"Those embryos are going to be killed anyway, why not put them to good use?"

[hasikelee]

I just read a letter to the editor in our local newspaper. The author reassures readers that she is, and always will be, prolife and Catholic.

She then goes on to beg readers to vote yes on that amendment 2. She says, “All of those leftover embryos are going to be killed anways, why not put them to good use?”

She claims it is the informed decision.



I feel fired up to send in a letter, lol!

 

[magician]

Himmler and Mengele also thought that warm bodies which were about to be exterminated should also be put to good use.
Nothing changes. Only the players…

 

[hasikelee]

magician, you are so right. History repeats itself over and over again.

Here is my letter:

As an independent voter tired of the pro-choice vs. pro-life argument and tired of all the hype, I set out to find the facts on Amendement 2. The facts speak for themselves, as they say. This is not a prochoice argument. This is not a prolife argument. This is not a political argument. This is a groundbreaking decision that will change Missouri and potentially all of America forever.

Here are the facts:

Amendment 2 lists 45 sections of the Constitution of Missouri that it will delete or change.

Amendment 2 will prohibit any legislators from overturning it.

Those who support amendment 2 claim that selling eggs and embryos will be prohibited. Yet the amendment states people and businesses may receive “reimbursements for reasonable costs” not only for buying and selling, but also for “processing, disposal, preservation, quality control, storage, transfer…and lost wages to the donor.” Donor or seller?

The biggest change of Amendment 2 has to do with allocation of money from private to public interest. Private investors have run away from embryonic stem cell research because it shows no results. It is a black hole for money. Thus, organizations that support embryonic stem cell research are looking to the government for a handout. If amendment 2 passes, researchers will keep patents for themselves, they won’t have to show any results (which private investors demand) and researchers will keep any profits for themselves.

The creators of amendment 2 decided to redefine cloning. According to them, it is only cloning if the actual human embryo is implanted into a womb. So long as scientists clone embryos outside of a womb and kill them, they will not violate amendment 2. As long as a human embryo is in a womb, it cannot be killed. But if the human embryo is outside of a womb (e.g. created in a test tube) then it is a thing to be killed.

Backers of the amendment nicknamed this redefinition “Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer” and claim this is not cloning. Apparently, they forgot to check the dictionary. Maybe they figured a new name will fool those who aren’t wrapped up in the boring prochoice/prolife argument?

The facts are out there. They have nothing to do with hot button issues. This is a titanic decision. I exhort others to learn the facts for themselves.

Oh yeah, and don’t forget:

Extracting eggs from women is a procedure that has side effects and risks. It is a surgery quite popular with those girls who don’t have a lot of money. As a young women myself, I cringe at the idea of poor women selling themselves to provide their body parts for unrestricted science experiments.

Embryonic stem cells have not produced one cure, or even a direction for a cure. In fact, they have produced tumors and cancers in rats. This is an inherent property of embryonic stem cells; they can grow into many different kinds of cells and scientists have no idea how to direct their growth.

Meanwhile, adult stem cells have produced many promising cures and can potentially cure even more diseases.

Show me the cure? My money better be going to something that is logical, supervised and not above the law.

 

[magician]

With respect, I don’t think focusing on a “cure” is the point. The statistical probability is that treatments and cures will be found with embryonic stem cells. But there’s also the possibility that cures and treatments can also be found with “in vitro” generated human life. For instance, it will most certainly be possible to grow an intact human being simply for harvesting its organs and parts. If you need a liver, you simply harvest one from a genetically suitable human grown specifically for that purpose. Don’t think this is science fiction - it is an idea in the works.

The only thing that stopped Himmler and Mengele was Hitler’s poor political and military strategy. The next time around the leaders may be much smarter and more adept at bringing forth their agenda.

I don’t endorse any of this research. But I will say that it is inevitable. And even if legislation is enacted in the United States, the research will proceed elsewhere.

It’s the brave new world.

 

[hasikelee]

With respect, I don’t think focusing on a “cure” is the point. The statistical probability is that treatments and cures will be found with embryonic stem cells. But there’s also the possibility that cures and treatments can also be found with “in vitro” generated human life. For instance, it will most certainly be possible to grow an intact human being simply for harvesting its organs and parts. If you need a liver, you simply harvest one from a genetically suitable human grown specifically for that purpose. Don’t think this is science fiction - it is an idea in the works.

