no, you didn’t read the fine print.
" Amendment 2 only outlaws reproductive cloning, which no one in Missouri (or anywhere else on earth) is doing.
Meanwhile, it protects anyone who wants to clone human beings for science experiments. Amendment 2 glosses over the issue of lab-created human life with complicated phrases like “Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer.” But cloning is cloning, and Amendment 2 would put this ethically questionable practice beyond the reach of state law."
-Imp
nice obfuscation. now attack the actual points raised in the article about the truth of the ammendment and the ad.
-Imp
The question is: what’s wrong with cloning.
First off, ethics? Since when do you believe in intrinsic/extrinsic meta principles? Never I say, and now it looks like you are playing agenda.
Reproductive cloning produces a human life. Somatics produce stem cells, free of causality that leads to reproductive forms.
Cloning isn’t an ethical consideration outside of the reproductive process. Even though like many, I do not trust politicians or medical scientists to control the ethics of something that I generally disagree with in content, because of what it could possibly lead to in practice.
then you should be outraged at the lies fox told to support this.
-Imp
Cloning: This is a benefit because if you have cells that are exactly the same you can run experiments of varied design on them and get results that are free of error due to the nature of the cells.
article.nationalreview.com/?q=YW … DhkNTBjYTM
Quote: The reality of Amendment 2 is far from the simple vote for “hope†Fox suggests it is.
This is an attack on the idea of hope, because hope isn’t aware of the fine details, but that’s the nature of hope, sometimes. In this case, a person with an incurable disease can be expected to maintain this kind of possibly irrational hope.
Quote: To clone or not to clone?
Currently, we rip the organs out of dead people, and sometimes monkeys, and put them into living people.
What will people look like on the judgment day?
Seriously though, the issue of cloning is less than nothing depending on the philosophy.
Quote: When you see Amendment 2 at your polling place, you will be asked to decide whether to “ban human cloning or attempted cloning.” Sounds good so far, right? Who’s in favor of human cloning anyway?
I am, for the reasons mentioned.
Quote: But the 2,100-word Constitutional Amendment — which you won’t see on election day — actually creates legal protection for human cloning. Hard to believe? It’s true. Amendment 2 only outlaws reproductive cloning, which no one in Missouri (or anywhere else on earth) is doing.
As mentioned, having identical batches of cells allows for trying treatments on them and knowing that the treatment had an effect that was due only to the treatment.
As an aside, I see nothing wrong with reproductive cloning. In the free market, it certainly shouldn’t matter.
Quote: Meanwhile, it protects anyone who wants to clone human beings for science experiments. Amendment 2 glosses over the issue of lab-created human life with complicated phrases like “Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer.” But cloning is cloning, and Amendment 2 would put this ethically questionable practice beyond the reach of state law.
The idea of “human life†is what fails here, because it’s idiosyncratic to the author/sub-culture. They are in fact operating counter to the law of the land in that your abortion laws define when life reasonably begins.
Quote: In a commercial drowning in false hope and overhype
They are predicting the future here, which is a persuasive technique, and it’s invalid. The author is in fact doing what they accuse.
Quote: When it comes to embryonic-stem-cell research and cloning, politicians have often become snake-oil salesmen.
It’s a bit early for this type of accusation.
It reminds me of the liberal stance on the attempt to transform the mid-east into a stable region by the Bush admin. It seems that everyone wants microwave results.
Impenitent
MR P: So, what is the real story?
[/quote]
article.nationalreview.com/?q=YW … DhkNTBjYTM
K: Kathryn Lopez is a right wing Catholic fanatic.
It is not about cloning. Just more right
wing lies.
Kropotkin
Then you shouldn’t make quotes that contain such, cause it shows support of your argument by a definition of ethics.
You are going to have to clarify this, as I really can’t ascertain what exactly brings us to this particular query.
Why? Are you attempting, as it appears you are, to argue for inviolate rights, which is completely antithetical to your generally pronounced position on virtually everything … or are you just attempting to obfuscate the issue?
