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

[magician]

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.

nocloning.org/amendment.pdf

Are you not exaggerating and misinterpreting this provision? The “remaining provisions” would have to be challenged separately which makes sense.

Your analysis is over the hill and way off the mark. It’s no wonder that some Catholics are referred to extremists and irrational. They expect that no one is watching and no one is thinking.
Very poor analytical thinking indeed.

 

[Holly3278]

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

I believe that she is telling the truth but is simply misguided. Always assume the best about people. Assuming the best about someone is actually in the Catechism somewhere but I can’t remember where.

 

[Rosalinda]

Magician, Thank you for your contribution. You have reiterated the very point being made about this initiative.

Are you not exaggerating and misinterpreting this provision? The “remaining provisions” would have to be challenged separately which makes sense.

Taken in context, with all the exception clauses at the end of the Amendment rendering all the general rules at the beginning of Amendment 2 essentially meaningless, my conclusion is an understatement, not hyperbole. It is the language of this Intiative which is so extreme and broad that it will create a pre-eminent constitutional right to cloning which will be unlimited, unrestrained and above the rule of law. The stem cell business will have rights enshrined in the constitution which will be the only rights in the state which will supercede any and all reasonable regulations.

Faulty, ambiguous, misleading scientific definitions have no place in a constitution.

Fair enough if you don’t like my metaphors Magician but that is an issue of style not substance.

 

[Rosalinda]

Magician stated:

I am in favor of an international moratorium on human cloning however the effort has met resistance at the United Nations

Take cheer, Magician, for the U.N. did indeed ban human cloning after much resistance.

UNITED NATIONS, February 18, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The United Nations has called on Member States to adopt urgent legislation outlawing all cloning practices “as they are incompatible with human dignity and the protection of human life.” The declaration, introduced by Honduras, also calls on countries to “prevent the exploitation of women.” Cloning requires harvesting eggs from women.

The decision ends three years of deadlock caused by countries seeking approval for cloning research. The United Kingdom, Belgium and Singapore led the opposition for a total ban, insisting that a ban only apply to letting a cloned human live while allowing cloned embryos to be used for research which would kill them. The declaration represents the international community uniting in condemning all human cloning as exploitative and unethical…

lifesite.net/ldn/2005/feb/05021807.html

Even secular liberal governments such as Germany, France and Canada have banned human cloning.

 

[magician]

I think you may have missed the point. Yes, the UN made a statement but without enforcement the “statement” becomes a moot point.
Enforcement. Think about it. What does it mean? Is any country, state or entity capable of enforcement on human rights agendas? I think not.

Whether it be stem cell research on human embryos (aka human beings), or abortion (aka murder), enforcement is virtuallly impossible.

I am a pessimist with regard to the law. Law in a democracy represents the majority i.e. majority rule. The hearts and minds of the majority are not in favor of laws which restrict control over what they perceive as sub-human species.

What is important now is to state a position for history. I am always extremely frustrated by so-called prolife representatives who join at the hip with the notion that stem cell research has not produced “results”. Who educates these people? Does it matter whether the procedures developed cure an Alzheimer’s patient? If it did, would it change your well-grounded philosophical opinion that reseach on human beings for the sake of human beings is morally wrong?

I am equally frustrated by Catholic theologians and philosophers who have not used the German model to analyze, compare and support their case. This is the ultimate historical precedent. The Germans have an intimate knowledge of this issue. They have legislated their conclusions based on hard facts. Why do I not hear the roar of their experience and the consequences of their history???

Again, I say that now the most important goal should be a statement for history. Because when the consequences come to fruition in the future, we must be able to look back and say we took the correct stand.

 

[lukefan]

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!

I also heard a Catholic candidate in Missouri say the same thing during a debate…when asked her feelings on the Stem Cell vote and her Catholic background. Geez, just like John Kerry. You can’t have it both ways though.

 

[Rosalinda]

Magician, Yes, I understand your frustration especially as North Americans seem to suffer from a collective amnesia when it comes to remembering the lessons of recent history. Nevertheless, in my reading this reference comes up quite frequently. A case in point, by Dr. Irving who is a former career-appointed research biochemist/biologist (NIH), as well as a Ph.D. philosopher specializing in the history of philosophy, and medical ethics.

