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

Efforts to reverse Amendment 2

Support for Sen. Bartle

Two letters in the Dec. 25 Star took exception to the efforts of state Sen. Matt Bartle and others to reverse the results of November’s Amendment 2 vote in Missouri.

“The voters have spoken,” one writer noted, as if that requires a person of conscience to abandon a cause for all time.

Those of us former fetuses who oppose the use of current fetuses for medical research because it “might” lead to some miraculous cures are not going to simply fold up our tents and quit. Abolitionists did not quit in the face of public disapproval, and neither did the civil rights movement of the 1950s and ’60s. Green activists don’t abandon their cause as a result of an electoral defeat, and we all saw that Clay Chastain wouldn’t take no for an answer.

I applaud Sen. Bartle and all those who oppose these latter-day Dr. Mengeles.

Mark Browning
Raytown

Wasting Missouri’s time

The Star details state Sen. Matt Bartle’s and Rep. Jim Lembke’s attempt to undermine the constitutional protection of methods to create early stem cells approved by voters in November. As one of Sen. Bartle’s constituents, I have asked him to drop this initiative immediately.

I found the scare tactics and misinformation presented by those opposing Amendment 2 in the months preceding the November elections to be unconscionable. The TV ad depicting the young woman talking about the “horrible” complications that could result from the egg-retrieval procedure was especially objectionable to me, since as an anesthesiologist I am quite familiar with the procedure and have never observed any serious side effects or complications. Studies back up this anecdotal experience.

To subject the people of Missouri to another round of this type of “debate” when the voters so recently made clear their wishes on this matter is a waste of time.

Brian A. Casement
Lee’s Summit

Cloning views

Allow vote on cloning

I applaud Missouri state Sen. Matt Bartle and Rep. Jim Lembke in the effort to put to the people, in November 2008, a real human-cloning ban. It is clear that Missourians want to ban human cloning.

The people who opposed the amendment understood that it did not ban human cloning but rather established a constitutional protection to create human beings through a cloning procedure.

Many of those who voted in favor of Amendment 2 thought the measure was going to ban human cloning. The ballot language was deceptive.

The electorate should have a chance to truly ban human cloning in Missouri.

I commend these two statesmen for not backing down. It is refreshing to see individuals who will stand up to do the right thing no matter what the political consequences may be. I am grateful to those who will not think only of themselves but will do the honorable thing for the sake of the residents of Missouri.

Bev Ehlen
Northeast area director, Concerned Women for America of Missouri
Warrenton, Mo.

Missourians have spoken

I find it insulting state Sen. Matt Bartle and Rep. Jim Lembke would contend that Missourians misunderstood Amendment 2 and that we were uneducated about it.

I understood completely that my rights as a Missouri patient were at stake and that the most promising research in the 21st century is early stem-cell research.

After studying the amendment and researching somatic-cell nuclear transfer, I am 100 percent confident that the amendment bans any attempt to clone a human being.

What Bartle and Lembke are doing is nothing more than an attempt to push their failed agenda of banning stem-cell research in our state. If they choose for their families not to participate, that is their choice — and they should have the right to make that choice. But they should not take the choice out of our hands. Missourians have spoken. We want this research.

Joe Rhea
Raytown

Amendment 2

It appears that Edward Fulton (12/10, Letters) has it completely backwards: Amendment 2 in Missouri does, indeed, protect the cloning of human embryos.

Most Americans are opposed to the creation of embryos for the express purpose of destroying them, and — once Missourians learned that this is the true goal of Amendment 2 — support for it dropped sharply.

Whether a human embryo is a “baby” is a semantics game. What we do know from science textbooks and encyclopedia entries is that the embryo is nothing less than a human being. That millions of them fail to implant in the womb only means that they die of natural causes. Most people reading this will die of natural causes someday. Does that mean we’re not human beings?

The rest of the country has been keeping a close eye on Missouri and this blatantly deceptive amendment, and we are prepared to warn our areas when the same thing is attempted here.

Brian Gillin
Broomall, Pa.

Amendment 2

Letter writers have suggested that without the millions spent by the Stowers family, Amendment 2 would have failed. They’re wrong. Polls showed widespread early support. What undercut that support was the opponents’ concerted campaign of lies, half-truths and fear-mongering.

