Michigan Ballot for 2008: Proposal 2: Stem Cell Research

EDIT: Now that WordPress has a little option to put polls in your blog posts, I’ve added a poll at the bottom of my post (the end of the blog post, not the end of the comments).

Alright, as promised, I will now be discussing Michigan’s Proposal 2, “Proposal 2008-02: A proposed constitutional amendment to permit with certain limitations stem cell research in Michigan.”  My analysis of Proposal 1, which legalizes medicinal marijuana is available here.

So, let’s first take a look at the ballot language:

 Stem Cell Research Ballot Question Committee

Ballot Wording as approved by the Board of State Canvassers

August 21, 2008





The proposed constitutional amendment would:

  • Expand use of human embryos for any research permitted under federal law subject to the following limits: the embryos —

— are created for fertility treatment purposes;

— are not suitable for implantation or are in excess of clinical needs;

— would be discarded unless used for research;

— were donated by the person seeking fertility treatment.

  • Provide that stem cells cannot be taken from human embryos more than 14 days after cell division begins.
  • Prohibit any person from selling or purchasing human embryos for stem cell research.
  • Prohibit state and local laws that prevent, restrict or discourage stem cell research, future therapies and cures.


Should this proposal be adopted?

Yes o

No o


So that’s what will actually be on the ballot.  Here is  a copy of the actual amendments that will be made to the Michigan Constitution if this passes.  I’ll have my analysis throughout the amendments as well as a summary at the end:


A Proposal to Amend the Constitution of the State of Michigan by adding a new Article I, Section 27 as follows:

Article I, Section 27.

(1) Nothing in this section shall alter Michigan’s current prohibition on human cloning.

(2) To ensure that Michigan citizens have access to stem cell therapies and cures, and to ensure that physicians and researchers can conduct the most promising forms of medical research in this state, and that all such research is conducted safely and ethically, any research permitted under federal law on human embryos may be conducted in Michigan, subject to the requirements of federal law and only the following additional limitations and requirements:

(a) No stem cells may be taken from a human embryo more than fourteen days after cell division begins; provided, however, that time during which an embryo is frozen does not count against this fourteen day limit.

(b) The human embryos were created for the purpose of fertility treatment and, with voluntary and informed consent, documented in writing, the person seeking fertility treatment chose to donate the embryos for research; and

i. the embryos were in excess of the clinical need of the person seeking the fertility treatment and would otherwise be discarded unless they are used for research; or

ii. the embryos were not suitable for implantation and would otherwise be discarded unless they are used for research.

This is where I need to bring up a key flaw in the whole debate over embryonic stem cell research (ESCR).  You have the camp who opposes ESCR because they believe that life begins at conception, and I fall into this camp.  Then you have the camp who argues, “But they’re going to be discarded anyway.”  And this is where the ESCR opposition has somewhat failed.  Many don’t address this issue and simply say, “Well, we shouldn’t be doing research on them.”  That’s not the point.  The point needs to be that instead of making EXTRA embryos for in vitro fertilization, we should be making embryos AS NEEDED.  Sure, it’s costlier, but it doesn’t create embryos that will be destroyed.  Now, if you don’t believe that life begins at conception, then this point is irrelevant.  I just wanted to point out that the issue for pro-lifers should NOT be that ESCR is the problem, but that the creation of EXTRA embryos is the main problem.  Once we stop this, ESCR will become irrelevant.

(c) No person may, for valuable consideration, purchase or sell human embryos for stem cell research or stem cell therapies and cures.

Good provision.

(d) All stem cell research and all stem cell therapies and cures must be conducted and provided in accordance with state and local laws of general applicability, including but not limited to laws concerning scientific and medical practices and patient safety and privacy, to the extent that any such laws do not:

i. prevent, restrict, obstruct, or discourage any stem cell research or stem cell therapies and cures that are permitted by the provisions of this section; or

ii. create disincentives for any person to engage in or otherwise associate with such research or therapies or cures.

(3) Any provision of this section held unconstitutional shall be severable from the remaining portions of this section.

I understand that this is a common practice in proposals, but with this being such a small proposal, I think that if a section of this proposal is held unconstitutional, ESPECIALLY in section (2)(b), the whole proposal will become extremely weaker than initially intended.

Overall, I don’t like the proposal.  I don’t think we should be making ANY extra embryos, and justifying it by saying, “Well why let those embryos go to waste” will inhibit us from ending the bad practice of making excess embryos.

Plus, adult and umbilical stem cells have proven to be way more helpful than ESCs, which have given us NOTHING so far.

So, I’m sure you’ve guessed it by now–I will be voting “No” for this come November.  As of now, my prediction is that this proposal will fail with voters voting somewhere around 43-57%.

Done Ranting,

Ranting Republican
add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! ::


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

558 Responses to “Michigan Ballot for 2008: Proposal 2: Stem Cell Research”

  1. Sajad Says:

    You are obviously NOT familiar with the IVF process. Go do some research on it, then come rant about this proposal. Extra embryos are “discarded” ALL the time in nature as a natural consequence of natural fertilization.

  2. inkslwc Says:

    Are you talking about humans or animals? If you’re talking about humans, I think you mean sperm. There’s only one embryo created from fertilization in humans, because only one egg (normally, granted more if it’s twins or triplets, etc…) released per month (or about a month’s period of time).

  3. Karen Says:

    How would you go about deciding how many is too many in the IVF process? If ANY embryos are discarded instead of being available for research to save a life, then you have something about which to rant. It is also obvious to me that you must not have any loved ones with an incurable, terminal illness who you are depriving of hope.

  4. inkslwc Says:

    You create one embryo per couple. If it doesn’t work, make another embryo – 1 at a time.

    I’m not depriving anybody of hope. My hope is to save defenseless babies. And name me 1 cure they’ve found from embryonic stem cells.

  5. Jenn Says:

    The “ranting republican” is obviously under educated! Research is, and always has been, an important part of human development. One side argues that life starts at birth another side argues that it starts at conception. What is the harm in creating “novel” life forms to help those with hope for a cure. The point is not about when life begins; the people who are complaining just need something to complian about.

    Advances in medical science have been made because of procedures that some have considered unethical and immoral, but have become standard practices, once the scientific value has been discovered. For example, in the past, it was against the law (in some places) to perform an autopsy on a cadaver due to religious and moral reasons. In this day and age, autopsies have not only become common practice, in a majority of cases, it is required by law.

    As a woman who has had a voluntary tubal ligation after fulfilling my desired to have a family, I would be very willing to donate my eggs to science so that others can be treated for devastating illness or even prevent the illness altogether. There is so much that science can learn about the human body; they are making miraculous discoveries regularly. They make these discoveries because of the procedures that some consider immoral. The immorality has brought us vaccinations for devastating illnesses, cures for some of the conditions that used to be fatal, as well as many other advances too numerous to list. Next time you take your medication, vaccinate your child, or take antibiotics for an infection, don’t take this for granted; these are all advances in medical science that some may have considered to be of unsound judgment, but have been proven and may save your life, or maybe the life of a loved one someday.

    In the event of devastating illness, it would be great to see those who voted against the advancement of medical science get refused treatment, or at least, make sure anybody who voted for advancement would be treated/ vaccinated first. Then they would learn to complain only about what effects them directly!

  6. inkslwc Says:

    Performing autopsies and destroying embryos (human lives) are 2 different things. One is mutilating a dead body. The other is killing someboy.

    I take offense to the comment that I’m complaining simply to complain. Clearly, you are uneducated in not knowing my views.

    If you want, I’ll refuse treatment from embryonic stem cells. Of course, I doubt we’ll find many if any treatments, since umbilical stem cells and adult stem cells have proven MUCH more beneficial to science.

  7. Steve Says:

    “Clearly, you are uneducated in not knowing my views.”
    Now THAT is funny.
    “I doubt we’ll find many if any treatments, since umbilical stem cells and adult stem cells have proven MUCH more beneficial to science.”
    Can you provide a link to back this up? Can anyone provide a link to disprove it?

  8. inkslwc Says:

    Washington Street Journal (http://opinionjournal.com/columnists/rminiter/?id=95000857).

    Cures from adult stem cells (http://www.stemcellresearchfacts.com/cures_failures.html).

    Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity (http://www.cbhd.org/resources/stemcells/mcconchie_2004-06-16.htm)

    U.S. Liberal Politics on About.com (http://usliberals.about.com/od/stemcellresearch/i/StemCell1_2.htm): “Actual cures are many years away, though, since research has not progressed to the point where even one cure has yet been generated by embryonic stem cell research.”

    EDIT: Let me know if any of those links doesn’t work right – I had some problems posting the links in my comment.

  9. AL Says:

    Sajad, you sound like YOU don’t know about IVF. From my own personal experience with IVF, embryos are NOT always “discarded.” You are wrong. Not all clinics discard them. The majority of “defective” embryos die on their own in a short period and the rest are typically frozen for storage. If a couple chooses on their own to “discard” their embryos, they can sign papers to have either the clinic do it (if the clinic is willing to) or they can sign them out and discard them on their own. My clinic is a pro-life clinic and requires the couples to sign out the embryos and discard them on their own if they choose this option. As for the flat argument that an embryo is “not a living human being,” each viable embryo contains cells that “breathe”, and every cell that will become each part of the body (brain, eyes, heart, lungs, etc.) is already inside that embryo waiting for the chance to implant and develop in the womb. Recent research has shown that adult stem cells work more effectively at helping treat some illnesses. Alzheimer’s is a whole-brain disease and cannot be treated or cured with stem cells and neither can Parkinson’s disease, although you won’t hear special interest groups admit that.

  10. Jason Says:

    “Plus, adult and umbilical stem cells have proven to be way more helpful than ESCs, which have given us NOTHING so far.”

    They haven’t gotten anything from ESC because no one lets you research on them. There’s a reason researchers want to get access to them.