At the end of the day, what Fox did, was not even conceivably similar to the politiking of the candidates. He said clearly, he wanted this for his desire to live longer by proxy advancement in the research and possibility of an abatement or a cure.
the point remains- fox was lying about the issue and playing on the sympathy of viewers by purposely not taking his medicine.
-Imp
article.nationalreview.com/?q=YW … DhkNTBjYTM
K: Kathryn Lopez is a right wing Catholic fanatic.
It is not about cloning. Just more right
wing lies.
Kropotkin
[/quote]
but they rip your left wing lies to shreds.
see you in november
-Imp
and if that research is done on people it suits him fine.
the ad was a lie. that’s all.
-Imp
That was half-hearted.
The fact is that no one knows the full potential of stem cells because it’s much too soon in the field to know anything significant. If these things do have the potential to morph into other cells, as reported, then the sky’s the limit on hope.
The against argument is based on science fiction and religious concepts that are real one in the same. There’s no basis for assuming that adults would be raised for 18 years just to take their organs. It’s a resource waste.
Cloning will be used for test retest uniformity and in the attempt to grow organs from the ground up. It’s already being attempted outside the US.
I will remind again, the law of the land says that cells aren’t people.
The Republicans are acting like the radicals that they claim to oppose.
I will remind again, the law of the land says that cells aren’t people.
and a fetus isn’t a human either. but once you have enough cells to be a person, you aren’t because you are just a bunch of cells… nice catch 22 eh?
The Republicans are acting like the radicals that they claim to oppose.
[/quote
-Imp]
Rush is obviously an asshole- he would probably even admit that. The issue for me is whether or not he’s correct. Does M.J. Fox quit taking his meds before speaking engagements and the like to look “sicker”? To me that’s pretty oiley. I guess I can’t blame him for trying, but it makes him look like a huckster or carnival barker.
I guess maybe they’re both assholes. Although Limbaugh will undoubtedly find many, many more opportunities to stick his foot in his mouth in the future.
That is exactly the truth.
It’s extremely reductionistic to call a cell a human.
Medication isn’t a cure, and that type doesn’t work well. It also has side effects. Compare this to a cure via the replacement of brain cells.
Not taking medication to display symptoms is a perfectly fine thing to do. For instance, a doctor might ask you to take a “med holiday” to see what your condition is like without meds. That can give him a good idea about how much stuff to give you in the future.
Also, it’s just generally good for the American public that’s used to abstractions to see real things.
Imp,
Love ya brother, but you just did it again … LOL.
lies: value judgement based upon morality, which is encompassed under meta ethics if I don’t forget my information. Either that or you are playing me for stupid … 
If you aren’t arguing for morality or ethics, this is a moot point, is it not?
If there isn’t a value judgement being placed, then the demonstration is invalidated for being without a reference point.
That you don’t have any use for morality or ethics.
Everyone gets paid to speak in the political sphere or the entertainment sphere, and most often in the educational sphere as well … what difference does that make?
Seeing how many times your argument in this thread has been predicated upon the word “lies”, it would appear you are having a moral or ethical difficulty with cloning.
It’s just human cells, not humans themselves … why does it matter to you? Without morality or ethics, life has no value, so according to this line of thought … we are arguing for, against, about … absolutely nothing.
Are we just doing this because you think I’m wrong?
no, we are doing this because you continue to miss the point.
a left wing liar is a left wing liar regardless of your pity for his disease.
-Imp
?
Empiricism deals only with evidence or purported evidence of facts under observation.
Lying deals with only morals and perceptions of truth. We have a serious definitions problem here.
I never claimed such, at any point. You are confusing.
Everything you have stated thus far has its base in morality. Again, you are confusing.
Intent is everything, followed by context. Your intended agenda doesn’t match with said case, that’s all I see here.
No, I haven’t missed the point at all. As stated previously, there is a definitions error.
I pity no one. I stated what is factually known of the disease labeled Parkinson’s, based upon what is currently, empirically, accepted to this date in history.