A letter to our local paper reached the depth of that campaign. The writer said Amendment 2 would allow the Stowers family “... to reap a fortune by killing babies.” That, I think, suggests the success of the opponents’ campaign. They were able to equate early stem-cell research with abortion and human cloning. Neither is true.

Millions of fertilized human eggs are discarded in one way or another every day. That’s not an exaggeration. During intercourse, for example, numerous eggs are (or can be) fertilized, but do not attach and are flushed away. Are those eggs babies?

Of course not. Similarly, many more eggs than are required are extracted and fertilized for in-vitro procedures. Once an implantation is successful, the extra eggs are discarded. Are those eggs babies? Of course not.

Early stem-cell research does not — and, by law, never will — result in a cloned human being. It is, therefore, not human cloning. Seems simple to me.

Edward Fulton
Camdenton, Mo.

Saving our loved ones

It seems that everyone has weighed in on the stem-cell amendment. I voted for it, not even considering the issue of cloning. Smart people know that cloning of humans will not be allowed. Let me tell you my reasoning.

My 39-year-old daughter died in July of breast cancer after a hard-fought five-year battle. My wonderful daughter had two small children and a great husband. The doctors just did not have the answers.

The dreaded chemo destroyed her bone structure, requiring a total hip replacement, and after years of chemo and radiation, we helplessly watched her pass from this world.

My conclusion is that if stem-cell research could have prolonged or cured my daughter of this dreaded disease, I personally don’t care if they clone a duck. We may be on the threshold of an important technology that could have saved my daughter’s life.

There is more to my story. Two weeks ago, my 16-year-old grandson was diagnosed with stage 3 Hodgkin’s disease. If stem-cell research has even the remote possibility of offering a cure for him, I want to proceed with it.

We should continue to support any technology that can reduce or eliminate the many dreaded diseases that take away our loved ones.

Jim Edwards
Jamesport, Mo.

Stem-cell research

What would you do?

Three stem-cell scenarios to consider:

1. Suppose a young woman, Terri, has a brain injury, incurable by modern medicine. Medical researchers collect a dozen of Terri’s eggs and a dozen of her skin cells and perform somatic cell nuclear transfer.

The cloned cells are incubated, stem cells harvested and injected into Terri’s brain. The stem cells do their work. In two to three months, Terri’s brain functions are being restored.

Would you say, “Yes, give her back a life,” or, “Sorry, Terri, that’s immoral. Stay on those machines”?

2. Suppose you are in a burning building. Down one hallway is 1-year-old baby, Timmy. Down another are 100 fertilized human eggs in Petri dishes. Would you save Timmy or the 100?

3. Suppose a fertilized egg in a Petri dish grows for weeks under ideal conditions. Its stem cells never differentiate, but they form a colorless film. Do you call it a human being?

Edward Lawless
Kansas City

Embryos are human

My heart is heavy with the news that Amendment 2 passed by a narrow margin. Now this evil is unleashed. My mind cannot comprehend the level of debauchery we have lowered to.

The fertilized human egg has 23 pairs of chromosomes, and the only creature with 23 pairs of chromosomes is a human being. So unless one’s conscience is so seared against the sanctity of life, an honest conclusion is that the fertilized egg is a baby from the moment of fertilization.

To add to this sadness it has been proven that if one family pumps enough money into it, a constitutional amendment can be bought. Missourians, you have been bought.

What is next? Will we decide who among our elderly can make a viable contribution to life and discard the rest?

God help us, and may he have mercy upon us.

Greg Gooch
Jasper, Mo.

Amendment 2

Cloning definition

How ironic that the unsigned pro-Amendment 2 editorial on Nov. 10 bashed the “deceptive campaign” against it. Ironic because Amendment 2 is advertised and written as “banning human cloning” when in fact it enshrines it in the state constitution. The amendment defines human cloning as implantation, which can in fact only take place after the cloned organism has been created.

David Greb
Merriam

Research faces obstacles

Your Nov. 10 article “Stem-cell efforts energized” (11/9, Business) implies that the use of embryos for stem-cell research as been determined in Missouri and, as a result, the scientific community is recruiting scientists to Missouri to engage in the controversial research.