  11. inkslwc Says:

    Jason, researchers already have access to them. Don’t try to play the card. Even US Liberal (on About.com – see link above) doesn’t use that argument.

  12. Mohammad Says:

    This is a disgusting proposal and I will be voting no. This will also pick pocket the Michigan taxpayer.

  13. Deb Says:

    My Dad died too young of Parkinsons. My family suffered from his loss.

    My son’s friend was born with diabetes. His life suffers from this disease.

    I will be be voting in favor of this proposal.

  14. Tony Sidaway Says:

    The position for a pro-lifer is somewhat complex on this issue. The main problem is that the cells in question are blastocysts, not implanted cells.

    A blastocyst is literally a ball-shaped mass of some 70-100 cells formed around 3 days after conception, before implantation in the uterus. In the course of a normal life, a woman flushes many of these down the toilet (this is what makes the extreme “life begins at conception” argument absurd in my opinion).

    These cells are used in IVF all the time, and because of the techniques used there are always excess cells that normally end up in the incinerator. Proposal 2008-02 appears to me to be a commonsense suggestion that those cells can be used for research instead of being thrown into the incinerator.

  15. inkslwc Says:

    Tony, that’s what makes this issue so complex – what defines life. And without an agreement on that, it’s very hard to come to a consensus. Although I disagree with you, at least you’re coming at it very analytically.

  16. Jesse Says:

    Adult stem cells and Umbilical Stem cells have not yet proven to be MUCH more beneficial like inkslwc says. Adult stem cell research has been around for decades, bone marrow transplants, for example. It took 14 years before the first unsuccessful bone marrow transplant and the first successful bone marrow transplant. Embryonic stem cells were first isolated in 1998, it’s only been 10 years. Biomedical research usually has a frame of 10-30 years! All i’m saying is that time is a factor in this. Research should be allowed time to develop before putting a ban on it. If we were to ban research on other medical developments, then blood transfusions, cardiac bypass surgery, insulin therapy for diabetes, kidney dialysis, antibiotics, organ transplants would all never have happened. Just something to think about

  17. inkslwc Says:

    None of those therapies/procedures destroyed human lives in the process (other than accidents during trials, but test subjects went into that knowing that something could happen).

  18. Tony Sidaway Says:

    I don’t think it’s a good idea to get hung up on the word “life” here. All human tissue is alive. Really one should just say, “is this material likely to be misused?” If adequate controls to prevent abuse can be implemented (and this has already been done in the UK for instance) then use it. It’s not as if the embryos wouldn’t just be popped into the incinerator anyway.

  19. inkslwc Says:

    But your last sentence sums up my argument. These extra embryos should never be created to begin with.

  20. Tony Sidaway Says:

    So create just one embryo per IVF process, and attempt to successfully implant it? Fair enough, although this is not the normal technique and I’m not sure whether it would still produce acceptable success rates.

  21. inkslwc Says:

    Well it’s not the normal technique, and it’d be a lot costlier. But it all goes back to a definition of when life begins. If life begins at birth, it wouldn’t matter how many embryos were made, but if life begins at conception (as I’d argue), it does matter.

  22. Tony Sidaway Says:

    I agree that it’s a consistent position.

    So what about those blastocysts that fail to implant? Should sexually active Christian women give their vaginal discharge a Christian burial? I’m only half joking, because that seems to be the implication of your stance.

  23. inkslwc Says:

    Burial really has nothing to do with anything. It has to do with the soul that was in that lifeform. I could die right now and just be left in my room and it really wouldn’t matter (my roommates might mind though). Burial at that point is impractical only because of the size of the embryo, but I have known women who have had miscarriages (or still-born babies, I’m really not sure which it was defined as) and had a small private funeral).

  24. Tony Sidaway Says:

    MIscarriages and still-born babies are after implantation. The blastocyst is literally a ball made up of 70-100 cells.

  25. inkslwc Says:

    Right, which is why it’s impractal to have a full funeral. But funeral or not, that doesn’t mean that there’s not a soul. I could die on an island and never have a funeral. Nobody could ever know that I died, but I still have a soul.

  26. Tony Sidaway Says:

    The soul is a religious concept. I don’t think religious people generally recognise, but it does need to be said: not everybody thinks that a ball of cells, much less a human being, a mouse, or a lizard, has a soul.

  27. inkslwc Says:

    I realize that. But this all goes back to a matter of definitions of life. And that’s why I realize that we’re never going to agree on this. But to me, that’s not a reason to stop fighting for my cause, and I’m not arguing that because I disagree with you, that you should stop arguing for your beliefs either.

  28. Top Posts « WordPress.com Says:

    […] Michigan Ballot for 2008: Proposal 2: Stem Cell Research Alright, as promised, I will now be discussing Michigan’s Proposal 2, “Proposal 2008-02: A proposed […] […]

  29. Forproposal2 Says:

    Yes I think more research should be done on the process of IVF before saying extra embryos will purposely be created.

  30. inkslwc Says:

    What do you mean more research should be done on IVF? Research on IVF has nothing to do with how many embryos it needs. You only need one embryo for one baby (assuming that the procedure works the first time).

  31. deb Says:

    That too many embryos are created is not the issue with this proposal. Can you possibly do good with those that are created – even save LIVES? That is the issue. People are suffering out there, can we help them??? Can we try???

  32. inkslwc Says:

    But the point is. If you allow this proposal to pass, it gives an incentive to not stop making extra embryos.

    Look at driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants. Would it make roads safer? Probably, but it would also legitimize the practice of just allowing illegal immigrants to go unpunished.

    Extra embryo creation will never be stopped if we pass this proposal.

  33. Chad Says:

    It seems that, in reading the comments, many of the people for this proposal refuse to consider the abuse that this could create.

    I disagree, that 1 embryo for IVF is practical, however, they should only create as many embryos as they plan to implant. Typically, some of the implanted embryos do not become viable and are therefore discharged in the natural process. This should not, however, give license to make as many as we want with the underlying notion that any “extras” can be used for ESCR.

    BTW, I also have heard from many reputable sources that adult stem cells and umbilical stem cells have shown much promise, while, during the same time frame, nothing has come of the embryonic research, in the US or other countries.

    Count me as a NO vote.

  34. inkslwc Says:

    Chad, the 1 embryo scenario by me was a situation. If they know that they’ll need 2, then make 2. I’m just saying, don’t go around making all these extra embryos.

    And yes, adult and umbilical stem cells have shown much more promise, and they’ve already produced some cures.

  35. Tony Sidaway Says:

    I think we’re getting away from the issue. This proposition would not affect the way fertilization treatments work, it would only make it possible for women to donate surplus material from such treatment for the purpose of embryonic stem cell research, subject to ethical controls.

  36. inkslwc Says:

    But allowing for use of extra embryos makes it harder to eliminate the creation of extra embryos. Once people get used to something, it’s hard to change a law. If this proposal passes, it’d be very hard for a law that says “no extra embryos for IVF implantation” to pass.

  37. Jayne Says:

    Latest News

    In August 2005, Harvard University scientists announced a break-through discovery that fuses “blank” embryonic stem cells with adult skin cells, rather than with fertilized embryos, to create all-purpose stem cells viable to treat diseases and disabilities.
    This discovery doesn’t result in the death of fertilized human embryos, and thus would effectively respond to pro-life objections to embryonic stem cell research and therapy.

    Harvard researchers warned that it could take up to ten years to perfect this highly promising process.

    As South Korea, Great Britain, Japan, Germany, India and other countries rapidly pioneer this new technological frontier, the US is being left farther and farther behind in medical technology. The US is also losing out on billions in new economic opportunities at a time when our country sorely needs new sources of revenues.

    once again the U.S. is left behind due to our conservative religious views.

  38. inkslwc Says:

    If it doesn’t kill teh embryo, I’m ok with it – and I’ve heard religious people advocate for that method (although honestly I had completely forgotten about it unti you brought it up).

  39. AA Says:

    Three points to make:
    Mohammad Said
    “This is a disgusting proposal and I will be voting no. This will also pick pocket the Michigan taxpayer.”

    There is nothing in the proposal about using tax money to fund research. The proposal simply allows for research to be done in the state of Michigan with a few restrictions. Most funding comes from private organizations and charities that want to promote research in the field. However state funding may eventually come in the form of grants and facilities created for many other reasons.

    2. The amount of fertility clinics in the U.S. as well as the number of IVFs performed is probably one of the main reasons researchers want to use U.S. Embryos. Another reason is the diversity of genetics available in the U.S. The U.S. is fairly unique in the makeup of the population providing far more variation in the types of embryos.

    3. The IVF procedure is already expensive and to increase it by reducing the number of embryos for implantation is very illogical and inefficient use of resources. Success rate for these procedures ranges from 30% to 60% per attempt depending on the clinic. No doubt reducing the numbers would severely undercut this rate that many clinics struggle to achieve. The pain of waiting is something I have seen on many couples. To suggest attempting to reduce the embryos when they struggle to achieve this rate seems ludicrous. If they are ever able to bump that success rate up to 95% I’ll concede this point.

    But i don’t even consider embryos life until implanted so,
    I say Yes on Proposal 2.

  40. inkslwc Says:


    1. You’re right – I thought I responded to his post and pointed that out, but I must not have.

    2. Right, but I disagree with the practice of making extra embryos, no matter what you’re doing with them.

    3. Like I said, it’s a basic difference of principle. We’re never going to agree because we disagree on the definition of life. Even Barack Obama conceded this point during the Saddleback “debate.” You’re approaching the argument logically, but from a different starting point, as am I.

  41. GotBrains? Says:

    1) Embryonic stem cell research has been going on for more than 10 years. Try 20-30. With NO results, no treatments, no cures.

    2) adult stemcells have created almost 100 treatments. They have never been banned, we just stopped funding the research with taxpayer money. Federal anyway.

