Pray for Missouri! Pray for us all!

[Jennifer123]

Embryonic stem-cells haven’t cured a single disease. The cause for embryonic stem-cell research is driven by emotion- not science or morality.

Whoever can, please find an adoration chapel, and/or a parish that has a prayer vigil and go to it.

This is what is most puzzling. Most private biotech companies are not putting money into embryonic stem cell research because there is simply no results from any research that has been done. Any promising results have been faked or proven otherwise.
That is why the public is being asked to fund it.

 

[steveandersen]

It is tricky.

However, you have to consider the definition of cloning as defined by Amendment 2.
http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2006petitions/ppStemCell.asp

It DOES NOT ban therapeutic cloning, such as Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer…

http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2006petitions/ppStemCell.asp

Autumn

Maybe I’m being dense
But I don’t see it

SCNT may sometimes be called therapeutic cloning but that is only if the blastocyst is implanted in a uterus, which is specifically prohibited by the amendment.

 

[kctigerhawk]

Good people of the Catholic faith are also supporting Amendment
2 because they want to support scientists who are seeking cures for serious and deadly illnesses like Muscular dystrophy, Parkinson’s disease, and other terrifying illneses.
I believe these people support research that supports life.
This amendment supports research under strict guidelines that
can help people with serious illnesses.
Cloning is prohibited.
And it is very doubtful that there will be any black market for
egg donors.
These anti-amendment 2 ads are extremely misleading.
It would be unfortunate if such promising life saving research and treatment ends up being curtailed in Missouri.

I would like to thank wisdom34 for so clearly illustrating the lies and deception we are fighting here in Missouri with regards to amendment 2.

This amendment is a barbaric initiative that no Catholic can support.

 

[kctigerhawk]

To me if a woman has IVF and creates a baby, she would not have been able to have otherwise, that is a culture of life. Only about 1 in 3 implanted embryos is usually viable.

If that same woman could not use all her embryos, and instead of the embryo becoming eventually non viable in cold storage, it is used to make stem cells which go on to prevent the disability and deaths of hundreds of patients with certain forms of severe forms of muscular dystrophy, that to me is a culture of life.

In that same sense, if I am in an accident and I am no longer a conscious being, but my organs are transplanted to save the life of someone on dialysis, that to me is a culture of life.

I believe the people who support amendment 2, do so because they believe it ultimately supports a culture of life.

wisdom34 you are very seriously confused and in grave danger.

The problem is with your definition of viable. All of the embryos are human beings.

My sister had IVF and I am sickened and disgusted by what she did. While I am happy and praise God for my two beautiful nieces. I morn the loss of my other nephews and nieces that died in the procedure and on the alter of their selfishness.

Please pray for my sister, her husband and my family members that supported them in this that they may come to realize the horror of what they have done and then accept God’s forgiveness and be healed from this tragedy.

wisdom34 you have succumbed to the lie and are helping to build the culture of death.

Please pray for Missouri and for all of the wisdom34’s out there that they may rejoin the culture of life.

 

[kctigerhawk]

Maybe I’m being dense
But I don’t see it

SCNT may sometimes be called therapeutic cloning but that is only if the blastocyst is implanted in a uterus, which is specifically prohibited by the amendment.

SCNT is cloning. Any attempt to redefine it as not cloning is just verbal engineering.

The “blastocyst” is a human being. Once created through SCNT whether or not it is implanted or destroyed that blastocyst is a cloned human being.

It is wrong to clone a human being. This amendment then says that once cloned a human being must be destroyed which is actually worse than cloning itself.

If you disagree with the assessment that a blastocyst is a human being, tell me one person in the history of the world that was not at one time a blastocyst.

A blastocyst is exactly what a human being is supposed to be and look like at that stage of human development.

 

[astegallrnc]

Maybe I’m being dense
But I don’t see it

SCNT may sometimes be called therapeutic cloning but that is only if the blastocyst is implanted in a uterus, which is specifically prohibited by the amendment.

Some researchers are using SCNT in stem cell research.

Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT) or therapeutic cloning involves removing the nucleus of an unfertilized egg cell, replacing it with the material from the nucleus of a “somatic cell” (a skin, heart, or nerve cell, for example), and stimulating this cell to begin dividing. Once the cell begins dividing, stem cells can be extracted 5-6 days later and used for research.

aamc.org/advocacy/library/research/res0003.htm

The Amendment does not prohibit this. The Amendment specifically states 6(5) “Human embryonic stem cell research,” also referred to as “early stem cell research,” means any scientific or medical research involving human stem cells derived from in vitro fertilization blastocysts or from somatic cell nuclear transfer.

The International Society for Stem Cell Research also describes the use of SCNT, implantation does not take place.
isscr.org/public/therapeutic.htm

I googled SCNT and there are several places explaining SCNT and stem cell research. Here I two:
parkinsonsaction.org/scntoverview.pdf#search='Somatic%20Nuclear%20Transfer’
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/353/1/87
The bottom line is that Amendment does not ban SCNT, which is cloning. It only bans reproductive cloning.

Autumn

 

[steveandersen]

SCNT is cloning. Any attempt to redefine it as not cloning is just verbal engineering.

The “blastocyst” is a human being. Once created through SCNT whether or not it is implanted or destroyed that blastocyst is a cloned human being.

It is wrong to clone a human being. This amendment then says that once cloned a human being must be destroyed which is actually worse than cloning itself.

If you disagree with the assessment that a blastocyst is a human being, tell me one person in the history of the world that was not at one time a blastocyst.