That is bravado covering up the reality that the purpose of the proposed amendment — to enshrine in the constitution the right to destroy embryos to harvest their stem cells, in order to make Missouri a good place to do this research — has been defeated.

That the amendment passed by such a small margin and that its opponents have vowed to put its repeal on future ballots is a sure sign that the initiative failed in practical terms.

Investors and scientists looking for a place to do their research will recognize that, when almost half the voters in Missouri repudiated such research as immoral, they face years of opposition and litigation.

Jack Wiltrakis
Leawood

Amendment 2

No on Amendment 2

I am the mother of 15-month-old twins who are snowflake babies. A snowflake baby is one adopted as an embryo. The miracle of embryo adoption gave us the chance to have children when everything else failed.

Embryonic stem-cell research takes frozen human embryos (just like my twins when we adopted them) and destroys them for research.

These babies are alive, and they deserve a chance at life. They were not created to be destroyed. They are not leftovers that will be thrown away. They can be adopted.

The other piece of this amendment is somatic cell nuclear transfer. Embryos are created, allowed to live for several days and then destroyed. The promise is that they will not be implanted. So they are being created for destruction.

Is one life more precious than another? Could you take a life if it meant that you would live? If we do this, then what is next?

"A person's a person, no matter how small." If it can be put so simply as to be found in a Dr. Seuss children's book, why can't we adults understand it?

If you could see the beautiful faces of my children, you would vote no on Amendment 2.

Anna Burnett
Kansas City

With all the publicity and opinions on the upcoming constitutional amendments, I have not seen the process itself publicized.

The ability to amend the state constitution is to protect our rights and freedoms. The legislative process is used to make law. We elect people to represent us and bring issues before the legislative process. Several years ago, it became a popular process to amend the constitution for special-interest issues. These amendments circumvent the legislative process.

Constitutional amendments, regardless of the merit of the cause or topic, are a dangerous way of making law. Funding is not identified and often causes great harm later when the cost and funding sources have not been determined.

I urge you to vote no on all constitutional amendments. Worthy causes and issues should be made law by the method established for this purpose.

J. Riley
Prairie Village

Yes on Amendment 2

My grandmother has multiple sclerosis. My memories of my grandmother are different from most children's.

I remember: a wheelchair; climbing on her counter to reach the cabinets for her; moving her into our house; our hallways being too small for her to get to my room; running to get my dad when she had fallen; moving her to a nursing home; trips to the hospital; having to feed her because she could not feed herself; and the look on her face from having to ask.

My grandmother is a witty, intelligent, caring person who for 35 years has watched her body stop working. She is my hero. She has more hope than I could in her situation.

Because I love my grandma, I am voting yes for stem-cell research.

Think about your life. Is there someone in it who has MS, Alzheimer's, cancer, diabetes or another devastating illness? Then you should vote yes, too.

This is not a cloning amendment. This is a life-saving, life-changing, memory-making amendment.

Please think about it, pray about it, do the right thing for the people you love. 

Amber Odneal
Kansas City

The Missouri Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative ensures that any stem-cell research allowed under federal law can be conducted in Missouri and that stem-cell therapies and cures permitted under federal law will be available to Missouri patients. It criminalizes human cloning.

As a physician and a pro-life Catholic, I believe we need to let the scientists continue their search for cures through all types of stem-cell research, adult and embryonic. As an ophthalmologist, I believe embryonic stem cells offer hope for degenerative eye diseases.

Legislative threats to ban and criminalize the most promising types of stem-cell research are wrong. We don't need politicians in Jefferson City attempting to restrict our access to federally approved research and deciding which medical treatments we are allowed to have.

Decisions about medical research and treatments should be made by researchers, doctors, patients and their families - not by politicians who want to impose their own religious views on others.

John C. Hagan III, MD
Editor, Missouri Medicine: The Journal of the Missouri State Medical Association
Kansas City

Amendment 2

Against Amendment 2

As a cancer survivor, I realize the importance of finding cures for life-threatening illnesses. I am in favor of using thorough research on adult stem cells and cord blood taken from the birth of infants.