    3) About 6 months after Christopher Reaves died a women in South Korea, parapalegic for 15 years with similar injury’s, was treated with stem cells from cord blood. They actually began repairing the damaged area. Within 15 days she could move her hips. If the time, energy and money that has been wasted on emryonic stem cell research had been diverted to something that actually produced results Christopher Reaves may actually be alive and walking today.

    4) The only difference between an embryo and you is development and location. The HUMAN embryo has every piece of information needed and only requires time and nurishment. There is no moral difference between an child in the womb and a child outside of the womb. You are just a child who has spent some time out of the womb and I find it very unlikely that you would be very vialble stark naked on the north pole.

    5) Why are some people so disgusted with the idea of killing unborn puppies but not their own kind?

    6) If Embryonic stem cell research is such a great and promising thing why isn’t the private sector clamoring to fund it themselves? What about those gazzilionaire movie stars? Why don’t they put their money where their mouth is? I only ever see them trying to get other people to pay for it. Can you imagine the money embryoni stem cell research would have at it’s disposal if only the richa nd famous gave just 10% of their income for it? But you won’t see that. Because it isn’t going anywhere and they know it. They just don’t want it to go down because it may look like they think unborn humans are actually human.

  42. PaulZ Says:

    Why does the commercial we see trying to defeat Prop.2 not even mention Stem Cells.
    All it does is fear monger the idea of increased taxes. It seems to me very misleading. If those who oppose this are really honorable and can walk the walk why don’t they say what it’s really about?

  43. GotBrains? Says:

    Also, if you look at the language, particularly 2d and 2i and 2ii. It would give researchers in this state the ability to violate ANY LAW that they deem inhibits their research. This gives them full reign over our Embryonic ban. And we know how well that works. Like when we change life of the mother to health of the mother and that means everything goes with no restrictiuons.

    Also, this proposal in and of itself may not raise taxes but what do you think they will do if it does pass? That’s right, the next propsal with be to see if we’ll fund it too. That’s of course if they’ll even bring it to us for a vote to begin with. They may be able to bypass that law as well.

  44. GotBrains? Says:

    Why doesn’t it mention stem cells? Probably because most already know about it. Maybe you can answer a question for me? Why does the pro-embryoinc side always blend stem cell research and embryoinc stem cell research when trying to get someone to vote their way? Why are they afraid of stating what they are actually talking about? Talk about fear mongers! Supposedly anyone against embryoinc stem cell research is against ALL stem cell research and probably even against science in general. What a load of CRAP! And if you vote against Embryonic stem cell research EVERYONE WILL DIE AND IT WILL BE ALL YOUR FAULT! Oh my GOSH! I’d better fork over my life saving or I might go to hell because I’ve deprived someone the chance to kill another life for a cure they have NO PROOF of finding!

  45. inkslwc Says:

    There is a point that once this bill passes, it’ll probably eventually get government funding, but the bill itself doesn’t give any funding. Of course, this is not different than the pro-prop 2 people saying that we anti-prop 2 people “oppose stem cell research” and then go on to site stem cell breakthroughs … which all happen to be adult or umbilical stem cell breakthroughs.

  46. John Davis Says:

    While I do agree, we should not be creating extra embryos I do know a bit about the process (thanks to reading about it) and the fact is they do.

    Now if you wanted to address the issue of “Throw Away Lives” (To coin a phrase I truly hope does not come back to haunt me) I might well support you, in fact odds are I would support you.

    However as written this purposed amendment deals only with what is offically called “Medical waste” There are two choices, Incinerate it, or use it.

    Frankly.. I think, as written, I’m going to have to support this one.

    However the real reason for typing this reply is to thank you.. I have spent all week looking for the wording of the purposal and the purposed amendments. Not even on the Secretary of state web site could I find it.

    Thank you for providing the info I’ve been looking for.

  47. inkslwc Says:

    The wording for the proposal as it will be on the ballot is not on the SOS website, but the ballot language is.

    And again, like I’ve said numerous times above, I understand the argument you make, but once we make using these destroyed embryos acceptable, it’ll be harder to say, “No more creating surplus embryos.”

  48. Kibiyama Says:

    The disagreement here isn’t when life begins, as you’ve reiterated. If you think these cells aren’t alive, you probably failed biology.

    The disagreement is soul or no soul.

    Unfortunately, you lose on two counts there. One, we allegedly have a separation of church and state here in America; if you don’t like it, you can get out. Two, this is science, baby, and last I checked there wasn’t a single piece of quantitative evidence for a “soul.”

    I’m not saying you can’t believe it, but you can’t make everyone follow a law based on your beliefs. What if you were the one in the minority? What if it were illegal to practice your religion?

  49. inkslwc Says:

    This isn’t practicing religion – this has to do with killing people. And the whole separation of church and state thing is not even IN the Constitution iteslf, so arguing that as some supreme doctrine is kinda ridiculous. It seems that as time goes on, the 2 are growing farther and farther apart. The Constitution outlaws a national church, this has nothing to do with a national church.

  50. paulz Says:

    this is bull shat ! then if we the people are being mis lead all the time for the almighty dollar what do we care about $$$$$$$$$$$ ching

  51. R U HUNGRY Says:

    Social health care is what this country needs wake up !The not so wealthy people in this country that don’t have it. Who has failed ?IF WE CAN SPEND TRILIONS OF DOLLARS ON WAR WE CAN FIND A WAY FOR HEALTH CARE ! F THE SYSTEM U BRAINIEAKS!

  52. inkslwc Says:

    Alrighty then.

  53. js Says:

    First, RUHUNGRY, this has nothing to do with social health care. Second, Kibiyama, are you seriously saying that because their is no “quantitative evidence” of a soul that it does not exist? Ridiculous.

  54. Sarah Says:

    Being an agnostic, this whole concept of a soul is interesting to me because I’m not entirely convinced either way. I don’t believe that the possibility to become a living entity=life. However, reading through comments it bothered me to see that many people have said you either believe life begins at conception or it begins at birth. There are 9 months in between with various stages of development, from a zygote at conception to a blatocyst to an embryo and so on to a fetus. Many zygotes never even make it past days 9-12, and many physicians agree a woman is not considered “pregnant” until this 12th day has passed. I don’t believe that life begins at conception, but rather somewhere between this 12th and the 18th day when a heartbeat can be detected.

    I believe that this type of research could possibly bear fruit but I don’t think that it should continue much longer if positive results aren’t seen. I would support this proposition but I also believe that research should be done to improve the IFV procedures so that it will be possible to use just one embryo with a high chance of success. I would be willing to support this proposition but if nothing comes of it in 5-10 years it should be abandoned.

    This is not so much an issue of life for me as it is a matter of wasting resources and money on something that has no positive outcomes.

  55. Kibiyama Says:

    inkslwc: You’re right, the exact phrase “Separation of church and state” does not appear in the Constitution. But have you ever heard of the Supreme Court?


    ” To be constitutional, a statute must have ‘a secular legislative purpose,’ it must have principal effects which neither advance nor inhibit religion, and it must not foster ‘an excessive government entanglement with religion.’ ”

    But we don’t need case law to figure this one out; it’s a simple matter of the golden rule.

    To reiterate:
    You can’t make everyone follow a law based on your beliefs. What if you were the one in the minority? [ZOMG LOOK OUT, HYPOTHETICAL, NOT AN ANALOGY] What if it were illegal to practice your religion?

    See, I think religion is immoral, and I’ve got all these friends who agree with me. So we’re just gonna go ahead and ban it. Disagree? When you understand why you disagree with that, you’ll understand why I disagree with this.

    js: Hm, I’d never thought of it that way. Maybe we don’t need proof. Yaknow, I’m so moved by your argument that I’m going to send you a brand new car. Oh, but I need about 800 dollars to ship it, so if you could just put that in my paypal, I’ll ship it right out.

  56. Randy Says:

    I used to work with adult stem cells and they have been shown to increase the regrowth of spinal cords among others.
    Embryonic Stem cells are years away from having benefits. Literally they are almost the same as cancer cells in the sense that they can continuously divide. If pure embryonic cells are implanted in you, then you get cancer. In order to get the therapies one must differentiate (make them into more defined cells) them in the first place.
    The problem is they have not found all forms of adult stem cells. An example of this is Pancreas Islet cells that prevent type I diabetes (which my mother has). In nervous cell differentiation, there are several possibilities at least but still they are unknown.
    The problem with these cells is they don’t know how to make them viable to differentiate.
    In truth, I find this a hard proposal, I do believe life begins at conception. I also believe every life has a purpose, could this be an fetus’ (cell collections) purpose?
    Then I go back to your argument that without a stop then this will become exploited/ increase a bunch.

    (don’t thnik it will see: http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/24513)
    Logically there must be some form of mutual ground on this.
    I am satisfied to work towards adult stem cells for now.

    Ironically with something such as parkinson’s they will have to turn them into cells we already know exist but then how to get them to work in the brain or even figure out what caused the problem in the first place. If you can’t cure the problem the new cells are likely to die too unless it is spontaneous death of the original adult stem cell.

  57. Richard Dorkins Says:

    The moment two haploid cells fuse to become a self-replicating diploid organism, life has begun. Destruction of an embryo is the extinguishing of a human life. Is it worth trading the future of a hundred cell cluster for a cure to diabetus or Parkinson’s? These are the questions we must focus on.

  58. Kibiyama Says:

    Professor Dorkins, if I may… That’s an interesting question, but the embryos in question have no future — they are medical waste. So in this case, there is no problem.

  59. Richard Dorkins Says:

    They shouldn’t have been created in the first place. This reminds me of a story.

    Back in the days before the internet, when we had to find ways to occupy ourselves during free time, we used to bake our own bread. I would go down to the store and pick up all the necessary ingredients for my ma. Of these was one I’m sure you’re familiar with: a living fungus that goes by the name of “Yeast”.

    See, back then we were poor and couldn’t afford all the luxuries other people enjoyed, like fresh butter or vaccinations. Baking bread was done mostly out of necessity.

