PROPOSAL 08-2
A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION TO ADDRESS HUMAN
EMBRYO AND HUMAN EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH IN MICHIGAN
A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION TO ADDRESS HUMAN
EMBRYO AND HUMAN EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH IN MICHIGAN
The proposed constitutional amendment would:
• Expand use of human embryos for any research permitted under federal law subject to the following limits: the embryos --
-- are created for fertility treatment purposes;
-- are not suitable for implantation or are in excess of clinical needs;
-- would be discarded unless used for research;
-- were donated by the person seeking fertility treatment.
• Provide that stem cells cannot be taken from human embryos more than 14 days after cell division begins.
• Prohibit any person from selling or purchasing human embryos for stem cell research.
• Prohibit state and local laws that prevent, restrict or discourage stem cell research, future therapies and cures.
Should this proposal be adopted?
Yes!
The easiest way to explain this vote is compassion versus ignorance. Compassion means allowing scientific research to take place that can lead to new discoveries. A no vote, cast out of ignorance means you will let your personal religious beliefs trump the good of all society. The Catholic church hierarchy and Right to Life lobbyists are fighting this issue on religious and moral grounds which might make sense if these embryos were not already being destroyed. If the "no" voters really had any conviction they would have their own proposal on the ballot to outlaw fertility treatments and in vitro fertilization. Allowing this research shows we are a society of reason, science and compassion. There simply is no reason to vote no unless you think a frozen embryo on the way to a garbage can has more right to 'its" life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness than someone suffering from a curable disease that won't be saved because the Puritans, witch-hunters and forces of moral purity have allowed their unfounded fears to take precedence over reason, compassion and science yet again.
Bogeyman arguments and superstition have been used to squash science for centuries (anyone remember the black helicopter crowd opposing flouride in drinking water not too long ago?). Fortunately, over time most of these absurdities find their way into the dustbin of history, another example of our ignorant past. Basing your vote against such a well thought out proposal, on the plots of science fiction novels is silly. The thought of not using these embryos that are already being discarded to save human lives is ridiculous and certainly not a "pro-life" position, it's also not a pro-science position or even a pro-economy position. Michigan has the potential to continue to press its investment in life sciences to build an economy for the 21st century and this proposal is one more step in that direction. We would be allowing scientists the ability to recycle materials for the possible betterment of mankind.
There simply is not argument to not vote YES on proposal 2- it's a matter of compassion.
Posts
5 comments:
As long as we are still alone ....
I'm sure that you have noticed that the advertising avoids using the words "embryonic" and "human embryonic" to avoid the possibility of educating the public. It is so much more fun to get away with telling a small portion of the truth to the ignorant.
True, stem cell research (particularly that which was completed years ago in other countries) will be a medical accomplishment of huge dimensions.
True, only the most ignorant would oppose stem-cell research.
Oops! Failed to note that stem cells don't have to come from human fertilized eggs. Must have flipped the page too quick. In fact, the same human stem cells are easily taken from umbelical cords.
Killing potential babies is great sport, along with issuing uzis to county employees, but gradually the advocates of these things will be evolved out of the system.
May I add that proponents of these legislative wonderfullness issues are insulting.
We other dumbasses apparently can't tell when we are being lied to (as in leaving out the whole truth).
If we don't vote for smoking pot and using humans as guinea pigs, we are not "compassionate" and must enjoy making people suffer.
Fortunately, we are still alone.
baker65 came here to give his point of view (being someone who is suffering from cancer, and the effects of treating it), and you insulted him by explaining that:
A) you don't believe him
B) he should hate George W. Bush
From where I sit you will always be alone.
I'm good with that.
For the record, I recognized the condition and only challenged the assumption that pot is the only answer.
Hate would be a strong word, and inflammatory if there was anybody to inflame.
I assume that you are referring to a different thread.
I think El Grillo is generally correct. One of the main persons who put together Proposal 1 admitted that it was just a ploy, a stepping stone to encourage more recreational drug abuse.
Post a Comment