We need to exhaust all other potential means of finding prevention and cures before we consider using stem cells from live human embryos.

Call it what you may - creating an embryo in a laboratory is cloning. I have an aversion to using a cloned, live human embryo as a laboratory animal.

Sandra L. Miller
Gladstone

So The Star felt compelled to publish a second endorsement of Amendment 2 in only nine days (10/30, "Vote yes for promising research").

Here's an idea: publish the entire 2,000-word amendment so that people can decide for themselves. Be sure to include the "preamble" by the Missouri secretary of state, which gives a litany of the sections of our state constitution that might be "changed, repealed or modified." And describe what those existing sections are so that voters will know exactly what is at stake.

Maria Gillcrist
Kansas City

For Amendment 2

My husband, Ron Bryant, was diagnosed with ALS (Lou Gehrig's disease) in February 2004. ALS is a progressive, fatal disease that attacks the motor neurons that control the muscles in the body.

Ron's first symptoms were difficulty in swallowing and slurred speech, followed by loss of muscle control in his arms. This left him unable to talk or swallow or to use his hands to write or type. A feeding tube was necessary.

This disease does not affect the brain, so Ron was totally aware of his death sentence and his deteriorating condition. It also does not affect the nerves with which a body feels. Imagine not being able to scratch an itch or move to a more comfortable position. He needed care 24 hours a day. He hated to be a burden.

Although Ron participated in a drug trial, there is still only one very expensive drug that is known to have any effect on the disease. That drug extends a victim's life by months.

Ron passed away May 25, 2006, at the age of 52. So please, for the sake of all PALS (People with ALS) vote yes for Amendment 2. It is too late for Ron, but stem-cell research provides hope for others.

Jan Bryant
Liberty

No doubt Catholic and Baptist clergy described in The Star (10/28, A-1, "Faith leaders take on politics") believe they are saving babies in their electoral crusade against stem-cell research.

But virtually all embryos needed for such research are unused by-products of fertility clinics, where most will be discarded anyway.

Imagine an embryo much smaller than the period at the end of this sentence. Put it beside a child with a genetic disease, an adult with Parkinson's or Lupus, who could be saved with therapies derived from stem cells. How can it be immoral to save people's lives with something otherwise headed for the waste basket?

If those excess fertility clinic embryos are indeed "babies," why don't the clergy picket the clinics? Sadly, the only "babies" these faith leaders care to save are those scientists use to benefit human lives.

In this, it's not the scientists but the Catholic and Baptist clergy who have chosen the immoral course.

Charles Hammer
Shawnee

Amendment 2

Pro Amendment 2

There are two forms of truth. One is the bed-rock truth demonstrated by science. The second is biblical truth demonstrated by theologians. Many times there is enormous distance between the two.

Some churches today preach that life begins when the egg is fertilized. Biology teaches life begins when the fertilized egg is attached to the uterus. Both teachings are correct. It is all in your point of reference.

Females produce many eggs during each cycle. Several may be fertilized and never get implanted. Are these humans? Not in my thinking. They are flushed out.

So where are the moral impediments to embryonic stem-cell research? Which truth will you accept when you vote?

Please vote your conscience.

John O. Johnson
Warrensburg, Mo.

Some opposing Amendment 2 suggest it is filled with deception and nefarious intent. Are we to suppose those proposing the amendment are mad scientists operating in wicked laboratories intent upon creating clonal Frankensteins?

Or is it possible that those seeking to protect the rights of all Missourians are just good and decent people who want nothing more than to be allowed, without annual threat of legislative criminalization, to do the hard work of scientific inquiry to find treatments and cures for diseases and injuries that continue to exasperate conventional medical technology?

I have read and reread the proposed amendment. I do not find the contemptible intent or immoral behavior attributed to the amendment supporters and scientists by those who so aggressively oppose it.

Alas, what I find offered by those who oppose Amendment 2 is deception, deceit, fear-mongering, factual inaccuracies and intentionally misleading assertions.

Rufus Runnels
Kansas City

A few religious sects are staunchly opposed to medical intervention in the case of illness, preferring instead to depend upon prayer to do the healing. Their devotion to “God’s will” has led to the deaths of many children — all because their parents refused to seek medical treatment for them.