    I would never go there and buy more yeast than I needed. I did not use all my yeast at once to make ten bread doughs, hoping one would turn out right. I did not bake ten loves and throw nine away. The Bible tells us “Waste not, want not”. Separating ourselves from Christianity is what got us into this mess in the first place.

  60. GotBrains? Says:

    1) Any honest biologist will tell you life begins at conception.

    2) Can we call ourselves humane if we allow babies to be a relegated to a reduce, reuse, recycle program?

    3) Do you cringe and wince when faced with Chinese newspapers with recipes for human babies? Or any other type of canibalism? We may not be ingesting it throught the mouth but this is canibalism. We incinerate our dead with cremation or bury them all the time. If it’s not a waste then why is it here? Personally, I think the only “R” we should be using is REDUCE when it comes to making more embryo’s then required. All this will do is encourage some doctors to make more than needed for the purpose of research. If you don’t think money will still change hands you need to wake up.

    4) A History Lesson: There is no seperation of church and state. The only place this is found is in a letter from Thomas Jefferson in reply to the Danbury Baptists regarding their concern that the first amendment wasn’t clear enough about the government not being able to control religion. Thomas Jefferson was assuring them it created a “ONE WAY WALL OF SEPARATION” that kept government from infringing on the rights of the religious but encouraged Judeo Christian ideals in government. They didn’t want a “Church of England”. They wanted to be sure that CONGRESS could not declare a particular Christian denomination as the Official denomination of our country. AFTER this letter Thomas Jefferson went on to declare that the Bible should remain a required textbook in schools. Also, Ficher Ames, the WRITER OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT, (he’s the one that produced the actual language of the first amendment) was also very adament that the Bible and Judeo Christian principles and religion should remain and be encouraged in our schools and our government. Our government activily printed and distributed Bibles and when they couldn’t print enough they bought more from other countries. They also bought property for the purpose of building Christian churches and paid to build them. So for future reference it’s actually “Freedome OF religion” not freedom from religion!

    5) Soul or no soul it is a fact that no person actually thinks it is inherently good for any creature to harm it’s young in anyway before or after birth. There is a universal sense of wrong about it. The real problem is that since we can’t “see” the person we are harming then it’s ok. It’s ok for one person with no choice to die so that I may live because it’s not like I’ll ever meet them. What if you had to actually look that human in the eye first? When a sperm fertilizes an egg it immediately begins a process we can barely explain and NEVER REPRODUCE! Sure, we can make the circumstances right and put the right things in the right place but we can’t actually “create” anything. We can put “seeds” in the right conditions and we can manipulate what’s already in motion but we can’t go back beyond something that already exists. We have faith in many things we can’t explain.

    The real question isn’t whether or not it has a soul it’s whether or not it is human. The answer is a resounding YES! Otherwise we are the only living thing on this planet that when pregnant is pregnant with something other than its own kind. Should we protect ALL of humanity or only when it’s convenient for us?

  61. GotBrains? Says:

    By the way, who should get to decide which humans deserve protection and which don’t? Here is a list of “reasons” concerning a certian group of humans:

    Their not really human
    I have a RIGHT to choose this
    It’s MY property/body
    Personally I’m opposed but I shouldn’t make that choice for others
    Giving them rights is inconvenient to me

    These are just a few similar/exact arguments that have infringed on the right’s and protection of TWO groups of people in this country….

    The black race AND the unborn!

    So do you have no rights or protections if you’re an inconvenience? If your tall? Short? Sick? Not blonde haired or blue eye’d?

  62. Kibiyama Says:

    1: Correct.

    2: Nobody’s talking about babies here.

    3: We take organs out of dead people, is that cannibalism?

    4: The bible should definitely be required reading. There are too many teenagers these days getting high and not enough getting stoned.

    5: We’re not talking about harm here, and not just because there’s less cells in a blastocyst than in a fly’s brain. Suppose we had a magic machine that makes a blastocyst at the push of a button. Would you have any qualms about using it for stem cell research?

    I’m betting you wouldn’t, because it doesn’t have a soul. It’s never going to become a person, either; it’s just a bundle of cells we can either use or throw away.

    (Psst, that’s called an allegory!)

  63. inkslwc Says:

    Continuing the debate on life is futile. The two sides have 2 different definitions, so we will never agree.

    I don’t see why the pro-ESCR people don’t just abandon the research and go for adult stem cells after seeing years of failed attempts to create any cures from ESCs.

    As for Separation of Church and State. Anybody who knows Constitutional Law (I’m talking pure Constitutional Law, not the perverted version of it that we have today), would tell you that using Jefferson’s letter to supercede Article I in any court case violates Article VI of the Constitution.

    Oh, and Kibiyama, I’m a guy.

  64. Kibiyama Says:

    So, playtime’s over?

    One last thing, then. If unborn babies go to heaven, what’s the big deal? No theological, monetary, bodily or any other kind of repercussions… No harm, no foul, right?

    No offense about the gender issue. I think it’s the description that does it.

    Later, gaters.

  65. inkslwc Says:

    Well, it’s just that this debate will go on forever and we’ll never come to an agreement because we’re arguing from 2 views that can’t coexist in the same argument. You can’t have a valid debate until you agree on the definitions of what your’e debating on.

    Murder is wrong – the same reason that killing anybody is wrong. If you kill me, I’d go to heaven, but please, don’t kill me.

    I didn’t take offense, I was just clarrifying.

    Thanks for the debate – it’s always good to debate issues like this.

  66. Tony Sidaway Says:

    If you think the destruction of the excess blastocysts is murder then your problem is with IVF as it is practised in Michigan, and as well as opposing this proposal you should also move for such destruction to be classed as murder in Michigan.

    The excess blastocysts are destroyed anyway, whether or not they are used in stem cell research.

  67. mysticmike Says:

    Okay the question is: Does life begin at conception? The answer is: Yes, but only at a cellular level. The real question is: Is the embryo conscious? I don’t believe that the embryo is conscious. If anyone can disprove me on that, I would welcome the idea.

  68. inkslwc Says:

    Tony – I’ve established that I want that practice of IVF to be banned. We’ve been over that already.

    mysticmike – I’m going to need you to define conscious for me. Are we talking about being aware of surroundings? Because if so, consciousness doesn’t even come into play, since people are still protected by the law when they are in comas or even on life support.

  69. Tony Sidaway Says:

    Well it sounds to me like you want it not so much banned, as prosecuted as murder. There’s a strong distinction. A doctor who performs a banned operation may be sued for malpractice or lose his license to practice. A doctor who murders can be sentenced to life imprisonment in Michigan.

  70. mysticmike Says:

    I guess GotBrians? needs to get some brains. Because there have been proven advances in embryonic stem cell research. If any of you guys pay attention to the news, then you would know this. In China they have less restrictions on medical science than we do. If a little blind girl can see again after 4 treatments of embryonic stem cells, then I would say that there are breakthroughs in the embryonic stem cell research. And to make everyone nervous, I would be first in line if there were some advances in stem cells here in the US. I have a disease known as ataxia, and the only known treatment is stem cells.

  71. inkslwc Says:

    Tony, it would never pass. I think it needs to be banned first, and then if a doctor disobeys that, then I’d say prosecute for murder, but let’s be realistic, we’d be lucky if Roe v. Wade gets overturned.

    mike, what advances – where are the sources for this? I provided sources. It’s not that I don’t want to believe you, I just want sources.

  72. mysticmike Says:

    How many families today do we here about “pulling the plug” on family members that are basically brain dead? Would you consider that murder?

  73. inkslwc Says:

    As to “pulling the plug” – that is equivalent to passivly killing somebody by essentially denying them medical treatement. It’s not murder, because you yourself are not killing them; however, if the person expressed that they wanted to be left on life support, then they need to be left on life support.

    But if somebody is brain dead and their body being run by machines, pulling the plug is denying medical treatment, whereas activiley destroying an embryo is murder. My point about people being in comas and life support was poorly worded – I should’ve stated that they still have (some) legal rights – more if they have a living will, and was meant to try to figure out what you meant by “conscious.”

    And where are your stem cell sources?

  74. mysticmike Says:

    Here’s a website for you to check out.

  75. mysticmike Says:

    Check out the video, too.

  76. inkslwc Says:

    And on the website, it clearly says, “TREATMENT: Umbilical Cord Stem Cell and Nerve Growth Factor Injections with Rehabilitation Therapy”

    I’ve already said that I SUPPORT Umbilical cord stem cell research.

    I clicked through about 20 of the links on the side (the patient experiences) and didn’t see anything that used embryonic stem cell research (I’m not sayin there may not be on the site – I don’t know if there are or not, but I don’t have time to open all of those different pages).

    Find me a source of somebody who was cured from embryonic stem cells. And as for Ataxia – all of them were treated with UCSCs, not ESCs.

  77. Tony Sidaway Says:

    It’s perfectly true that multipotent progenitor stem cells have been adapted to produce some treatments. However only embryonic stem cells are pluripotent–able to differentiate into any type of cell. As yet pluripotent progenitor cells have not been proven to exist.

    The technology required to produce replacement cells from embryonic stem cells is still in development, but recently a paper documenting a scalable process for the production of type O red blood cells from embryonic stem cell cultures was published in the peer reviewed literature. This paves the way for the industrial production of blood without the requirements, or the risks, of donors.

    Beyond blood cells, the potential for regeneration of entire organs from embryonic stem cell culture is very exciting, which is why the field is studied.

  78. inkslwc Says:

    But we’ve had YEARS of research on it now (true, a lot in other countries), and no ESC breakthroughs have been made.

  79. Tony Sidaway Says:

    Pardon me. You may not believe that an industrial process for the production of universally (type O) blood cells is not a breakthrough. I think it’s fantastic news.

    Next month it will be just ten years to the month since the first human embryonic stem cells were derived from a blastocyst, so I think that’s pretty good going.

