments developed elsewhere, or developed without state funds.
Interestingly, though, a LOT of money stands to be made based on this amendment. The amendment FORCES the state to fund anyone doing embryonic stem cell research! It prohibits any limitation, restriction or denial of funding for this type of research for any reason – not even the State Treasury running out of money! One biotech firm, which would be a major recipient of mandated state funding for embryonic stem cell research if the amendment passes, has threatened to move it's operation out of state if the amendment fails!
Even if you support stem cell research in general, and even have no ethical problem with embryonic stem cell research or SCNT in theory – there are many reasons to oppose this particular amendment outside the ethical arguments over embryonic research. For example:
1) Embryonic stem cell research done to date has yet to produce a single workable therapy. On the other hand, stem cell research on non-embryonic sources such as adult stem-cells and umbilical cord-blood stem cells has already resulted in several working therapies and many more which are showing promise. There is no controversy over continuing research in these areas. No amendment is necessary to continue this research. The major media is not talking about these alternative sources of stem cells.
2) "Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer" to create embryos for this research requires a large number of human eggs. Where do they come from? They are SOLD, generally by poor women – oftentimes those in 3rd world nations but frequently by young women in this country as well. Their eggs become no more than a saleable commodity. The harvesting procedure is risky and painful. Young and poor women will be exploited.
3) The primary argument in favor of the amendment – that it protects access to "lifesaving cures" from embryonic research – is a fraud. No amendment is necessary to insure that, should a treatment be found from such research conducted elsewhere, Missourians would have access to it. The amendment is about money. It is about forcing the state of Missouri to FUND the research!
4) Any legislation, let alone an amendment to a state's constitution, that proponents resort to semantic gymnastics to avoid discussing the merits of the issue in plain clear English should be a red flag to voters EVERY TIME.
The Amendment guarantees funding and provides protection from regulation for embryonic stem-cell research. It offers a blank check to biotech firms engaged in such research as the amendment denies the state the right to limit, restrict or deny state funding to anyone involved in embryonic stem cell research!
Where do these embryos come from? Cloning. Human cloning.
Proponents of the amendment deceptively claim that the process is not cloning, and that the amendment prohibits cloning a human being. They eagerly highlight language which "forbids human reproductive cloning.
This is patently false and deceptive. The language of the amendment specifies a prohibition on reproductive cloning… the cloning of a human embryo intended to implant in a womb and develop into a birthed person. Great. But it also requires state funding for the creation of human embryos which then legally MUST be destroyed. This is certainly fodder for an ethical debate which the deceptive language is designed to defuse or minimize.
Proponents of Amendment 2 also deny that the creation of these embryos IS cloning. Let's examine this denial.
The process by which these embryos are created is identified in the language of the amendment as "Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer" (SCNT). In laymen's terms this involves the replacement of the nucleus of a human egg cell with the nuclear material from a body cell from a live human "donor". This nucleus contains the genetic code of its "parent". The egg then has the full compliment of 46 chromosomes (as would a fertilized egg) and it begins to divide and live as an embryo. (Hence – embryonic stem cell research can be conducted upon it!) It is human, it is an embryo, and if implanted in a uterus and provided time, oxygen and nutrition, it would become a person. A genetic carbon copy of the person who's somatic cell's nucleus was transferred into the egg. If this seems like cloning… that's because IT IS cloning!
Cloning is defined as the process by which a copy of an organism is created asexually, by replacing the nucleus of an egg of the species with the nucleus from a cell of a fully developed individual of that species. This is the very same process that was used to clone Dolly the sheep, and is the ONLY process by which cloning takes place. Therefore the language of the amendment, referring only to "Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer" when speaking of the process which the amendment would protect and force state funding of - and then highlighting a prohibition against "cloning" (referred to in this case AS CLONING) for reproductive purposes of creating a fully developed human being (as if there is a distinction between the processes) is deceptive and disingenuous. All it really means is that these cloned embryos are created for the sole purpose of destroying them.
Abe Lincoln once stated "How many legs does a dog have if you call a tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg."
Calling cloning by another name doesn't make it something other than cloning. There is an obvious and egregious attempt to obfuscate and cloud the clear understanding of the issue in order to avoid putting off those who have strong ethical issues with cloning human beings. Deceptive practices in the promotion of any legislation is reason enough to question whether the legislation is worthy of passage!
But the amendment is bad law for other reasons. Let us, for a moment, put aside the ethical morass concerning cloning of human embryos and look at some other aspects of this dangerous amendment.
The proponents state that this law will "assure Missourians access to lifesaving cures and treatments" resulting from embryonic stem cell research. No amendment is necessary to accomplish this. If embryonic research in Massachusetts or California yields a promising treatment, Missouri residents are in no way restricted from benefiting from it. Another deception. Restriction of state funding for embryonic stem cell research in no way restricts the access to treatments developed elsewhere, or developed without state funds.
Interestingly, though, a LOT of money stands to be made based on this amendment. The amendment FORCES the state to fund anyone doing embryonic stem cell research! It prohibits any limitation, restriction or denial of funding for this type of research for any reason – not even the State Treasury running out of money! One biotech firm, which would be a major recipient of mandated state funding for embryonic stem cell research if the amendment passes, has threatened to move it's operation out of state if the amendment fails!
Even if you support stem cell research in general, and even have no ethical problem with embryonic stem cell research or SCNT in theory – there are many reasons to oppose this particular amendment outside the ethical arguments over embryonic research. For example:
1) Embryonic stem cell research done to date has yet to produce a single workable therapy. On the other hand, stem cell research on non-embryonic sources such as adult stem-cells and umbilical cord-blood stem cells has already resulted in several working therapies and many more which are showing promise. There is no controversy over continuing research in these areas. No amendment is necessary to continue this research. The major media is not talking about these alternative sources of stem cells.
2) "Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer" to create embryos for this research requires a large number of human eggs. Where do they come from? They are SOLD, generally by poor women – oftentimes those in 3rd world nations but frequently by young women in this country as well. Their eggs become no more than a saleable commodity. The harvesting procedure is risky and painful. Young and poor women will be exploited.
3) The primary argument in favor of the amendment – that it protects access to "lifesaving cures" from embryonic research – is a fraud. No amendment is necessary to insure that, should a treatment be found from such research conducted elsewhere, Missourians would have access to it. The amendment is about money. It is about forcing the state of Missouri to FUND the research!
4) Any legislation, let alone an amendment to a state's constitution, that proponents resort to semantic gymnastics to avoid discussing the merits of the issue in plain clear English should be a red flag to voters EVERY TIME.
Doug Edelman is a conservative political commentator and a contributing editor for The Conservative Voice. His work is also seen on News By Us, The American Daily, The Post Chronicle, New Media Journal, Capitol Hill Coffee House, Small Government Times etc. For the support of his family, however, he is also an IT Consultant/Contractor and owner of a Computer Services Business. He has taught PC Maintenance & Repair and Networking at his local Community College, and maintains a blog at http://edeldoug.blogs.com/.