If these religious beliefs were imposed as law upon the rest of society, there would be no hospitals. It could be made a crime to practice medicine.

I see no difference between these religious fanatics and those who vote against stem-cell research.

If you are so against this medical advancement, don’t give your dying loved ones any cures that may be discovered from this science.

Marc Miller
Kansas City

Anti Amendment 2

Former embryos of Missouri unite and defeat Amendment 2 on Tuesday’s ballot.

Why? Approval would give the Stowers Institute for Medical Research “permission” to destroy developing human beings — embryos. Each one of us was once an embryo. This to provide human embryonic stem cells as research material.

The Stowers plan does have a noble aim: to help cure a host of human ills. Moral problem: The means requires destruction of developing human beings.

The Stowers laboratory would create vast numbers of human embryos, nurture their growth for several days, then remove their stem cells, destroying the embryos.

Killing innocent, developing humans isn’t right. What is right is killing Amendment 2.

Rick Gutknecht
Prairie Village

A letter to the editor (10/27) asks, “Has anyone read the wording in Amendment 2? … Why say it is a license to clone when the wording of the amendment says differently?”

Having read the wording in Amendment 2, the answer to her question is that Amendment 2 changes the definition of cloning based on intent.

If the process (somatic cell nuclear transfer) is intended only for reproductive purposes — the end being the birth of a human baby — then it is defined as cloning and is prohibited. If the same somatic cell transfer is performed only for the purpose of harvesting of embryonic stem cells for medical research purposes, then the process is not defined as cloning for the purposes of this amendment.

The core issue is whether human life begins at conception or at some later point. To those who believe that life begins at conception, somatic cell transfer creates a human life, regardless of intent, and the harvesting of stem cells destroys a human life.

Irl A. Gladfelter
Kansas City

Amendment 2

No to Amendment 2

I found your story concerning the group of African-American ministers endorsing Amendment 2 to be very lopsided (10/28, Local, “Amendment gets support of black pastors”).

The headline gives the impression that a large number of ministers are supporting this amendment to the Missouri Constitution. Yet I know in Grandview a similar number, at least, are strongly opposed to this amendment.

I would welcome coverage of our opposition, which could include a signed letter from us in the Jackson County Advocate.

Alan Kinder
Pastor, Central Free Will Baptist Church
Grandview

If the editors of The Star think the right to clone human life belongs in the Missouri Constitution, then say so. But don’t presume to tell the public that Amendment 2 would “outlaw attempts to clone human beings.”

Supporters of the amendment, including the writer of The Star’s recent editorial in support of it, have created their own definition of cloning, and they contend that the amendment bans it. But public discussion of the issues requires that we agree on the meanings of the words.

On your own news pages, in scientific and public discussion around the world, somatic cell nuclear transfer means cloning. Amendment 2 is all about promoting SCNT for therapeutic purposes. So Amendment 2 promotes cloning.

Creative use of the meanings of words was funny in Alice in Wonderland, but not on the editorial page and in the proposed Missouri constitutional amendment.

Ernest P. Davis
Kansas City

Yes to Amendment 2

Watching the recent ads featuring Mike Sweeney and other celebrities campaigning against Missouri’s stem-cell initiative brings one thing home again, and that is the “do as I say, not as I do” conservative Republicans.

I doubt the people featured in the commercial would stop short of doing anything in the world to save the life of one of their own children, including going to another country for stem-cell treatments. They have the monetary means to do this but would deny others the same.

I urge Mr. Sweeney and the other parents in this ad to look in the mirror and say that they would let a child die rather than seek these treatments. If the answer is yes, may God help them.

Dennis Burgess
Prairie Village

I am old enough to remember when the argument about the beginning of human life centered on “ensoulment”: the moment at which the soul entered the human body.

Some believed it happened when the heart began beating or the brain began functioning. Others said it was at “quickening,” the second or third trimester, or when the infant drew its first breath (an argument that could be supported by the Bible). All of the greatest minds of history — scientists, theologians, and philosophers — couldn’t agree.

Isn’t it amazing that many people only believe scientific research when it supports their religious beliefs? Some believe they have the only truth and that it should be forced on everyone else. Grrr!