  80. inkslwc Says:

    The way that you worded it implied that it was still just a theory. Have the actually tested it and proved that it can be done?

  81. Tony Sidaway Says:

    Sorry, I thought I said it was a process. I blogged it a few weeks ago:


    They’ve demonstrated that the cells have all the desirable characteristics of human type O blood cells, though of course a lot more testing would be needed before the process could be licensed to produce blood for use on humans.

  82. inkslwc Says:

    But 1) they haven’t actually proven that it the cells could function as red blood cell replacements.

    2) I would say that it violates the life principle, but we can’t debate that.

  83. Rupert Says:


    I may disagree with your position, but I highly respect your ability to see the hypocrisy of many who share your stance.

    I have for a long time not understood how someone could be adamantly against abortion or this type of research…. while at the same time finding technologies like IVF (that create & discard numerous embryos) to be a ‘blessing’. No logic I can find against the first, can also justify the later.

    I personally feel the question of ‘when does human life begin’ to be a very difficult one to define, and I can not fault anyone for there opinion on this… HOWEVER I can not stomach the cognitive dissonance of the idea that abortion is morally wrong yet artificially creating embryos (especially knowing many will likely be discarded) is not only morally acceptable but somehow gods will or a blessing.

    As for me: I’m voting yes. I don’t especially relish the idea of creating/destroying potential humans for research. But I also don’t enjoy the idea of medical testing on animals. I DO see in both the immense value to man kind, and I see a moral similarity between causing pain/killing any adult mammal and doing the same to a cluster of cells that could -maybe- become a human fetus one day.

    As we learn more about the workings of our bodies, well be more & more bumping up against these types of moral quandaries. I’m honestly not sure where that line should be drawn, but I fear it’s already being drawn far to short of the mark. Either way I respect those who stand by their convictions as that is how we will stop ourselves from going to far (wherever ‘too far’ is).

    Just my $0.02,

  84. Tony Sidaway Says:

    “The results show that it is feasible to differentiate and mature hESCs into functional oxygen-carrying erythrocytes on a large scale.”

    I think that’s pretty definitive. There is work to be done but the process is feasible.

  85. inkslwc Says:

    Get back to me when they’ve actually done something.

  86. GotBrains? Says:

    Apparently Mysticmike has less brains then me. Again I state there have been no advances in embryonic stem cell research. All they do is excessivly reproduce ie: cancer. Great! They can cause cancer! whoopie! As if we don’t have enough of that already. Also, they THEORIZE that embryonic stem cells are as versitile as they think. They haven’t actually been able to even come close to making them do anything except reproduce uncontrolably. HOWEVER, they HAVE found that adult stem cells are a WHOLE LOT MORE versitile then they ever dreamed of.

    When human life begins is really simple like I said before. If you want to be honest what you are actually saying is you don’t want to pinpoint when an unborn human should be considered a person and therefore “worth” protecting. If you pulled a piece of hair off your head and put it in a petry dish, then gave it time and nurishment, guess what it won’t do. It won’t finish developing into another human being. I can scrap off some skin cells but they won’t become a seperate individual human either.

    And yes, we are talking about babies here. About 75% (or more) of a persons lifelong physical development happens in the womb before you are born. ALSO, the terms, zygote, embryo and fetus are descriptive names given to different STAGES of HUMAN DEVELOPEMENT. Just like infant, toddler, adolecent, teenager, young adult, adult and elderly. So unless your mother was different then every other human woman on this planet and she was pregnant with a parasitic slug that “magically” becomes a human once it hits the open air I don’t see how anyone can call them “not” human. So what are you, a human or a parasitic slug?

    And yes, we do take organs out of dead people, the difference is they weren’t “grown” for the express perpose of killing them so someone else could be treated for something. They also had the option of “volunteering” their organs. I would be perfectly fine with waiting for the unborn child to develop enough so they could make that conscience choice as well. How about you?

    100% of all unborn are pro-life, pro- adult stem cell and umbillical cord stem cell research and Anti- EMBRYONIC stem cell research. Prove me wrong if you can.

  87. GotBrains? Says:

    Besides, I really think a lot of you are missing some of the picture. Part of this proposal basically allows researchers and labs in Michigan to stomp on ANY law they deem prohibits their embryonic stem cell research! It mixes up the general stem cell research with embryonic stem cell research and so is also misleading.

    *Prohibit state and local laws that prevent, restrict or discourage stem cell research, future therapies and cures. *

    And by the way, I am an avid animal lover but I don’t get all freaky about it. I am all for being a good steward of God’s creation and needless suffering is just that, needless. However, I’m still not ready to board the “animals should have more rights and protections then humans” boat. For pity’s sake man, your saying “animal testing BAD, human testing…ok if I don’t know them personally.”

    And as for the whole organ donation thing, I only wish scietists could be trusted to not go too far. Imagine what could happen if I could donate my heart without having to die first because they could clone it. Unfortunately I have to be against any and all human cloning as well because you know they wouldn’t stop there. To (kinda) quote my favorite line from Jurassic Park, “they were so excited to find out they could they didn’t stop to think about whether or not they should”.

  88. inkslwc Says:

    You brought up a good point about mysticmike – I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt, but when I pointed out that he was wrong about the website saying there had been ESC breakthroughs, he never posted again.

  89. Tony Sidaway Says:

    I agree that a principal part of the proposal is to prevent any further attempts by the legislature to sabotage scientific research in Michigan. This is a good thing.

    If we voted on all science, we’d probably end up with something like the current scenario: important research avenues are cut off because of ignorance.

  90. inkslwc Says:

    That provision doesn’t say that you can ignore any laws. It just says that laws that prohibit or restrict ESCR are invalidated, at least the provisions that apply to SCR.

  91. jeffreychrist Says:

    Oy. I have a headache. There’d be no arguments if the religious crackpots of the world actually stopped believing in a false, baseless, ridiculous voodoo philosophy about a ‘god’ in the sky and a heaven and hell. Because that’s what it all boils down to.
    A truly, absolute happy world is a religion/religious-free world. But we all know that ain’t gonna happen! So we’re stuck with these useless debates by wannabe pundits on both sides who will always claim that they are right and the other side is wrong.
    Too bad no one thinks with their noggin anymore.

  92. inkslwc Says:

    We’ve also shown that the only thing ESCs have done is come up with one possible “cure” (cure is the wrong word, I know) – possibly making a substitute for red blood cells.

  93. RightToChoose Says:

    YOU STUPID RIGHT TO LIFE IDIOTS!!!! This is not a child it is a parasite in a woman’s body until the woman has allowed that parasite to develop enough to live on its own. Life doesn’t begin at conception it begins when it can survive outside of the mothers womb. Tell someone with a debilitating disease that an embryo with no nervous system, heart or BRAIN is more important then an already living, breathing, sometimes (but not in your case) thinking being, and you will get an argument. It is not as if every one of these embryos would survive anyway. The success rate of IVF is no more then 60% and becomes less as a woman ages. To suggest that they make one embryo at a time is ludicrous given the already incredibly high cost of getting IVF. It costs upward of $10,000 per IVF treatment not to mention the cost of storing the extra blastocysts for which the IVF clinics are already raping their clients. Better to donate those stupid eggs and possibly save a life. If I had any eggs left to donate I would definitely do so. I will be voting YES on proposal 2 and so will everyone one I have talked to so far. To all you men that are voting NO, think of all those babies you flushed down the toliet in condoms, or after taking one of those fun showers. Perhaps you should have donated it to the IVF clinics to make babies. Have any of you morons considered that the donated eggs that are being “adopted” out have the possiblity of growing up and marrying their unknown siblings and creating defective children. These children may possibly need the therapies that could have been created by embryonic stem cell research that people such as yourselves are attempting to deny the right to.

  94. GotBrains? Says:

    Dear Right to Choose. I respect your right to believe you are nothing but a parasite that your mother so graciously decided to allow to live. $10,000 for a treatment, wow, that’s an aweful lot of money to throw at a parasite. By the way, a little biology lesson seems to be in order. Sperm on its own does not a baby make. A sperm by itslef does not grow into another human being. Also, an egg on its own doesn’t either. I understand your concern however about siblings accidently procreating, sounds to me like it might be personal. By the way, I am a woman. And I see first hand the horrific effects of abortion on womens bodies. So don’t get all freaky on me. If you actually cared about a womens right to choose you wouldn’t be so insulting to those who don’t choose to kill thier unborn children. So please take your kindergarten insults back to the play ground and leave the serious debates to the adults.

    As for the anti religion guy, I could get on board the no religion at all argument except you people seem to think you have a right to keep all the laws . Judeo Christian principles are responsible for our laws against murder, theft, etc. So if you want to take away ALL moral laws and restrictions what so ever feel free to discover and start your own country. We did.

    By the way, athiests should be more pro life than anyone, according to them, this is the ONLY life they get!

  95. inkslwc Says:

    RightToChoose, you have some basic biology flaws in your argument:

    1. Parasites never grow into something that can live on their own. Fleas will always have to live off of some other animal. They’re not going to grow up and be able to not have a host.

    2. You brought up debilitating diseases, but not ONE single cure has been made from ESCs.

    3. Neither sperm nor eggs are life forms on their own. Eggs and sperm aren’t babies.

    I really can’t even have a logical debate with you until you begin to get an understanding of basic biology.

  96. RightToChoose Says:

    I am forever grateful to my mother for not choosing to abort me. Thankfully for her, she did not have a difficult time concieving me and my siblings, because when we were born, IVF was not invented yet. If it hadn’t been for those researchers that you are so adamantly against, we wouldn’t even be HAVING this discussion, because the technology to make these teeny tiny blastocysts wouldn’t even exist. Some people want children enough to pay that 10,000 more than once. Some people end up having twins or triplets or even more children from one implantation of fertilized eggs. They are the lucky ones I suppose. It really all boils down to what a woman wants to do. If she wants to grow her parasites into children that’s her choice. If she chooses NOT to, that’s her choice too.