The only thing that stopped Himmler and Mengele was Hitler’s poor political and military strategy. The next time around the leaders may be much smarter and more adept at bringing forth their agenda.

I don’t endorse any of this research. But I will say that it is inevitable. And even if legislation is enacted in the United States, the research will proceed elsewhere.

It’s the brave new world.

I do agree with you that eventually this will be possible. My issue with the amendment is that advertisement implies cures are about to happen or have already happened.

IMO, that researchers, scientists and backers don’t want to put money into adult stem cells but instead play around with embryonic stem cells shows their hand.

I wonder if soon we will be culling the citizenry based on economic status, race, health, etc to use people for their body parts.

When is the world war…

 

[Veritas41]

I just read a letter to the editor in our local newspaper. The author reassures readers that she is, and always will be, prolife and Catholic.

She then goes on to beg readers to vote yes on that amendment 2. She says, “All of those leftover embryos are going to be killed anways, why not put them to good use?”

She claims it is the informed decision.



I feel fired up to send in a letter, lol!

Good for you! We all need to speak up in the public arena to get the facts out.

Those last words speak volumes about what’s wrong with that position – putting humans to “good use” like they’re old auto parts that need to be recycled and used. Reminds me of something C.S. Lewis said (this isn’t verbatim, but from memory), “If man wants to become raw material, raw material he shall be.”

 

[Rosalinda]

Fr. Frank Pavonne gets to the heart of the issue.

Among other things, Amendment 2 would prohibit state and local governments from withholding public funds from those who clone humans for experimentation and who work for institutions that receive public money for purposes other than stem cell research. This means that the state of Missouri would be required to fund the destruction of the smallest human beings.

The impact of Amendment 2 gets worse. According to attorney Steven Rogers, under the terms of the initiative, the legislature couldn’t even regulate the companies and institutions that clone humans for research purposes. Amendment 2 flatly proclaims that no state or local law may “prevent, restrict, obstruct, or discourage any stem cell research….” In the words of Mr. Rogers, “[The right to conduct embryonic stem cell research established by Amendment 2] is designed to operate above the rule of law.” Those who clone humans for experimentation would be a law unto themselves.

priestsforlife.org/legislation/missouri-amendment-2.htm

 

[KathleenElsie]

“Anyway” thinking can lead to many evil things.

This could be taken even further.

1. “Those old people are going to die anyway”, so why not kill them now. Think of how much money we could save.
2. “Those handicapped new born are not going to be productive anyway”, so why not use them for spare parts.
3. “Those that are not productive in society and use services anyway”, could be used to test medicines or new procedures on.

You see IMHO when you deny one human life form its right to life you lead to many semi-human categories and their inevitable consequences.

 

[mary_bobo]

Good for you! We all need to speak up in the public arena to get the facts out.

Those last words speak volumes about what’s wrong with that position – putting humans to “good use” like they’re old auto parts that need to be recycled and used. Reminds me of something C.S. Lewis said (this isn’t verbatim, but from memory), “If man wants to become raw material, raw material he shall be.”

Could it be that this someone is not really Catholic and pro-life? Saying something does not make it so.

 

[magician]

“We are sunk in a barbarism all the deeper because it is tolerated by moral lethargy and covered with a veneer of scientific conveniences.”
Winston Churchill in the early days of World War II.

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
Edmund Burke

The number of ethical questions raised by these issues boggles the mind. But march forward they will in the pursuit of research and discovery. And I suspect that the Missouri legislation will be passed.

Human cloning will be the major ethical question of this century, trumping the imaginations of Hitler and Mengele.

I am in favor of an international moratorium on human cloning however the effort has met resistance at the United Nations. The United States should set the precedent by banning human cloning, but the wording gets clumsy and ineffective, confusing the terms “reproductive” and “research” based cloning.

I wonder if the clones will be protected under the U.S. Constitution? It will be an interesting argument because a fetus, which is human, has no protection because it isn’t viable. A clone may have very limited viability, particularly the first ones produced.

This used to be science fiction; now it is close to reality.

 

[Rosalinda]

Well, I have perused the amendment and correct me if my conclusions are hasty or ill-considered but it is a big mistake for people to think SCNT is the only method of cloning. Read this article at LifeIssues, ANALYSIS: Stearns’ Congressional Human Cloning Fairy Tale “Ban”; New Age and Transhumanist Legislation for “Converging Technologies”? If there is a difference, maybe someone would be so kind as to explain it.