Passing Amendment 2 will allow research to proceed without the fear that every year the battle will have to be fought again and again. Who would invest in that?

J. Kay Shevling
Edwardsville

Amendment 2

Stem-cell research ads

Juxtaposing the image during the recent ballgame of three healthy professional athletes — for whom a blister on the throwing hand or a pain in the back is news — against the image of Michael J. Fox’s body ravaged by Parkinson’s disease speaks eloquently in favor of stem-cell research in Missouri (10/29, Sports, “Politicians try to talk a good game: Candidates don’t hesitate to jump on a team’s bandwagon or make athletes part of campaign”).

The image of the boyish Mr. Jim Talent against the image of the boyish Mr. Fox, for whom simply standing still has become war, speaks eloquently about stem-cell research as well.

Add to those the image of Rush Limbaugh’s boorish antics imitating Fox on his program, and it is easy to see how out of touch with realty these fanatics have grown.

These images make me wonder how Yankee great Lou Gehrig would have voted on stem-cell research. Healthy young athletes: How would they vote if tomorrow they were at war with Parkinson’s or Lou Gehrig’s disease?

John Lofflin
Kansas City

Rich Republicans have always told poor people that they should be happy with their lots in life. So why should we be surprised to see able-bodied Republican athletes telling us that sick people don’t need stem-cell research?

Britt King
Independence

The Michael J. Fox ad for Claire McCaskill smacks of exploitation and desperation, and reinforces the public’s perception of Democrats as the party of victims.

David Hicks
Bonner Springs

If Rush Limbaugh had a relative with Parkinson’s disease, or if he had it himself, he would not ridicule Michael J. Fox.

My husband had Parkinson’s for 35 years, and it was not a happy sight to see him being eaten up by this disease.

If Mr. Limbaugh had ever attended a Parkinson’s support group, he would have seen many people in Mr. Fox’s condition. Whether or not he had taken his medicine, the condition is still there.

Mr. Limbaugh may have apologized, but he should be ashamed of himself for the way he acted on TV. He is lucky that he never had to face this awful disease.

Zelda Cohen
Leawood

Scientific ethics

What does it say about scientific integrity that we now use multimillion-dollar political campaigns and a parade of hopeful but suffering people to determine where the lines of scientific ethics are drawn? How can we trust the words of the so-called scientists who tell us that a growing human embryo is not actually a human embryo, that somatic cell nuclear transfer, the cloning methodology known as SCNT, is not actually cloning, or that stem-cell cures are imminent based on a positive outcome of the election (Vote yes and be cured)?

Where does this sliding scale of science-by-popular-opinion end? Where will it take us next?

Dan Naden
Gardner

Look at the living

It seems to me that the scientific issue of stem-cell research has been unluckily caught up in the controversies over cloning and right to life.

It is not necessary to determine the true definition of cloning or to resolve the question of whether a microscopic cluster of cells is in fact a whole human being. Rather, one need only compare the practical value of these cells, which will otherwise be destroyed in the ordinary course, in relation to the actual human suffering that stem-cell research may prevent.

Consider Dominic, my beloved grandson, age 9, who has Type 1 diabetes. He must be ever so careful with his diet and inject himself with insulin four or more times a day. Even so, and with the very best care available, he and his parents face the real prospect of his future blindness, amputation, nerve damage, organ failure and early death.

Don’t confuse the issues. Please vote yes on Amendment 2.

Joe Williams
Kansas City

Amendment 2

Let people choose

As a survivor, I can attest to what a positive attitude, will to survive and prayer can overcome. But I also realize that survival is largely a result of genetic research and medical advancements.

I watched my father die of Parkinson’s disease, and his mother and grandmother die of Alzheimer’s disease. For my family, stem-cell research is critical for the advancement of medical treatments that can provide hope and ultimately life to millions of Americans.

People whose ethics do not believe in it will always retain their right to practice their beliefs and, with their physician and their God, make choices that are right for them.

I believe every child deserves a loving home with parents who are responsible for providing them with very best possible advantages in life. I believe parenting requires of us to want better for our children than we had for ourselves. A vote in favor of the stem-cell initiative is the most ethical thing I can do for my children.

