Ok, since it’s November, I’m talking politics, and I’m doing it every day of November. That’s just the way we roll here at IncrediIncredipete.com. Too many times, people take their “knee-jerk” reaction to a new story or advertisement, and base their voting accordingly.
Well, in Missouri this midterm, that’s not a wise decision.
There is an amendment on the Missouri ballot next week called the “Stem Cell Initiative.” Much has been said and written on the stem cell debate, so people naturally fall on one side or the other of the debate… likely without any further reflection. People assume that they already know what’s on the ballot.
Here’s what people think it’s going to be about: Stem cell research is illegal in Missouri, and this amendment will make it legal, which will give access to cures found through embryonic stem cell research. The opposition’s thinks it means that embryos are going to be grown and harvested for scientific purposes, which they believe is immoral, and the ends don’t justify the means.
You all know which side of that debate I fall on, so I won’t bother.
However, if you think the Missouri amendment is any of the things I listed in that paragraph, you’re sorely mistaken, and if you thought that, you should listen up.
The fact is, embryonic stem cell research is already legal in Missouri. What’s not legal in Missouri is taxpayer funding of embryonic stem cell research. But wait, there’s more. The stem cell initiative ALSO does NOT use an embryo created from an egg and sperm. No, it’s much more strange… it’s a woman’s egg which is then injected with magic juju, which they then grow in a test tube.
Now, where I come from, taking genetic material from one person and growing it into a person or an organ is called cloning.
However, proponents of the initiative SWEAR that cloning is strictly prohibited. Uh… I don’t think that word means what you think it means.
But let’s get down to the nitty-gritty. I don’t have any moral objection to taking a person’s own stem cells and cloning a new heart or kidney for them. I don’t have any moral objection to adult stem cell research, and I don’t have any moral objection to embryonic stem cell research that comes from less sinister methods, like harvesting them from umbilical cords.
So Incredipete, if that’s the case, why do you oppose the stem cell initiative?
I’m glad you asked. First and foremost, they’re talking about amending their state constitution “JUST IN CASE” someone comes along and tries to ban embryonic stem cell research. They’re concerned about it because the pro-life lobby has been trying for years to get such a ban, which has been largely unsuccessful.
But… a preemtive amendment to the state constitution? Doesn’t that seem a little strange. And doesn’t it seem like this is more likely a means toward getting state funding for research that many taxpayers find morally reprehensible?
The proponents of the amendment say “Oh no, we don’t care about state funding… that has nothing to do with it.”
Yeah, right. I’m not proned to believe anything cooked up by government officials in conjunction with planned parenthood… there’s just something uber-sleazy about that combination.
Once before, I wrote on this topic. I said, “Do the ends ever justify the means? If we can cure cancer, but in order to do so we have to kill 50 people and dissect them, can we justify it? How about 10 people? How about 5? How about 1? What if the majority of Americans decides we CAN justify it, and that tax money should be used to pay for the research? Should those of us who believe the ends DON’T justify the means have to contribute our tax dollars as well?”
Just a little something to think about.