    I do have a basic understanding of biology. I understand that the sperm you jerk off isn’t able to make a baby on it’s own or that unfertilized eggs can’t grow into a child. However, you could have donated that sperm to a woman who doesn’t have a mate or has a sterile mate so that your sperm didn’t go to waste.

    I don’t have anything against women that choose not to abort thier parasites. I have something against someone telling me what I can do with MY body. If I had chosen to abort my children, it would have not been your business. I have two lovely children and should one of them decide to abort THIER unborn child, that will be THIER choice, not mine or yours.

    The fact remains that a 14 day old embryo has no brain, heart or nervous system. It’s is a collection of about 100 undiffereniated cells. With more research these cells could become an important part of cures. Just because they haven’t found anything yet does not mean that they will not ever find anything. They don’t have a very diverse number of cell lines available for research that cover the diverse population of the world, let alone Michigan. You never know what genetic anomaly another blastocyst may carry that would provide a breakthrough in this area. More research is needed.

    I am not against religion, I think that if it gives you comfort so be it. I do not however believe in a vengeful god that is going to punish me for my choices in life. I believe in reincarnation also. So in my opinion IF, and that’s a pretty big IF, life DOES happen to begin at conception (which I obviously don’t believe) those souls will simply find another host for themselves. I don’t think that you should be shoving your religion down other peoples throats by trying to tell them that they can’t do research, abort a fetus or anything else they choose to do. If you don’t want to use the results of that research to save your life or the life of a loved one, that’s your choice. I fully believe that you can do as you choose in this life and still be loved by whatever higher power there is. A mother does not stop loving her child because it misbehaves and neither does the goddess.

    Gotbrains mentions the horrific effects of abortion on a womans body. What about the horrific effects of carrying a child to term? A womans body is never the same after that. If a woman doesn’t get adequate nutrition during her pregnancy, the parasite inside will take what it needs without her consent.

    Ink says that eggs and sperm aren’t babies, neither are blastocysts. They are potential babies, and many of them wouldn’t survive even in ideal situations.

  97. RightToChoose Says:

    Oh, and Ink. Fleas don’t live on a host. The host is merely thier grocery store. If you call any pest control company, they will tell you that fleas live in the cracks and crevices of your dwelling. They also live on the pets bed and possibly your bed. If a pet is not available for groceries, you could become the next convience store for them. Fleas originate outside, where they pick board the mobile grocery store and enter your home.

  98. inkslwc Says:

    First, you still have some major biological flaws (and grammatical: it’s “their,” not “thier”):

    1. I never said fleas live on a host. I said they live off of a host.

    2. You essentially proved my point that embryos cannot be parasites. You say that parasites (such as fleas) live in other places, but go to the host for food. That is not the case in embryos – they both live in and get nutrition from the woman’s body. Fleas and other parasites don’t. So thanks for proving my argument.

    You also talk about religion. Where do you think we got laws against murder from? Why should we protect the lives of adults? Or children? Why can’t I have a child and kill it? It lives in my home. It eats my food. It takes my money. Isn’t that how you would describe a parasite? So why can’t I kill my parasitic child?

  99. RightToChoose Says:

    Ink, you are the one that said that fleas can’t live without a host, go back and re-read your original post there. They can also go dormant for sometimes years and not have a blood meal. They live without a host. For that matter, humans could technically be classified as parasites because we do need sustenance from some source, just as all living things do.

    You are taking this rather to the extreme in speaking of killing your children. You are trying to remove MY choices for MY body. You chose to bring your children into this world, at least your significant other did, and that’s your CHOICE…or her’s as the case may be. We are not discussing children that are already born, we are discussing a group of cells that does NOT have a brain, nervous system or heart beat. It’s not a child at this point. It’s a group of cells that can NOT live without it’s host.

    You are the one that brought fleas into the discussion. There are parasites that cannot live without a host, such as a tapeworm. I personally would dispense of a tapeworm as quickly as I would an unwanted pregnancy at this point in my life.

    If your daughter was raped and a pregnancy was the result would you still feel that abortion was immoral? Would you want your daughter to have to relive every day the violence done to her body? To have her give birth to a child that she does not want and most likely would resent for the rest of it’s life and unconciously punish for what it’s father did.

    If you want to get into spelling errors, you might want to recheck your own spelling it’s diseases, not deseases. I didn’t bother going back through all your posts, but I did notice several other spelling errors on your part. Misspelling their is a very very common error. That whole i before e except after c rule has messed me up for years. Big deal, usually I use spell check, but it’s not available on here. You might want to try it sometime.

    The bible, rotten book that it is, was written by a bunch of men, and has been rewritten many times over the years to suit the current needs to control the population. It’s all in the matter of how you interpret it. I am sure it’s got it’s good points, most fiction does.

  100. inkslwc Says:

    1. You’re right, fleas can’t live without hosts. But they do not live on or inside of them. That was my whole point. They never live without a host. They will need a host at some point to survive. (Perhaps my use of “off of” confused you. I intended it in terms of eating, not where they live. For example: A bear lives off of berries and fish.)
    2. Tapeworms live for a time without a host. Many fertilized tapeworms (tapeworm embryos) are left on blades of grass until eaten by an animal. Human embryos cannot survive outside of the mother. You again, have proved my point that human embryos are not parasites.
    3. If my daughter was raped, an abortion would be immoral. Why should the baby suffer for the wrongdoing of some rapist? If she doesn’t want it, she can give it up for adoption.
    4. You didn’t answer my question about the Bible. What do you base your laws against murder on? Why can’t I go and kill somebody if I want to? Other cultures permitted it, so why shouldn’t we?

  101. Don Says:

    First, thank you for posting this. Voting on Prop 2 is no easy decision for many of us.

    As a Catholic, I know what I’m ‘supposed’ to think. As an Uncle of a nephew with challenges, and son-in-law of someone with a Parkinsons-type disease, I hear another side.

    The comments herein say there’s been no benefit from embryos, while other comments say there could be. I have a degree in Communications, so how can I really make sense of any of this?

    For the most part, I think the comments here have been very good. Thanks to everyone who tried to make convincing arguments without attacking or using anecdotal evidence to prove themselves correct.

    And, still, all this said, I don’t know what to think. But I have much to think about.

  102. laj Says:

    Before you rant – do some research! You obviously have no clue about IVF. When you develop a procedure to get the exact number of eggs/embryos desired, I’m sure there will be people willing to pay big bucks for that. ITS NOT AN OPTION! It’s all a game of chance; you get what you get, and not all of the eggs fertilize.
    I take offense to your remarks. Speaking about something you know nothing about makes you look stupid, not intelligent.

  103. inkslwc Says:

    Instead of fertilizing multiple eggs, only fertilize one. I understand perfectly how the process works. In cases where the donor’s sperm count is low, they inject a single sperm into an egg, so don’t tell me that forming one embryo is impossible to achieve. It is you who needs to do some research apparently.

  104. Tony Sidaway Says:

    Another brief reminder from me: the ballot is not about what forms of in vitro fertilization (IVF) will be legal in Michigan. No matter what happens in this ballot, the current laws on IVF will continue to apply.

    This ballot is to enable couples to donate unused embryos that were created for the express purpose of IVF, but are surplus to requirements or proved unsuitable for implantation, to embryonic stem cell research.

  105. inkslwc Says:

    We know Tony. But like I’ve said before. If this passes, a law limiting IVF will never pass. But yes, what you said is true.

  106. Jackie Says:

    I am currently working in a biology lab and doing stem cell research with undergraduate funding through my school. I realize that many people think that life begins at conception and I do not want to stomp all over anyone’s beliefs. I am just going to say that stem cells do have great potential. They can cure Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s diseases, spinal cord injury, stroke, burns, heart disease, diabetes, osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis among other things. Those of you who do not believe in destroying embryos, at least do not be so dense as to disregard the possibilities of this amazing scientific area. I believe that life begins when the fetus is self aware (about the sixth week after conception). If you give a clump of cells an identity, then you mine as well say that we should stop treating cancer because it is alive. Not really the same thing but…. anyways, I will be voting yes on this proposal because there will always be extra embryos and they should be put to use helping others, saving lives, rather then being destroyed. This proposal is not legalizing ripping defensless children from a mother’s womb and cutting them up! It is legalizing the chance to save millions of lives!!

  107. inkslwc Says:

    Jackie – what advancements have we made toward curing Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, or anything else with EMBRYONIC stem cells? We’ve show that adult and umbilical cord SCs have made major advancements. But the only thing we’ve done with Embryonic stem cells is outline a plan to possibly make red blood cell replacements (and we’re not even sure that that will work).

  108. GotBrains? Says:

    Jackie, Jackie, Jackie, It always perplexes me how some people scream about how I shouldn’t force my beliefs on them all while trying to make me pay for theirs. And yes we would end up paying for it, I guarantee it would be on the next ballot of this one passes. ALSO, I really hate it when you all try to confuse the issue by swapping the generic name stem cell research with the embryonic kind. SCIENCE has already shown thus far that ADULT and Umbilical stem cells are doing an awesome job but Embryonic stem cells do nothing. And we are not against science or Adult and umbilical cord stem cell research, which is not banned or restricted in anyway in this country. I submit to you they never will.

    HOWEVER, DNA is specifically used to identify a specific human individual. From the time a sperm fertilizes an egg it has its OWN SPECIFIC DNA different for either parent including the mother they are in. So either we use DNA to identify specific human individuals and continue to use it in criminal cases or we throw out all DNA evidence from now on since it obviously cannot identify a specific human individual IF THE UNBORN CHILD IN THE WOMB IS NOT A HUMAN BEING IN ITS OWN RIGHT.

    The following is a rant on the topic of abortion that right to choose brought up, follow if you want to.