“the use of human somatic cell nuclear transfer technology”: Since this Bill specifically states that, “Nothing in this Act shall restrict other areas of scientific research not specifically prohibited by this Act”, then whether or not human cloning is prohibited by this Bill depends on the formal definitions used in this Bill - especially its definition of “cloning”. **Since the Bill defines “cloning” *only ***in terms of the use of the somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) technique (and ignores all other cloning techniques), and since even the SCNT cloning technique is misdefined, the Bill bans no human cloning. Furthermore, some of the most common human cloning genetic engineering techniques currently used are specifically “protected” (e.g., twinning; germ line cell nuclear transfer; pronuclei transfer; parthenogenesis; the use of artificial genes, chromosomes, pronuclei, nuclei, sperm, oocytes and embryos, etc.). Therefore, no human cloning is banned by this Bill…

lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_77stearncloningtale2.html

 

[Rosalinda]

How can we regulate what scientists choose to do in I.V.F. clinics? Just look at the end product of cloning. One can’t tell if the embryo was created sexually using classical fertilization in petri dishes or asexually using somatic cell nuclear transfer.

cloninginformation.org/images/howcloningworks.pdf

If one has already lost respect for the dignity and sanctity of human life, after years of playing and manipulating the earliest stages of embryonic human beings, the temptation to push the envelope even further and clone is certainly there. It is incredible naivete to give scientists even more power and to suggest this industry be exempt from any outside regulatory process. The recent Hwang scandal should be proof enough that intelligence does not necessarily equate with a well formed conscience.

 

[jmcrae]

“All of those leftover embryos are going to be killed anways, why not put them to good use?”

Maybe we should start putting all dead bodies to good use - let’s dig up our cemetaries and start up a soap factory - big money to be made, you know!!

Sorry for the sarcasm.

My real opinion is that these particular embryos should receive emergency baptism and Christian burial - and that no one should ever be allowed to make “spare embryos” ever again.

 

[aurora77]

Hasikelee–I’m glad you’re so fired up! I’m really praying that all Christians will be just as fired up as you and vote no on this issue. The media makes it sound like we’re in the minority, but I’m hoping they’re wrong!

 

[estesbob]

I just read a letter to the editor in our local newspaper. The author reassures readers that she is, and always will be, prolife and Catholic.

She then goes on to beg readers to vote yes on that amendment 2. She says, “All of those leftover embryos are going to be killed anways, why not put them to good use?”

She claims it is the informed decision.



I feel fired up to send in a letter, lol!

The condemend prisioner is is going to be killed anyway-why not put them to use?

The Mother is going to abort her child anyway-why not deliver the child and put it to medical use?

The patient is in a vegetative state-why not put their bodies to use?

That homelsss mans is drinking himself to death-why dont we out his body to good use before he does so?

That race of people is sub-human anyway-why not put their bodies to use?

 

[Rosalinda]

Hasikelee, It is great you have written a letter to the editor to try to inform readers what is really happening with this amendment. If this letter isn’t published try getting family and friends to write briefer letters each making one important point. The brevity of the letter will increase the odds for publication.

After closer examination of Amendment 2, #6(2) my conclusion differs from your letter in which you stated:

The creators of amendment 2 decided to redefine cloning. According to them, it is only cloning if the actual human embryo is implanted into a womb. So long as scientists clone embryos outside of a womb and kill them, they will not violate amendment 2. As long as a human embryo is in a womb, it cannot be killed.

Kindly study the wording of the Amendment again.

(2) “Clone or attempt to clone a human being” means to implant in a uterus or attempt to implant in a uterus anything other than the product of fertilization of an egg of a human female by a sperm of a human male** for the purpose of initiating a pregnancy that could result in the creation of a human fetus, or the birth of a human being.**

sos.mo.gov/elections/2006petitions/ppStemCell.asp

The Missouri Catholic Conference answers the question, “Does the proposed amendment ban abortions for medical research?”:

There is no explicit provision prohibiting the use of abortion for medical research. Abortion would not be a concern if the drafters of Amendment 2 had developed a clear and comprehensive prohibition on implanting human embryos in a woman for research purposes. But they failed to do so. **The prohibition on implantation is qualified to apply to certain cases, such as **implanting an embryo to bring an unborn child to birth. **Implantation for other purposes like medical research is not **prohibited when the researchers use human embryos derived from in-vitro fertilization clinics and the embryo is aborted before the eighth week of development.

mocatholic.org/StemCell-Cloning/QandAHumanCloning.htm

So what do you think? Is this a loophole extending experimentation on embryos from 14 days all the way up to 8 weeks when embryonic human beings advance to the next stage on the continuum of life to the status of fetus?