A blastocyst is exactly what a human being is supposed to be and look like at that stage of human development.

Yes, the term blastocyst is also used for human embryos
But SCNT is putting your cell nucleus in an ova, not fertilizing an egg.

As far as I can tell as long as there is a prohibition on trying to grow it then it is not cloning.

How would this be different than a tissue sample?

 

[astegallrnc]

But SCNT is putting your cell nucleus in an ova, not fertilizing an egg.

An unfertilized embryo is still an embryo with the 46 chromosomes of the single donor. This is the technique used to clone Dolly although the experts seem to believe a human could not develop to term using this technique. A human embryo is still created.

As far as I can tell as long as there is a prohibition on trying to grow it then it is not cloning

Maybe this will help
moroundtable.org/index.html

I haven’t found one reputable source that does not recognize SCNT as cloning.

.

 

[kctigerhawk]

Yes, the term blastocyst is also used for human embryos
But SCNT is putting your cell nucleus in an ova, not fertilizing an egg.

As far as I can tell as long as there is a prohibition on trying to grow it then it is not cloning.

How would this be different than a tissue sample?

If you don’t know the difference between an embryo and a tissue sample, I don’t know how I can help you to understand. But I will take one more shot.

A human embryo is a human being.
A human being has rights.
The most basic right is the right to life.
If you take that embryo and destroy it for its stem cells you have violated that human beings right to life.

A tissue sample is not a human being.

Maybe you don’t understand that you have to grow it to get the stem cells? Unless it grows there are no stem cells. You cannot get cells from a cell unless it grows into more cells.

Have we broken through your mental block yet?

 

[kctigerhawk]

But SCNT is putting your cell nucleus in an ova, not fertilizing an egg.

That is why it is called cloning and not IVF.

You do understand we are talking about cloning and not IVF?

 

[kctigerhawk]

It only bans reproductive cloning.

I refuse to use the terms theraputic cloning and reproductive cloning.

These are terms they have invented to make it sound like there is a difference between the two.

These terms differentiate the intention of the act not the actual cloning act.

For what purpose a human is cloned is irrelevant. The issue is that a human was cloned.

 

[astegallrnc]

I refuse to use the terms theraputic cloning and reproductive cloning.
These are terms they have invented to make it sound like there is a difference between the two.
These terms differentiate the intention of the act not the actual cloning act.
For what purpose a human is cloned is irrelevant. The issue is that a human was cloned.

I see your point, but I prefer to use the terminology so I understand what is and is not being banned. My intent is not to offend.

 

[kctigerhawk]

I see your point, but I prefer to use the terminology so I understand what is and is not being banned.

I know what you are saying, but it seems like the culture of death crowd always gets to define the vocabulary.

In this case, they are both SCNT so I don’t see how they can get away making up these nonsensical new terms.

They are both SCNT. How does what you do afterwards matter? (That is a frustrated rhetorical question)

I have appreciated your posts here. We need as many people knocking down these phony arguments as we can get.

 

[astegallrnc]

They are both SCNT. How does what you do afterwards matter? (That is a frustrated rhetorical question)

I understand. For me, the Amendment became very clear when I read at 2Tricky.org that it “bans reproductive cloning”. A light went off. It communicated in my language (medical professional), if that makes sense.

I have appreciated your posts here. We need as many people knocking down these phony arguments as we can get.

And I appreciate your posts.

We do need to get the truth out about this amendment!

God bless you!
Autumn

 

[Holly3278]

Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou amongst women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death. Amen.

 

[steveandersen]

I refuse to use the terms theraputic cloning and reproductive cloning.

These are terms they have invented to make it sound like there is a difference between the two.

These terms differentiate the intention of the act not the actual cloning act.

For what purpose a human is cloned is irrelevant. The issue is that a human was cloned.

So to you there is no difference between growing you a spare kidney or other tissue and growing a full human being?

 

[steveandersen]

If you don’t know the difference between an embryo and a tissue sample, I don’t know how I can help you to understand. But I will take one more shot.

A human embryo is a human being.
A human being has rights.
The most basic right is the right to life.
If you take that embryo and destroy it for its stem cells you have violated that human beings right to life.

A tissue sample is not a human being.

Maybe you don’t understand that you have to grow it to get the stem cells? Unless it grows there are no stem cells. You cannot get cells from a cell unless it grows into more cells.

Have we broken through your mental block yet?

No need to be pedantic
Yes I know human beings have rights including the right to life
Human life begins at conception
In SCNT there is no conception
that is why it is so important that the ban be put in place to prevent the use of the technique for reproductive purposes

 

[kctigerhawk]

So to you there is no difference between growing you a spare kidney or other tissue and growing a full human being?

What results from SCNT is not a spare kidney it is the embryo for a full human being. You understand that don’t you?

 

[kctigerhawk]

No need to be pedantic
Yes I know human beings have rights including the right to life
Human life begins at conception
In SCNT there is no conception
that is why it is so important that the ban be put in place to prevent the use of the technique for reproductive purposes

The result of conception is a human embryo.
The result of SCNT is a human embryo.

A human embryo is a human being. Once you have a human being that human being has rights…

I don’t know what else to say. I will pray for you.

 

[kctigerhawk]

No need to be pedantic
Yes I know human beings have rights including the right to life
Human life begins at conception
In SCNT there is no conception
that is why it is so important that the ban be put in place to prevent the use of the technique for reproductive purposes

Sorry thought of one more thing. If in SCNT there is no conception, and there is no life, how could it be used for reproductive purposes?

The truth is that there is life because it really is a human embryo and it can be used for reproductive purposes.