urbanSTL

last i heard (from the catholics) it was 56% in favor... but the catholics were trying to change that.... so it might actually be more like 60% in favor.... but it has a good chance of passing.... or so i have heard..

markofucity wrote:... Everyone I talk to immediately says "I don't like clonig" ... I even had one guy ask me if I would like to meet myself walking down the street ...... its just a hard thingt to sell to people.

Matt, it never ceases to amaze me how people (like the ones you mention) can think so uncritically. Jeez? Do people really think this is about "cloning" people? Do they really expect to see their doppelganger walking down the street?



I think deep down even the people who aren't in the sciences know better. Common sense tells you that's not what this research is about.



((Sorry all -- I guess I'm drifting OT. But it IS important. If we want to invest in an industry, we need to make sure the political environment exists in which that industry can thrive in our state!))

markofucity wrote:I must say I'm not very optimistic that it will pass. Everyone I talk to immediately says "I don't like clonig" ... I even had one guy ask me if I would like to meet myself walking down the street ...... its just a hard thingt to sell to people.

What's interesting is that the average idiot citizen has been conditioned to parrot the words "I'm against human cloning", and not a single one has ever been able to present a valid reason why cloning is "bad".

I did a quick google search looking for poll numbers and I found a few - though none of them had a very large sample size (I'm no statastician - but I undestand thats bad) ..... anyway the gist seemd to be that the ammendment had about a 10% lead amongst liekly voters and now its down to single digits - with the margin for error making it too hard to call.



I really don;t want to get into a big political debate here - so I'd like to keep the discussion upon the odds of passage .... I just don't see this passing. It kills me to say that because I'm very much for it but this issue is going to energize the conservative base - they'll come out JUST to vote on this issue. The other side simply doesn't have that passion .... I wish they did .... but thats my opinion.

^ I don't know - I've been amazed by the energy of the vote 'yes' side. One example: Wash U's dean recently sent a letter to all students, faculty and staff asking them to vote 'yes' on 2 and 3.

What's amazing to me is that no one has stopped to educate themselves on the matter. I was at a party over the weekend and a few people who are religious fundamentalists were talking about the issue and asking each other questions like, "Would a clone be considered human?" I'm laughing to myself at the stupidity of their questions. I've also had conversations with people who said they are voting no because their church simply told them to. As Tysalpa said, do you really think that the issue is about growing human's and one day we'll see ourselves hanging out at a bar somewhere? This is about stem cell research, finding cures using a very promising technology. Let's move past the 16th century witch hunt mentality and look at the issue for what it is. Once upon a time it was considered wrong and immoral to dissect the human body.



Sorry, I l know I'm OT AND I'm new here, so I don't really have the levity to go on a soapbox. I apologize if anyone is offended.

I put a "yes" sign in my front yard, and literally the next day, a "no" sign popped up in my neighbor's yard (her car contains no fewer than four anti-abortion bumper stickers and numerous magnetic ribbons) the next day. We're convinced that she even angled the sign so that it's pointing right at our house!

Here's the way I've always understood it - maybe some more knowledgable poeple out there can confirm or deny ..... (sad that we have to do this but our news coverage is pathetic)



I've always understood that a substantial majoroty of the population -0 even here - is pro-stem cell research - but that the anti-minority is considerably more vocal and motivated (IE they come out and vote in a far greater percentage).

markofucity wrote:Here's the way I've always understood it - maybe some more knowledgable poeple out there can confirm or deny ..... (sad that we have to do this but our news coverage is pathetic)



I've always understood that a substantial majoroty of the population -0 even here - is pro-stem cell research - but that the anti-minority is considerably more vocal and motivated (IE they come out and vote in a far greater percentage).

I am not more knowledgeable, but I believe I've heard the same thing. I think that more people view this ammendment in terms of lifesaving cures as opposed to cloning.

In an attempt to relate this issue directly to CORTEX - I'm not convinced that if the amendment is not added that economic disaster awaits. Life-Science research is more than embryotic stem cells and CORTEX could focus on any number of other areas.



I understand the issue to be a judgement of when human life begins. I think the issue can also accurately be characterized as a judgement of one's moral beliefs regarding - ALL life is sacred v. it's imperative to help the sick and poor.



There will always be relatively uneducated discussions, responses and beliefs when an issue such as this is talked about, but there are legitimate views on both sides.



The ads now on TV can be seen as exploitive for both sides - the charge that humans will be cloned ignites fear while being correct by definition. Of course cloning goes on everyday with adult stems cells, skin grafts for burn victims, etc. and no one's put together a grand coalition to fight this. It's also not entirely accurate to portray victims of Parkinson's, diabeties and other diseases as being denied treatment and hope. We could cure many more diseases if we could just experiment on living humans, but that would be ethically wrong. This is why I think the question in the first paragraph is the essence of the issue.



Re: CORTEX, almost all of the medallions/ornamentation has been removed from the old building that will become the site for Solae. The wearhouse further south has been gutten and will most likely be down very soon as well.

by the way .... what does "OT" mean. People keep saying "I'm OT" on this thread. Its only two letters and I still can't figure it out.



And for what its worth ... I'm always amazed by the sources people choose for their facts. I was talkign about this with my freind the other night - who is very anti-stem cell - and he started making scientific arguments based on statements he's read from the Catholic Church. Then he actually starting referncing pronouncements from Jeff Suppan and Kurt Warner. Call me crazy - and I am a Catholic - but they're nto exactly the ones I would go to for scientific pronouncements. If I recall correctly, it took them until the sixties to admit that the Earth revolved around the sun.

^ OT = off topic

Thanks for the OT explanation ....



and yes - I see the point made above. It is a debate about when an entity becomes fully human, with all the legal protections that involves. That's the only real issue that underlies this issue and abortion. Problem is that I don;t beleive anyone can definatively answer that question. Its always going to be a matter of philisophic conjectrure. Society DOES have to make a choice though. What always gets me is that it seems as if we have ... abortion IS legal. It makes no sense to draw the "when does human life begin" line at different places on diffrent issues. If stem cell research cannot proceed because an embryo (or blastocyte) is a human being - then abortion cannot be legal when the pregnancy is voluntary and presents no undue threat to the mother. You can't have it BOTH ways. I'm not saying that the topic shouldn;t be debated - but the law should be consistent.

STLgasm wrote:If Amendment 2 fails I may have to move out of Missourah, and I'm sure other bright people will follow.

I said the same thing to my wife. Jokingly. Sort of.

STLgasm wrote:

If Amendment 2 fails I may have to move out of Missourah, and I'm sure other bright people will follow.





I said the same thing to my wife. Jokingly. Sort of.

Is this funny because of the moving part or the 'other bright people' (read: in addition to myself) part?

I don't believe we do justice to this issue by characterizing it as smart versus dumb people. There are intelligent and "intelligence defficient" people on both sides of this arguement.



As some have said, already, the dividing line is one primarily defined by philosophy and religious belief. In particular "when does human life begin," "when do we protect human life" versus "what do we do to save the sick." Intelligent people are always going to find reason to draw the line in different places.



If an embyro is human then it aught to be protected if not then there is no reason not to sacrifice an embyro to save a human life. If an embryo is human then making genetic copies of it is "human cloning" regardless if the law prevents such a clone from coming to full term and birth.

STLgasm wrote:
This is about progressive medical research. If Amendment 2 fails I may have to move out of Missourah, and I'm sure other bright people will follow.

DeBaliviere wrote:

STLgasm wrote:If Amendment 2 fails I may have to move out of Missourah, and I'm sure other bright people will follow.

I said the same thing to my wife. Jokingly. Sort of.

I hate to say it, but this will be a deal breaker for many people. This thing really makes me nervous.

If this Amendment passes, how will our tax dollars be used for this? Will we see public money invested in cortex?

^ potentially. As I understand it, universities and other groups could apply for federal research grants.



Of course, they can do this now, BUT the amendment has come about as a reply to those in the statehouse that seek to ban this type of research in the state. So Amendment 2 is a preemptive measure to prevent banning.

I personally know of a few researchers at Wash U who have moved on to California (Stanford I think) because they're leary about this issue ... they're not even working in it right now but they fear that they may evolve in that direction in the future ...

^

Wasn't that the doctor who had been working extensively with Christopher Reeve?



Has Fr. Biondi come out publicly for or against the ammendment? I'm guessing he's for it, despite the church's views.

The Christopher Reeve doctor was one of them .... I actually had to depose him and he went on a rant about the issue ....