    Dear Right To Choose. I have never heard of a woman “accidentally” getting an appendectomy during the birthing process, however, it has been one of the many side effect of abortion. You may wonder how that is possible. Allow me to inform you. When a “doctor”, and I use the term loosely, performs some abortion procedures the instruments can, and often do, perforate the uterus. Appendixes and other pieces sometimes get “sucked up” along with everything else. Of course most parts are too big, that’s why they dismember the child first. There are so many different things that go wrong during these procedures there just isn’t room here to go into all the gruesome detail. I can tell you that a little weight gain is NOTHING compared to the life long physical problems, including sterilization, suffered by so many women. And considering Planned Parenthood is actively lobbying to allow untrained “assistants” to preform these sensitive procedures (because they can’t find enough doctors willing to do them anymore) I can only imagine the horrific consequences.

    And, while MOST women feel over joyed after giving birth to their CHILDREN I have yet to run into even one woman even the slightest bit joyful over their abortion.

    Also, so much is said about when life begins and so much is said about choice that I often wonder… when does choice begin? Doesn’t a bungee jumper assume some risks when jumping off a bridge? Sure they follow safety precautions but so does anyone when they decide to engage in an activity that may have outcomes they won’t like. Yes, there are instances of rape, incest and life of the mother but they only account for less than 3% of all abortions. And studies have shown that women who choose abortion are more likely to abuse future children. Also, rape victims who do get pregnant and do choose abortion are often cited as saying it was harder to get over the abortion than the rape. And as for incest, the young woman coming in for an abortion in this case is almost ALWAYS escorted by the perpetrator or the perpetrators wife or girlfriend in an effort to cover up the crime. So why would we want to make it easier for the criminals again? And as for life of the mother, there are so few instances where this would be necessary, one being a tubal pregnancy (that abortion procedures increase the risk of by the way) but the clinics where 99% of abortions occure never test for these. AND women who are diagnosed with cancer or other disease while pregnant and decided to bring the child to term were 50% more likley to survive AND had a longer survival rate then those who chose to abort to start treatment sooner.

  109. GotBrains? Says:

    By the way, I believe you let loose with a Froedian(sp?) slip. You said you had two beautiful CHILDREN. And you said “if they chose to abort their CHILDREN”. Don’t you mean parasites? However , I have never seen a beautiful parasite before and would love to see pictures, but hey, beauty is in the eye of the mother I suppose. Yes that was an insult, unlike some I tend to fight back when someone throws them at me.

  110. inkslwc Says:

    GotBrains?, I have met one woman who was happy she had an abortion. In fact, she bragged about how many she had gotten. It was one of the saddest, and in fact creepiest (seriously – she was talking about it to the level that a crazy person would) moments of my life.

  111. NfromtheUP Says:

    this is stem cell research to cure everything from type 1 diabetes to cancer to endless medical problems get on the band wagon and pass this proposal …..doctor douglas melton co-director of the Harvard Stem Cell institute has already succeeded in transforming one kind of mouse pancreas cell into another and three days later infected cells began making insulin…….give these doctors the eggs……

  112. laj Says:

    When I went through the IVF process and spent $10k dollars – I was not going to fertilize one egg at a time. What a ridiculous option. Do you not understand everything is on a time table? And when spending that kind of money, the choice to implant one egg also was not an option.

  113. inkslwc Says:

    NfromtheUP, I have no problem with stem cell research. I think you’re confusing stem cell research in general with embryonic stem cell research.

    laj, I never said that it wasn’t costly, but you told me that you can’t just fertilize one egg. Which is also a lie, because they “weed out” the eggs that don’t look promising. How could they do this without separating the eggs and being able to fertilize one? You specifically said that they have to fertilize them all. You didn’t say that it was because of the cost, you were trying to deceive my readers and make it sound like it was impossible to do that, and I exposed your lies.

  114. Acme Pete Says:

    Stem Cell Research, is already Legal. U-M has one of the largest stem cell facilities in our nation

    Proposal 2 would create a sub-race of Human Beings to serve at the pleasure and convenience of another Human Race. Haven’t we already been there in History???

    Michigan currently has a law prohibiting human embryo research, this law was led by a democratic legislature and signed by Gov. William Milliken to declare that Human Embryos would not be reduced to Lab Rats.

    Embryonic Research is dead end science. Even the Pioneer of Stem Cell research is abandoning Embryonic Stem Cell Research: http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=797226

    Leftover Embryos from fertility clinics do not have to be thrown out, check out Embryo Adoption: http://www.bethany.org/A55798/bethanyWWW.nsf/0/177CAAF5EE8C77D185256E9E0051A3AF

  115. inkslwc Says:

    Acme Pete, you bring up another good point about embryo adoption (which I had discussed face-to-face with someone but forgot to mention here). Sure, it’s nice to have sperm and egg from the couple, but a lot of couples wouldn’t care either way. A lot of people would be happy just to have a kid.

  116. Mom of 4 Says:

    The answer regarding IVF is simple. It is Wrong. Conception should happen only the natural way. AND if abortion were illegal, these folks would have plenty of babies to adopt. This is why the slippery slope of IVF should have never been started. It is just a matter of time until people will want to start using babies as organ growing mechanisms. Seems a bit like Frankenstien. It is the same as with ‘gay’ marriage. This should not be allowed as you are destroying a God given sacrament. Destroy the family and you will destroy the society. It is not a choice. IT IS A BABY.

  117. Tony Sidaway Says:

    If as Acme Pete claims by culturing from cells taken from blastocysts we’d be creating a subspecies of humans, then it follows that women by routinely flushing most of their fertilized eggs down the toilet are creating a sub-race of mutant sewer-dwelling humans.

    Both claims owe far more to science fiction than to fact. Zygotes are routinely created by fertilization within the uterus, and more often than not are flushed at the blastocyst phase. Presumably they die from being attacked by toilet bleach or become food for bacteria. Does anybody have a problem with that? Should we stop women going to the toilet?

  118. Lee Says:

    I think Rupert was right on. Killing animals is wrong as much as killing human embryos is wrong. But sometimes its necessary to kill: we kill so that we can eat, we can kill undeveloped embryos so that we can cure disease. It’s illegal to kill someone, but legal to kill people in a war? There is nuance, and if you’re going to take a rigid Pro-Life stance, try going vegan and ending all wars.

  119. inkslwc Says:

    Tony, death occurs naturally throughout nature. It’s bad and sad, but we can’t stop it. But this doesn’t mean that we should go around making more death.

    Lee: Animals don’t have souls, so there’s one difference. As for war, I’d love it if we didn’t have war.

  120. Tony Sidaway Says:

    inkslwc, if you believe that nature must be permitted full reign it follows that you will refuse all medical treatment when next you are ill.

    Or is it only some unnatural activities that you oppose?

  121. Tony Sidaway Says:

    Also, I have to ask this. You appear to believe that humans have souls but other animals do not.

    How do you know this? What experiments can I perform to verify it?

  122. inkslwc Says:

    Tony, when did I say that nature must be permitted full reign? I said that we can’t stop some deaths, but that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t try (but not at the expense of other lives). I don’t oppose unnatural activities unless they’re harmful to others (and even then, I’m not necessarily opposed to all unnatural activities).

    Humans aren’t animals, they’re humans.

  123. GotBrains? Says:

    Inkslwc: I agree iit would be pretty creepy to find a joyful mother who killed her baby. While I have not met one in the throws of their joy I have met them after they became regretful. They are more likely to suffer from depression, suicide, substance abuse and much more. These side effects can and often do last a lifetime. Most won’t even know why. I have also had the opportunity to meet Norma McCorvey, the Roe in RoevWade. What a turn around! Anyone with the opportunity should read her book “WOn by Love”. By the way, she never had an abortion, in fact she never sought one out nor ever wanted one. She gave her children up for adoption.

    And Inkslwc, I really don’t think some of these people will come around. It really boils down to whether or not you think human life is intrinsicly valuable.

    A quote from J.P. Moreland, PH.D
    “…there’s is a difference between intrinsic value and instrumental value. Something has intrinsic value if it’s valuable and good in and of itself; something has instrumental value if it’s valuable as a means to an end. For example, saving lives is intrinsically good. Driving on the right side of the street is an instrumental value; it’s just good because it helps keep order. If society decided that everyone should drive on the left side, that would be okay. The goal is to preserve order and saves lives.

  124. GotBrains? Says:

    Inkslwc: I agree iit would be pretty creepy to find a joyful mother who killed her baby. While I have not met one in the throws of their joy I have met them after they became regretful. They are more likely to suffer from depression, suicide, substance abuse and much more. These side effects can, and often do, last a lifetime. Most won’t even know why. I have also had the opportunity to meet Norma McCorvey, the Roe in RoevWade. What a turn around! Anyone with the opportunity should read her book “Won by Love”. By the way, she never had an abortion, in fact she never sought one out nor ever wanted one. She gave her children up for adoption. By the way, embryo’s up for adoption are called “snowflake babies”.

    And Inkslwc, I really don’t think some of these people will come around. It really boils down to whether or not you think human life is intrinsicly valuable.

    A quote from J.P. Moreland, PH.D
    “…there’s is a difference between intrinsic value and instrumental value. Something has intrinsic value if it’s valuable and good in and of itself; something has instrumental value if it’s valuable as a means to an end. For example, saving lives is intrinsically good. Driving on the right side of the street is an instrumental value; it’s just good because it helps keep order. If society decided that everyone should drive on the left side, that would be okay. The goal is to preserve order and saves lives.

    Now, when you treat people as instrumentally valuable, or only as a means to an end, you’re dehumanizing them, and that’s wrong. You’re treating people as things when you treat them merely as a means to an end. You only respect people when you treat them as having intrinsic value.”

    So, when we use unborn children, no matter what the level of developement, as a means to an end (like embryonic stem cell research) we dehumanize them (already there baby!) and therefore, in essence, we dehumanize ourselves. Then animals become more important then our fellow humans. (already there?) In which case, why should murder be wrong? We would only be relieveing this planet of garbage, right?

