Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] [Politics] Amendment 2 ads and lies

[Stephen Montgomery-Smith <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

Christian M. Cepel wrote:
> Oh I'm not implying it would happen.....  it was just a flash image in 
> my head.... but it really did speak to something that does concern me if 
> embryos are in fact life.... namely that we could be expending umpteen 
> thousands on a single patient for nothing more than a retardation in 
> their progression.... and if the debate is settled now that they are not 
> life, just pennies, we will have a future where nobody will bat an eye 
> at the use of a few thousand, because hey, they're just pennies, and 
> what's $10 or $20 to give someone a better time of... To suggest that 
> such a minuscule expense might be too much would make someone who 
> opposes such things seem completely unreasonable.

While Christian's imagery is perhaps vivid and exaggerated, I do think 
that he makes a good point.

Here are some other problems I have with this Amendment 2.

1.  It seems to me that before it declares cloning illegal, it redefines 
cloning.  The issue is whether growing embryos for the purpose of 
harvesting stem cells is ethical - that some people call this cloning is 
reasonable, and thus it is wrong to label as liars those who claim that 
this amendment legalizes cloning.

2.  It does all this at the constitutional level, a place where is 
simply does not belong.  Indeed, if this amendment fails to pass, 
embryonic stem cell research will still be legel in Missouri, and the 
state will still be able to fund it.  It seems to me that the proper 
place to legislate this is not as a constitutional amendment, and as far 
as I know, there isn't any legislation in place that this amendment 
would effect.

In particular, I noticed from a previous post that this amendment says 
that it is wrong to not fund a project simply on the basis as to whether 
the project or institution conducts stem cell research.  But this is 
such a specific form of non-discrimination.  It is like passing a law 
that one cannot refuse service to one legged twenty-six year olds.  This 
kind of specifity simply doesn't belong in a constitution.

Stephen

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion