Unfettered Letters

Cloned animals

In your Sunday edition, you had a pro-con opinion on the safety of cloned meat (1/20, Opinion). You quoted from Scientific American and Consumer Reports regarding this issue.

The safety of meat from cloned animals is a scientific issue, and is not a place for an emotional opinion when discussing it. I feel that Scientific American may be a reliable source of scientific information, but I do not feel that Consumer Reports meets that requirement.

For Consumer Reports to say that “cloned animals are very sickly, often severely deformed, and must be treated with antibiotics” is not only incorrect, but shows a lack of scientific understanding by the writer.

In the future, when you have a pro-con on a scientific issue, please have both sides come at it from a scientific point of view.

Wendell Davis, DVM
Overland Park

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

Ballot language

Never have I seen such flagrant disregard for the duties of office as Secretary of State Robin Carnahan’s wording of a proposed constitutional amendment in Missouri (10/11, Local, “Cloning ban wording draws fire”).

She has taken the proposal language and completely reversed the intent of the citizens group sponsoring an amendment to ban all cloning in the state of Missouri.

Unfortunately, she apparently can misuse the power of the office to blatantly disregard the desire of the electorate. Such malfeasance, if unchecked, suggests the need for a recall of her position.

Jerry Fournier
Kansas City

Anti-cloning initiative

I am writing to respond to the Aug. 23 article by Kit Wagar (Local, “Cloning foes advance cause; Push aims at ballot issue next year in Missouri to reverse part of last year’s Amendment 2”).

I support the Cures Without Cloning initiative because it will close the cloning loophole that currently exists in our Missouri Constitution. This initiative will ensure that none of our tax dollars can be spent on human cloning experiments. It will allow researchers in our state to focus on the many avenues of ethical research that provide real cures and treatments and real hope for those suffering from diseases.

This initiative does not prohibit stem-cell research. This is not a stem-cell issue. It is a human cloning issue.

This initiative is going to stop Amendment 2 and I support it 100 percent.

Dominico Nguyen
Kansas City

Defining humanity

So the new initiative from the Cures Without Cloning organization defines human life as the time when “a single egg cell receives a complete set of 46 chromosomes and continues through any subsequent stages of embryonic, fetal, postnatal and later development” (8/23, Local, “Cloning foes advance cause”).

It might interest these people to know that most individuals with Down Syndrome have 47 chromosomes, individuals with Turner Syndrome usually have 45, and countless more people do not have a “complete set” of genetic information through small chromosomal deletions or insertions.

This group has denied humanity to all these people. If this is its definition, then its members are the ones who don’t know what they are talking about.

I have a master’s degree and taught biology for 25 years. When I voted for Amendment 2, I knew what I was voting for, and so did the vast majority of other people who voted for the amendment.

On the other hand, many of the people to whom I talked who voted against Amendment 2 could not even define “stem cell” correctly, let alone describe the process of somatic cell nuclear transfer. Amendment 2 specifically prohibits reproductive cloning. There is nothing confusing about it.

Linda Casebolt
Lee’s Summit

Church, stem-cell research

Scott McCaffrey (1/5, Letters) claims that the Catholic Church, including his priest, lied about stem-cell research during the recent election.

It was not explained how it is lying to say that embryonic stem-cell research destroys human life and involves cloning, or that adult stem-cell research has been successful while embryonic stem-cell research has not.

From the rest of his letter though, it is obvious that McCaffrey’s real complaint is that the Catholic Church (or any church) speaks in the public square at all on issues of morality. This position is in direct contradiction to the teachings of the Catholic Church.

McCaffrey writes, “Maybe it is time to stop looking at the church for the moral high ground and start looking at ourselves.”

In case he hasn’t noticed the current state of society, that approach is already being tried. It is an approach that Pope Benedict XVI warns is building a “dictatorship of relativism.” But what does he know?

Mark S. Robertson
Independence

Stem-cell research

Stem-cell research

Along with many other Christians, I was embarrassed by the behavior of the church, specifically the Catholic Church, during the past election season regarding stem-cell research.

I attended Mass before Nov. 7 and was greeted by an onslaught of lies by my own priest.

In light of Sen. Matt Bartle trying to resurrect the stem-cell issue in Missouri, my disgust is at an all-time high.

Are we really going to let these religious zealots get away with this?

It made me think of how our society would be today if we always listened to the church on social issues: biracial marriage and homosexuality would be condemned, birth control would be illegal, etc.

Maybe it is time to stop looking at the church for the moral high ground and start looking at ourselves. Use your God-given brain and decide for yourself about stem-cell research. Don’t let the church lie to you because, indeed, that is what they are doing.

And if you truly are against this research, then you will have your chance to prove it when you or one you love gets struck down with one of these terrible illnesses and you choose to do nothing to fight it.

Scott McCaffrey
Belton

No loophole in amendment

The cells and tissue in my body belong to me. If living parts are removed from my body and allowed to live and grow, they are still mine. If my DNA is placed in an egg and allowed to live and grow, it is still mine. If cells containing my DNA are returned to my body, it will recognize and accept them as mine.

I have every legal and moral right to control my cells and body. Legislatures should not interfere with that right.

Amendment 2 clearly prohibits implanting cells containing my DNA in a womb to attempt to create a cloned human being. A womb is still required to create a human being.

Amendment 2 is correct and adequate as it stands and should not be changed. There is no loophole.

Forrest Bland
Prairie Village

Concerns about cloning

Who believes for a minute that, had Amendment 2 failed in Missouri by 1 percent or 2 percent of the vote, the Sowers Institute for Medical Research and its minions at The Star would go silently into the night, never to be heard from again?

Of course they would have returned with another effort to provide legitimacy to their embryonic stem-cell research effort. The Star would have had no problem, regardless of the wishes of the voters, providing more misleading propaganda in support of such an effort.

Human cloning is integral to embryonic stem-cell research. Amendment 2 is flawed, since it does not in reality prohibit human cloning. This is all about profit and greed, not lifesaving cures.

The pro-life movement lost a battle, but thanks to the efforts of state Sen. Matt Bartle and Rep. Jim Lembke, the war will go on to bring and end to this intrinsically evil research.

Ed and Sue Lindgren
Overland Park

Stem-cell research

When reading about state Sen. Matt Bartle’s attempt to undo the passage of Amendment 2, I fumed with disappointment that my vote and rights as a Missouri resident seemed invalid.

This should be a closed issue. I feel betrayed by our legislators. I will e-mail them of my disappointment, but for what purpose? Jefferson City is not interested in the people of Missouri. Rather, its politicians serve as Big Brother, telling the people how to think and what to believe.

My service to this country in the armed services, and my service as a teacher and a community volunteer, have all been walked on.

Barry Kennedy
Kansas City

Stem-cell research

I am starting to wish Missouri’s Amendment 2 didn’t pass. It looks clear that stem-cell opponents are bound and determined to keep cutting-edge science out of Missouri.

If there is one thing that history can tell us about scientific advancements, it’s that science will prevail and religious zealots will fall into obscurity. Only a few hundred years ago, it was heresy to speak of dissecting a human body. Renaissance anatomists fled their homes to London, Copenhagen and Amsterdam to make groundbreaking discoveries in medicine.

Whether it is California, Japan, China or in European countries, advancements will be made and diseases cured. Missourians have the choice to keep cutting-edge science here at home, or outsource it like everything else.

Disappointed science teacher,

D. Tufte
Kansas City