« Local college reunion | Main | True cost of war »

October 20, 2007

Another cloning vote

Regarding the article “Cloning ban wording draws fire” (10/11, Local) and editorial (10/18) “Stem-cell wording is fine”: Remember a year ago? Remember the ads against Amendment 2? Did they say, “Protect the unborn”? No. Those I saw implied that college students and impoverished women were going to be exploited for their eggs.

They implied that scientists were going to use trickery to steal tax dollars to clone human babies. They implied that scientists, the Stowers Institute and, most ludicrously, Jim and Virginia Stowers themselves, were only in it for the money. Remember?

That is because they realized that the Missouri electorate wasn’t buying the first argument. The electorate didn’t equate somatic cell nuclear transfer — a laboratory procedure to place the nucleus from a body cell into an unfertilized egg and create a cell line in a dish — with abortion.

Their spin doctors had to resort to misleading people.

The amendment the voters approved included the protection of this specific procedure, somatic cell nuclear transfer. The new proposed amendment wants to reverse that. What’s wrong with the wording of the ballot initiative?

L. Wiedemann
Mission Hills

Comments

bmmg39

"Wording looks pretty straightforward to me. I read the wording and the full text of the proposal, and can't find any inaccuracy."

Of course it looks straightforward to you, CRD. You have no understanding of human reproductive biology.

catholic scientist

Oh Scooter, I do hope that this vote doesn't go their way and maybe it would be better if they do revamp the language a bit. The thing about vocal minorities is that - they should be a minority - which is I guess why I do hope they might get it on the ballot in a way that is a bit more transparent and the "electorate" can send a more resounding message back and vote "NO".

CRD

Wording looks pretty straightforward to me. I read the wording and the full text of the proposal, and can't find any inaccuracy.

Engineer

ScooterJ & T.
The point of the letter was not the issue but the intentional effort to create a misunderstanding by the proposed ballot language. The matter to be voted on, or your opinion on the issue, has nothing to do with the perceived attempt to confuse.

ScooterJ

And then once that group does get its way, the majority who wants research to go on will just get it back on the ballot again the following year. It'll never end until the vocal minority of people stop basing science and legality on what they think are the opinions of magical ghosts.

T. Hanson

Why is it needed? Oh yea, because the vote did not go the way a certian group wants. So if we keep on doing this people will vote the correct way.

Engineer

Of course Wiedemann, IMO, knows what is wrong with the wording. The wording seems intentionally crafted to deceive. The proposed ballot wording gives the impression that the amendment will authorize human cloning.

 
About KansasCity.com | About the Real Cities Network | Terms of Use & Privacy Statement | About Knight Ridder | Copyright