How strange that those rallying "Against Human Cloning" are fighting a bill that sets limitations to "ban human cloning or attempted cloning" (actual ballot language). But I guess such inconsistencies are expected from those who think embryonic disposal is as sinful as abortion, yet simultaneously overlook how excess frozen eggs from fertility clinics likely to be used for embryonic stem-cell research would otherwise continue to be disposed.

those against the amendment contend that "ban human cloning or attempted cloning" does not ban Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT), the same procedure that resulted in Dolly the sheep (baaa baaa) (i.e., a clone). Indeed, those against the amendment or mighty ticked off in what they view as deliberate misrepresentation in the ballot language. I myself have yet to sift through the language and related info-pieces to reach a personal understanding (and not confident I'll get there, what with the triangulation between politics, religion and law).

Regarding the alleged inconsistency, in general, those against cloning, abortion, etc. etc. ain't real hip on fertility clinics to begin with. If given the ability, I'm guessing a goodly number in this camp would like fertility clinics closed down also. (i.e., I'm not sure they *are* comfortable with or overlooking of embryonic disposal)

Finally, the comment "those who think embryonic disposal is as sinful as abortion" is an understandable, but perhaps slight oversimplification of ethical sentiments. Most would likely agree that stealing a candy bar and fleecing stock holders of millions of dollars are both essentially wrong behaviors. With similar ease, most would agree that the intensity of the above wrongs are vastly different. If I had to guess, and I have no empirical numbers to back it up - more, although not all and maybe not most, in the 'pro-life' camp are willing to hold their nose to fertility clinics given the intentions of the endeavor (i.e., help folks conceive children) vs. the superficially more clear intention behind terminating a pregnancy vs. a procedure that smacks of embryo harvesting. Or perhaps the pro-life camp figures that they don't have the backing to muster an offensive against fertility clinics? Just like most pro-choicers have accepted limitations to abortion on demand? I don't really know.

anyway, a few sites if you are interested in what those opposing the amendment are saying...

http://www.nocloning.org/default.html

http://www.family.org/cforum/votenocloning/home.html

Lucas--that's the wrong street--it's wrong on BSL--it's actually Gravois.

Joe--the thing is if one believes that each embryo is a human life as many have asserted, then the only consistent thing to do would be to go after in-vitro clinics since they will "kill" far more embryos than will embryonic stem cell research. It's absolutely illogical to allow the process that produces 'human beings' to be discarded to go forward before opposing the research on the byproduct of that process.

Alan Keyes is against in-vitro and is perfectly consistent as is the ArchBishop. However, targeting embryonic stem cell research instead of in-vitro clinics is a bizarre choice if you believe as they do.

Never mind that 1/4 to 1/3 of all embryos are expelled automatically from women making God the biggest abortionist....

I would honestly rather get a root canal while watching "Snakes on a Plane," than attend this rally. Stem Cell research is not cloning. Let's stop playing playing politics with the advancement of science.

Archpundit, in the land of politics, agendas and human behavior, I would hope to never presume logic or consistency. But, likewise, I wouldn't say either that God is the mastermind behind countless genocides because people die every day.

I do appreciate the discussion. It prompted me to find the following that I found helpful (from the KC Star 08/21/06, regarding Kansas; full article, http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/local/15326827.htm ...

"The funding ban Barnett [Republican nominee for Governor Kansas] supported was broad enough to cover a process known as somatic cell nuclear transfer, or SCNT, in which the nucleus of an egg, with 23 chromosomes, is replaced with the nucleus of another cell, with the full contingent of 46 chromosomes.

After the cell begins to divide in a laboratory, researchers harvest its stem cells and discard the rest.

While it hasn't been used to create a human, such a process was used to clone a sheep in 1997.

'It's very, very well established in medical terminology all over the world that SCNT is cloning,' said Richard Chole, a professor of ear, nose and throat medicine at Washington University in St. Louis.

Supporters contend SCNT doesn't represent human cloning because the product isn't implanted in a womb and therefore couldn't develop into a human.

'I've been a born-again Christian for over 48 years,' said Bill Neaves, chief executive officer of the Stowers Institute. 'I am absolutely confident they are not a person and that they may be morally and ethically used to meet the Biblical mandate to heal the sick.'

The debate over embryonic stem cell research and cloning thus boils down to a relatively simple question: Does the growing entity created by SCNT - whether described as an embryo or as a cluster of cells - constitute a human being after a few days?

'There's only one reason why some people adamantly oppose this research and it is because they believe those few cells, or those few cells in a lab dish, are a person, no different than a child with diabetes, a teenager with leukemia or an adult with Parkinson's,' Neaves said.

Chole said the product of SCNT is human, even if it is 'a very small human.'

'What is the status of a five-day-old embryo?' he said. 'That's really not a scientific question, but that is THE question.'"

Joe back again - I also came across the following from SLU professor John Kavanaugh, re: THE question. (Interesting as, among other thing, he speaks to the type of inconsistency that Archpundit pointed out)

http://makeashorterlink.com/?F639213AD

There will be some of us out there to try to tell the truth about this, Come out and support LIFE SAVING CURES for ALL MISSOURIANS

"ProLife Cures", you actually need to *read* the ballot, to understand the language. Go read it yourself; it is easy enough to find.

The amendment RE-DEFINES cloning as "implantation in the womb of a clone with intent to bring to term" - NOT the accepted, scientific definition of "cloning".

Quite contrary to banning cloning, the amendment actually PROHIBITS THE BANNING of human cloning - again, per the *actual language* of the amendment.

These are not merely "allegations" or "claims" of those of us opposing the amendment. These are facts, clearly ascertained from a reading of the amendment language.

If you need it, I can point out section/clause, indicating exactly what I have pointed out.

Have the debate all you want - it is, after all, a vital part of a democratic society. But please, have the debate on a level playing field.

And, try to know what you're talking about, before regurgitating the propoganda of the Coalition.