Tauy L. Scott
Weston

Disagreement confuses

We, the people of Missouri, are being asked to vote on the stem-cell issue. I find the TV ads very confusing.

Supposed experts are willing to assert that their views are correct and that this issue must pass or not pass for the betterment of the Missouri resident.

Question: Since the experts disagree, how then are we as ordinary people to know how to vote on this issue?

Why are citizens even asked to vote on an issue that we know very little about?

What good can come of an election derived from voters with more emotion that knowledge?

Arthur Harnish
Liberty

Practice what you preach?

For those of you who are going to vote against the stem-cell initiative, I have one question: When the Californians, Koreans, Chinese or whomever develop cures for juvenile diabetes, Parkinson’s or Alzheimer’s using stem cells, are you going to have the same moral backbone and deny those treatments for you and your loved ones, considering where they came from? I doubt it.

One more question: I wonder whether stem cells can cure hypocrisy. I doubt that even more.

Jason Dixon
Gladstone

Defining cloning

While accusing opponents of Missouri Amendment 2 of distortions and falsehoods in its recent editorial, The Star condemns itself, as it echoes the deceptions in the ballot initiative it endorses.

For one, the amendment says it bans human cloning but changes the definition of cloning to mean implantation of a cloned (SCNT-created) embryo in a uterus.

A new human life results when 23 chromosome pairs of human DNA are initiated to begin development, regardless of location (fallopian tube or laboratory dish) or destiny.

When the intended “use” is destruction within 14 days to harvest stem cells, an ethical boundary is breached.

Society has the responsibility of setting ethical parameters. Within those parameters, adult stem cells show success, and researchers are striving to develop ways of obtaining cells with all the potential hoped for in embryonic stem cells yet without harming embryos.

Science is not so impotent as to have to cut ethical corners to achieve medical breakthroughs, but Amendment 2 is just such compromise, showing disrespect both for science and the intrinsic moral value of human life.

Dennis D. Matthews
Kansas City, Kan.

Amendment 2

Stem-cell research

I’m one of thousands of adult children with a parent suffering whose parent suffers from Alzheimer’s disease. While my siblings and I watch this disease take over our mother’s personality, advanced benefits from stem-cell research gives me hope that someday there will be a cure — not in time for our mother, but perhaps for the next generation.

Amendment 2, the Stem Cell Initiative, if passed, would could provide wonderful advances in future stem-cell cures for the next generation.

It will could help save and improve the quality of lives of many fellow Missourians with many serious diseases.

Vote on Nov. 7 and vote yes on Amendment 2.

Gina Bowman-Morrill
Kansas City

God creates life

As a child I spent a lot of summers at my grandmother’s home. Grandma loved chickens, and she had a large chicken house and pen. I loved to gather the eggs each morning. Grandma always let roosters run with the hens so she could have baby chicks each spring.

When cracking open the eggs, I could not tell a fertilized egg from an unfertilized egg unless a hen had been setting on the egg for a few days. If a hen had been setting on it, there would be a large bloody spot on the yolk. This bloody spot was the start of life, but it certainly was a long way from becoming a live chick.

A fertilized egg is not life; it has the potential for life. Many things must happen to a fertilized egg before it is life.

I do not believe man can create life in a laboratory, but he can produce a fertilized human egg. Many things must happen to that egg before God gives it life. To call a fertilized egg life is a short step away from calling all human eggs life, therefore preventing all types of birth control. Only God can create life.

Betty Lewis
Kansas City

Don’t support cloning

The Star editorial supporting the stem-cell amendment says it is not cloning. The writer said, “The procedure in question involves fusing a human egg cell with the nucleus of an ordinary body cell to create a ball of about 200 cells in a laboratory dish. That organism cannot undergo the process that causes cells to form a human embryo unless it is implanted in a woman’s uterus.”

Correction: Thank you for calling it a human embryo. With permission to be born alive in a womb, that ball of 200 cells is a clone of the donor whose cell was put into the egg. If they had not implanted Dolly in the uterus of a sheep, she would have died in the petri dish, too. Petri dish or womb, a clone is a clone is a clone. That clone is then killed for embryonic stem cells. End of story. Vote no on Amendment 2.