 

[Rosalinda]

Picking up on the argument “they are going to die anyway” this is the same rationale used in the 70’s when the issue was fetal experimentation. Scientists were hungry for fetal cells and they succeeded in cajoling the public that this was necessary to save lives. After all this time, where are the results, the cures promised? In point of fact, it was a disaster. Patients with Parkinson’s disease received fetal cell implants in their brains and suffered agonizing deaths. On autopsy tumors filled with hair and teeth were found.

Read David Louisell, who voiced the only dissenting opinion of the National Commissions Report on fetal research in 1975:

**I am compelled to disagree with the Commission’s Recommendations (and the reasoning and definitions on which they are based) insofar as they succumb to the error of sacrificing the interests of innocent human life to a postulated social need. … Although the Commission uses adroit language to minimize the appearance of violating standard norms, no facile verbal formula can avoid the reality that under these Recommendations the fetus and nonviable infant will be subjected to nontherapeutic research from which other humans are protected. … But the good in much of the Report cannot blind me to its departure from our society’s most basic moral commitment: the essential equality of all human beings. For me the lessons of history are too poignant, and those of this century too fresh, to ignore another violation of human integrity and autonomy by subjecting unconsenting human beings, whether or not viable, to harmful research even for laudable scientific purposes. … **

Just substitute embryo/blastocyst/ stem cells for fetus. Obviously, we have learned nothing from history. It might be helpful to read the research by Dr. Irving on the birth of bioethics. lifeissues.net/writers/irvi/irvi_51belmont25years.html

 

[jmcrae]

On autopsy tumors filled with hair and teeth were found.

What madness compells them to try this again?

 

[Rosalinda]

Hasikelee worries:

Extracting eggs from women is a procedure that has side effects and risks. It is a surgery quite popular with those girls who don’t have a lot of money.

What are the risks one may ask?

Harvesting" human eggs is difficult and unnatural, and it can be very dangerous. The process involves pumping women so full of hormones and fertility drugs that their ovaries release as many as 15 eggs at once (instead of one at a time). Women can die as a result of their ovaries being over-stimulated, and they** risk future infertility problems** too.

Amendment 2 supposedly defends the rights of women with empty promises of “informed consent”. Read the clause:

(5) Human blastocysts and eggs obtained for stem cell research or stem cell therapies and
cures must have been donated with voluntary and informed consent, documented in
writing.

nocloning.org/amendment.pdf

The reality is this pseudoscience is so deceptive they couldn’t possibly understand what they are consenting to. Furthermore, and this is so important this amendment protects the fertility specialists, technicians and scientists from wrongful death lawsuits.

Amendment 2 also includes a legal loophole that would shield cloning researchers from responsibility when women are injured or die while selling their eggs. Amendment 2 makes it illegal to “discourage” or “create disincentives” for cloning human life. And** that could certainly include filing wrongful-death lawsuits**.

2tricky.org/exploitive.htm

Read clause 7 from Amendment 2:

The provisions of this section and of all state and local laws, regulations, rules,charters, ordinances, and other governmental actions shall be construed in favor of the conduct of stem cell research and the provision of stem cell therapies and cures. No state or local law, regulation, rule, charter, ordinance,** or other governmental action** shall (i) prevent, restrict, obstruct, or discourage any stem cell research or stem cell therapies and cures that are** permitted by this section to be conducted** or provided, **or **(ii) create disincentives for any person to engage in or otherwise associate with such research or therapies and cures.

nocloning.org/amendment.pdf

 

[Rosalinda]

The lawyers who wrote this amendment to the constitution wanted to make sure even if something went wrong it would still remain a powerful, untouchable fortress.

1. The provisions of this section are self-executing. All of the provisions of this section are severable. If any provision of this section is found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unconstitutional or unconstitutionally enacted, the remaining provisions of this section shall be and remain valid.

nocloning.org/amendment.pdf