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

["Diana Hargus" <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

Stephen,

Thank you for bringing this to the discussion.  Maybe the ammendment is 
better left out and truly is a non-issue.  It is arguments (facts?) such as 
these that make the better case and brings common sense forward, almost as 
much as the "why does it affect 45 other sections of the state's 
constitution?" question does.  I apologize for the earlier inflammatory 
rhetoric in the original debate after having had this discussion and seeing 
that it makes as much sense as passing laws that are already in effect but 
not enforced (like guns, crime, etc).  Just chalk it up to the theory of 
"throw money at a problem and it will go away" scenarios.  As I have said 
before and will say again, I read this list to learn, not to parrot what 
others say.  That said, it looks like the argument just given has made the 
choice clear.

Diana

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Stephen Montgomery-Smith" <EMAIL:PROTECTED>
To: "MLUG Off-Topic Discussion" <EMAIL:PROTECTED>
Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2006 4:47 PM
Subject: Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] [Politics] Amendment 2 ads and lies


> 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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 87757 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Try SPAMfighter for free now!


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