…Given that the goals cited by the proponents[of ESCR] are laudable and good, the means to those goals must also be ethically good - and here the “means” used in these experiments are the death and destruction of living innocent human beings. It is to reduce them to mere objects for the use of others, rather than subjects with inherent ethical rights deserving of equal protection. Our own slavery laws, Nazi medicine, the Tuskegee syphilis experiments and recent government-sponsored radiation experiments also operated on such a two-tier caste of “humanity”…

lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_19stemcellprocon.html

 

[Rosalinda]

Magician asked:[sign]Does it matter whether the procedures developed cure an Alzheimer’s patient? If it did, would it change your well-grounded philosophical opinion that reseach on human beings for the sake of human beings is morally wrong? [/sign]

No, the principle stated by Dr. Irving in my previous post wouldn’t change. One can never do evil that good may come of it. Furthermore, prominent cloning advocates are already on record stating the promise of a cure for Alzheimer’s patients was a “fairy tale” the public needed. It is a myth created to gain public sympathy.

Fact: Leading researchers say stem cell research will not likely yield cures for Alzheimer’s. “Alzheimer’s is a more global disease, with an effect on numerous kinds of cells,” Steve Stice, a stem cell researcher at the University of Georgia, told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution newspaper. “That makes it much more difficult for a cell therapy to be effective.” Marilyn Albert, a Johns Hopkins University researcher, adds, “I just think everybody feels there are higher priorities for seeking effective treatments for Alzheimer’s disease and for identifying preventive strategies.”

lifeissues.net/msg.php?newsID=00015701&topic=

 

[Rosalinda]

Magician, thank you for your clarification on the U.N.

I think you may have missed the point. Yes, the UN made a statement but without enforcement the “statement” becomes a moot point.

Why did you undermine your own statement with this conclusion?

Again, I say that now the most important goal should be a statement for history. Because when the consequences come to fruition in the future, we must be able to look back and say we took the correct stand.

Like you, Magician, I have a pessimistic nature. I grew up thinking the Iron Curtain was a permanent fixture and that nuclear war was inevitable. Yet in 1989 the Soviet Union collapsed without mutual nuclear annihilation.

So instead of allowing myself to be discouraged I pray and lean on the Lord for strength. Life is full of surprises and maybe my small voice will help one person understand that science is best served when it is at the service of the human person not the other way around.

 

[Rosalinda]

Let’s get back to the Amendment in question. The definitions are the most disturbing.

1. As used in this section, the following terms have the following meanings:

(1) “Blastocyst” means a small mass of cells that results from cell division, caused either by fertilization or somatic cell nuclear transfer, that has not been implanted in a uterus.

nocloning.org/amendment.pdf
Disturbing because the embryonic human person with an already unique genetic identity is dismissed as a mere “small mass of cells”. At the blastocyst stage, that is what we all looked like whether in vitro (in the petri dish) or in vivo (in the mother’s fallopian tube on the way to implantation in her uterus some 5-7days later). Clearly, the drafters of this Initiative want voters to believe that there is no human being in existence at this point. Fertility specialists don’t want the parents who are going to voluntarily donate these valuable “left-over embryos” to know the truth either. The objective, scientific reality is that the immediate product of both fertilization or cloning (called somatic cell nuclear transfer in this ammendment) is a new, living human being. This devaluation removes all ethical reservations with the clever manipulation of language so we can justify exploiting them for the greater good.

 

[Rosalinda]

What happens in the future when voters en masse realize they were hoodwinked? Can’t they demand legislators pass new laws to rescind this one and ban human cloning? Again, no.

Consider that once this erroneous science gets passed into law, it ceases to be “science”. It is then simply reduced to *stare decisis *-- legal precedent.61 The Courts have no legal duty to correct such erroneous science. Indeed, they would then only have a legal duty *to apply *this erroneous science to any and all further related research legislation – as happened in the application of Roe vs. Wade to Webster, Carhart, etc. To allow such erroneous science to become embedded in the law as *stare decisis *simply takes us backwards – incrementally.

footnote: #61 Henry Campbell Black, Black’s Law Dictionary (4th ed.) (St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Co, 1951), pp. 1577-1578.

lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_22manipulatingman2.html

And don’t forget this **CONSTITUTIONAL **Amendment trump card :

1. …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.

 

[aurora77]

I also heard a Catholic candidate in Missouri say the same thing during a debate…when asked her feelings on the Stem Cell vote and her Catholic background. Geez, just like John Kerry. You can’t have it both ways though.

Someone down here running for the state senate was quoted in the Springfield News-Leader saying that even though her Church (CC) is against it, she was for Amendment 2. It’s just aggravating.