Fran Cobb
Kansas City

Amendment 2

Other options

As one who will be voting against Amendment 2, I would like to say I, too, have the same health problems others have, and I too, long for cures.

Recently, when a new granddaughter arrived, we joined her parents (financially), in assuring that the umbilical cord blood would be saved. A process, incidentally, that almost all obstetricians are prepared to do. We subsequently received a call saying that from that one birth approximately 660 million stem cells were harvested! It was an unusually high count, we were told, but from every harvesting of cord blood, there are at least 100 million cells banked.

From adult stem-cell research, which includes stem cells from umbilical cord blood, placenta, bone marrow and other cells, 65 illnesses have been treated successfully. From embryonic stem cells: none.

Two questions then: 1) why subject women to the risky and repugnant practice of egg harvesting? And 2) is the sinister, hidden agenda merely a money maker as Roe v. Wade has been?

Shirley Smith
Blue Springs

Immoral research

Whether embryonic stem-cell research is “cloning” is irrelevant. People should be aghast at the immorality of any experimentation on embryonic human life, which Amendment 2 promotes.

The biotech industry argues that these cells are not live humans until they are implanted in a woman’s uterus. But they are obviously alive, or biologists would not study them. They are obviously human, as their DNA is human and unique (or at least a clone of DNA that was initially unique). And they are the nascent cells of a human being.

For it is the very embryonic nature of these cells, their ability to diversify into the full complexity of a human being, that enthralls the biotech industry. That the embryo cannot survive long outside its natural environment, a woman’s womb, does not justify deliberately creating and then destroying embryos in the name of dubious scientific progress.

All such research is immoral, and it should not be protected by law.

Kyle K. Wetzel
Lawrence, Kan.

Who would choose to suffer?

Can we be hypothetical for a moment? Let’s imagine that with the advent of stem-cell research a cure for Parkinson’s disease is achieved 30 years from now and with the administration of a single vaccine, a patient with this neurologic crippler can be cured. I wonder how many patients stricken with Parkinson’s, who were so strongly against stem-cell research at its inception, would opt to deteriorate, suffer and eventually succumb to the disease rather than receive the vaccine. Probably not too many.

Ellen Hermance
Harrisonville

Stem-cell debate

Regarding all the negative stem-cell letters to the editor recently, I would like to ask: has anyone actually read the wording in Amendment 2?

There are some who actually think it means scientists are actually going to go out and clone humans, and that is all that the amendment is about. Amendment 2, Section 38(d)2.(1) states: “No person may clone or attempt to clone a human being.” Subsection 3. says: “Any person who knowingly and willfully violates in this state subdivision (1)[stated above regarding no cloning] of subsection 2 of this section commits a crime and shall be punished by imprisonment for a period of up to fifteen years or by the imposition of a fine of up to two hundred fifty thousand dollars, or by both....”

That means there is a penalty for cloning humans. If you read the amendment further, you will read all the definitions of blastocyst, clone or attempt to clone, and other definitions. Why say it is a license to clone when the wording of the amendment says differently?

Betty Grammer
Raymore

Amendment 2

Vote for human life

We have a great opportunity on Nov. 7 to stand up for human life.

How dangerous would it be to legislate that human life is expendable at any stage of development?

Amendment 2 will allow “somatic cell nuclear transfer,” which is a scientific name for cloning where the embryo is kept outside the womb. Amendment 2 only bans cloning that implants the embryo inside the womb.

Do we believe that the desire of the creator is the termination of life for an unethical cure? Or rather, does our hope lie in a creator who takes care of his children with moral and ethical means of healing?

Let’s unite with many Missourians and vote no on Amendment 2 but yes for life!

Brian Schmitz
Pleasant Hill

Stem cells: adult and embryo

I would encourage your readers to go to the Family Research Council Web site (www.frc.org) and order the new, free six-minute DVD stem-cell primer “Beyond Hype to Real Hope.” Also on the Web site, the Oct. 14 “Washington Watch Weekly” radio show was about the Missouri stem-cell issue, and there are many facts available about stem cells by clicking on “Life and Bioethics.”

Adult stem cells may show great promis