 

[Rosalinda]

New campaign finance reports in Missouri show that pro-life advocates have alleged all along – an embryonic stem cell research company is spending tens of millions of dollars in an effort to buy public support for a statewide initiative that would have the state backing human cloning.
The Stowers Institute is Kansas City has raised and spent almost $28.75 million dollars according to new state campaign finance reports. That dwarfs the approximately $1.5 million pro-life advocates have spent attempting to defeat the cloning proposal.
Just 500 people have contributed any money to the Coalition for Lifesaving Cures, the Stowers-financed organization that backs Amendment 2…

lifenews.com/bio1803.html

Why would one company spend almost 29 million dollars to promote a constitutional right to cloning and ESCR unless the returns promised to be a hundred times that investment? Just think about how much clinical trails in humans could have been advanced with ethically sound adult somatic cell research. Another reason why the deliberate diversion of limited resources in time, talent and money is actually delaying cures because promising alternative adult stem cell research which has already proven itself beneficial is being side-tracked in favor of research which may be nothing more than a dead end.

By the way, that is not the frenzied opinion of an off-the-wall Catholic. Dr. Singer said, [sign]“We cannot predict the outcome. It may turnout to be of no use whatsoever. We just don’t know.”[/sign] If two people with antithetical viewpoints can agree on that point there must be some truth to it. I thank Dr. Singer for his candour.

 

[Sixtus]

Himmler and Mengele might be dead but the evil which motivated them is very much alive and well!

We must never grow complacent, the forces of evil are very strong and powerful. Without Christ, we are utterly powerless in the face of such great adversity.

 

[Rosalinda]

The World Over now has archived their program from last Friday night about the Missouri cloning ammendment. Available at the ETWN website/library/audio.
The title is Bishops Roundtable
Date: 10/20/2006
Description: responsible voting

The constitutional amendment has been described as Christmas every day for cloning scientists.

ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/latestadditions/seriessearchprog.asp?seriesID=-6892288&fldSeriesName=The+World+Over

 

[Rosalinda]

As Magician has already pointed out, anyone who uses the argument I.V.F. surplus human embryonic children are going to die anyway should recall the Nazi experience. In 1998, this story of a leading Austrian psychiatrist and neurosurgeon found collecting and dissecting the brains of 400 children, came to public attention. Illicitly procured during the war, he nevertheless used them for research and to build a respectable career. Austrians were outraged after the truth about Dr. Heinrich Gross was finally revealed. Interesting to note, how not one voice argued the children were already dead so why not use them to gain valuable knowledge. Today, the situation with defenseless embryos is comparable. Why do we continue to not to see the parallel?

Be forewarned, this is a gut-wrenching story.

…The killing of handicapped children was one of the darkest episodes of Austria’s Nazi period. After the annexation of Austria into the Third Reich by Hitler in 1938, 772 children were killed in Vienna for euthanasia research.
The Nazis were strong believers in euthanasia. The victims were starved and then poisoned and their brains preserved for research. The brains of children are still stored in Austria’s largest psychiatric hospital on the outskirts of Vienna…

.

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/684262.stm
jewishsf.com/content/2-0-/module/displaystory/story_id/13277/edition_id/257/format/html/displaystory.html

 

[maggieodae]

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…

:yup:

 

[magician]

:yup:

I must qualify my own statement: warm bodies are obvious; an embryo is not a warm body and therein lies the rub - if we say that human life has an intrinsic value, then we must define that life in terms as to where it stands in the pecking order. As embryonic research goes forward, at some point a “warm body” will emerge. Will it be fetuses farmed for organs? Genetically compatible clones to meet our ever-growing demand for longer life?

A few dozen cells in a dish is not a “warm body” but that few dozen cells will define the future of our humanity,

 

[Rosalinda]

The Pope made some noteworthy observations at Lateran University Oct.23.

"Mankind is called to give meaning to its actions, especially when they enter the territory of a scientific discovery that comprises the very essence of personal life.

“To allow oneself to be carried away by the joy of discovery, without safeguarding the criteria that arise from a more profound view, would be to relive the drama of the ancient myth: The young Icarus, carried away with the desire of flying to absolute freedom, … got ever closer to the sun, forgetting that the wings upon which he rose to the skies were made of wax. His fall and death were the price he paid for this illusion.”

“There are other illusions in life that cannot be trusted without the risk of disastrous consequences for one’s own existence and that of others,” the Holy Father observed.

zenit.org/english/

 

[Rosalinda]

I agree with you Magician in that it is extremely hard for people to have compassion for embryonic human children because our senses are limited. However, I strongly disagree:

[sign]if we say that human life has an intrinsic value, then we must define that life in terms as to where it stands in the pecking order.[/sign]

The American Constitution doesn’t say that. Excuse me if this sounds trite, Magician, but establishing a “pecking order” doesn’t sound very American.

As a Catholic, I remember what my Saviour did the night before He died. On His knees Jesus washed the feet of His apostles as a servant. “The last shall be first and the first will be last.”

Contrast the humility of God with the arrogance of huckster scientists demanding unlimited access to our young women and children in service to their greed, curiosity and pride.