    Bottom line. Embryonic stem cell research is only ONE means to an end and the only one that devalues human life. And the only one that has produced nothing.

  125. Tony Sidaway Says:

    inkswlrc, as we seem to be veering off into pro- and anti-abortion territory I’ll leave you with the last word on that. I would like to keep to the issue of IVF and embryonic stem cell research.

    On whether or not we’re animals, I think it’s utterly fatuous to suggest that we are not. We have large, complex brains, but we’re animals.

  126. inkslwc Says:

    Tony, again, it all comes down to my beliefs on a soul. I understand where you’re coming from, but these are 2 things we’ll never agree on because we’re coming at it from 2 compltely different directions.

    It’s been great to go back and forth. Thanks for your input. At least you’ve been informed. It amazes me how many glaring errors have been posted here (confusion of ESCR and overall SCR, and other things). Again, thank you.

  127. the juicy stuff « This is interesting… Says:

    […] of the blogger/poster but it’s clear what is text and what is the writer’s opinion. https://inkslwc.wordpress.com/2008/09/18/michigan-ballot-for-2008-proposal-2-stem-cell-research/   I am all for expanding programs for human embryo stem cell research.  However, my greatest […]

  128. nick Says:

    i was neather for or against prop. 2 but after seeing the ad about taxpayers paying for it i checked it out, i cant beleive how thay just plain out lied about the bill. then thay say it opens doors to human cloning, where is that door?!!!!. can somone show me?

  129. inkslwc Says:

    But just because one opposition group lied doesn’t mean you should base your vote on that. This isn’t like 2 candidates in a race. I’m not telling you how to vote; I’m just saying, don’t base your vote on a false ad against it.

  130. greg Says:

    I was searching for info on Prop 2 and have enjoyed reading your debate. I’m particularly interested that, at least for the moment, it’s come down to the question of beliefs on a soul.

    As a Catholic, I was interested to find that St. Thomas Aquinas wrote that a developing fetus has first a vegetative soul, then an animal soul, and then human (intellective) soul occurs after. St. Augustine believed the soul cannot exist in a body that lacks sensation and is not yet formed in flesh. In fact the distinction between animated an unanimated fetus for ensoulment seems to have been in Canon law for about 1000 years though Christian sources claim it not to be true.

    Even within the grand history of Catholicism there seems to be some debate as to when ensoulment occurs.

  131. Tony Sidaway Says:

    For stating such heresies, greg, Nancy Pelosi was recently castigated by many American Catholic bishops! 🙂

  132. GotBrains? Says:

    Honestly, it really depends on your world view. You either find humans intrinsically valuable and created by God in his image or you believe you came from a rock that was rained on. (don’t get me started on so called evidence based on assumptions that were all proven wrong decades ago).

    It all comes down to you either value human life or you don’t. The only reason for embryonic stem cell research is in itself very selfish. You would only want it to continue if you thought you might have something to gain by it. (treatment for yourself or a loved one) Sorry, but I would never accept a treatment that I knew was made by killing someone else for the express purpose of the treatment. How are we any better then animals then? In fact, doesn’t that make animals more moral then us?

    To take something so miraculous, that we can never duplicate (no we cannot, we always have to use what is already available) and cheapen it by using it as a means to an end (that is more likely to not work than to work) just cheapens your own life. And in that case, if you find yourself so disposable, why are you still here? You have done nothing for me so why should I care about what happens to you? Isn’t that the way animals behave?

    You’re either nothing but an animal that would find it acceptable to create a life in order to kill it for possible benefits to you (and make other people pay for it by the way) or you are a created being who has decided to act in an immoral fashion.

    Peter Sanger once stated that “…there is no moral difference between a child in the womb and a child outside the womb.” He’s pro-choice and pro embryonic stem cell research by the way.

    And as for what the Catholic church may have to say about souls. God never made an animal soul in a human or out. I suggest you listen to what God has to say and read a real Bible for a change. He has much to say about when life begins.

  133. johnny d Says:

    its amazing how many ppl love bein stuck in the stone age… they say that no cures have come so far so we shouldnt do it…. that is so ignorant i cant believe it.. we havnt went to space yet so i guess we should just stop trying.. man will never fly, so stop makin them wierd cars with wings.. oh ya, snd the world is flat so quit sailing and doin all your crazy exploring you crazy heretic! if it wasnt for medical reserch in the first place the human race would still be dieing in our 40’s… seperation of church and state needs to be reinstated in this country.. damn religous right thinkin they need to impose their will and belief on everyone in the country…. if you dont like embryo research then dont donate yours.. if you dont like abortion then dont have an abortion.. taking away or choice is taking away our freedoms… so fuck the religous right! mind your own buisness.. and no, i dont belive in god so let the judgment flow. it only stregnthens your ignorance and missunderstanding of the world.. sorry i guess i just like to use my brain for thinking instead of being told how to feel about everything… move forward ppl!

  134. inkslwc Says:

    In the 10 years that embryonic stem cell research has been around, we’ve had no cures found. Every idea for a cure has failed.

    Here’s what’s happened so far: 1) 1981: ESCs derived from mouse embryos. 2) 1998: ESCs grown from derived from human embryos. 3) 2003: Produce male gametes

    As to going into space. You had breakthroughs happening all the time: 1) 1924: USSR establishes the Society for Studies of Interplanetary Travel. 2) 1926: First liquid-fueled rocket launched. 3) 1933: German V2 Rocket launched. 4) 1942: Germans reach space with V2 rocket.

    As for flight: 1) 1783: First hot air balloon flight. 2) 1852: Steam-driven airship flight. 3) 1874: Monoplane flight. … Several other flights take place before the Wright Brothers’ airplane.

    “The world is flat, so quit sailing … you crazy heretic.” What Greek guy was a crazy heretic? It was the Greeks who made the theory of a spherical earth popular, and by the 14th Century, virtually 99% of the world agreed with the Greeks. You must be under the dilusion that Columbus thought this up. My friend, you need to learn your history.

  135. Tony Sidaway Says:

    It’s interesting that opponents of embryonic stem cell research often point to the ten years since the first embryonic stems cells were extracted from a cell. For me the significance of that is that this is a very, very young field. Embryonic stem cells hold much promise but learning how to program and control them is difficult. As of now it’s possible to program an embryonic stem cell culture to produce blood cells in industrial quantities.

    I think that’s very good progress. Can adult stem cells also be programmed to do this? I don’t know. But the fact is that they have not.

  136. inkslwc Says:

    But look at the advancements we’ve made in adult stem cells and umbilical cord stem cells in about the same amount of time.

    And asfor the blood cells – is that the process that you had talked about before?

  137. greg zywicki Says:

    I think you may have missed part of Tony Sidaway’s point. In human intercourse, it is common for sperm and ovum to meet, combine, fail to take hold, and be discharged.

    This is the system our creator established. Would he assign a soul to that combination, knowing it could well pass on? perhaps, but that’s sort of unlikely. It’s more reasonable to consider that His gift of a soul is given to an implanted embryo.

  138. inkslwc Says:

    Greg, I already addressed that, saying that I believe he does give that person a soul, and that death is an unfortunate part of nature, and we can’t stop that, but it doesn’t mean that we SHOULD go and kill embryos.

  139. Anne Says:

    I have to put in my two cents that this is all the sick outcome of a greater problem caused by a society that believes one day human and fertility is a sickness that we need to cure by taking daily medication to “prevent” pregnancy (although often sperm+egg will meet but like a previous person mentioned will be discarded “naturally” or because the medication made the person infertile. Then the next day we decide that it is no longer a sickness, but a right that at all cost, even the cost of over-creating and destroying, they are entitled to have a child of their own. Doesn’t matter that millions of babies are being abandoned and unwanted because they were a sickness when they were given.
    In the end we take an intimate and significant between a man and woman and make it into a huge medical procedure (anyone watched Gattaca lately?) and before you know it things are way out of control. It is true that in nature some conceived children are lost, and even before the parent knows that they ever existed, but they did and they were human.
    Don’t tell me I am heartless and that I don’t want cures for these major illnesses to be found, but there has been no solid evidence that using dead babies will be of any use, just thousands of lives created for destruction. People seeking these procedures will have the idea that they are doing a good thing and I have no doubt that more lives will be created for destruction then ever. I am very upset about this proposal because it shows the ignorance of the importance of more promising stem cell research in adult stem cells.

  140. johnny d Says:

    then if your against it the dont do it.. that way we all get to keep our freedoms of choice…. you get to have your choice of not donating your embryos’ and we get to keep our choice to research on embyo’s that the womans body didnt even want… PPl are way to uptight, sensitive, and judgmental… everyone deserves a choice.. even you, ya crazy lil christians you. but i wouldnt expect much of a choice of your own since your religion doesnt allow you to use your brain.. if there was a god dont you think he would have know that eventually some of us would start to think? oh, sorry to use them big words like, think and brain… bottom line, “what if”. what if someday there is a cure for something? you’d be lying to me and yourself if you said you wouldnt use the cure for brain cancer, or some other terminal desiese you have just because stem cell research was involved.. so just relax a lil bit.. there will still be some issues for you guys to throw a fit about..

  141. inkslwc Says:

    I never said I wouldn’t accept treatment “becaues stem cell research was involved.” I love stem cell research, but I’d refuse treatement if it meant that embryos had to be killed for my treatment. You’re using the common liberal logical fallacy of claiming that anti-ESCR people oppose all SCR.

  142. Mary Says:

    Patients and embryos are red-herrings. This is about unrestricted ‘research’.

    Prop 2 suspends patient safety. Look at the 2a

    “research … must be conducted in accordance with state and local laws .. including … patient safety … to the extent that any such laws do not … discourage any stem cell research”

    Clearly this isn’t about patients. Embryonic stem cells ‘cannot be used directly in therapy because they cause cancer’ (Scientific American).

    Guinea pigs are cute – but people shouldn’t be them.

    Extra embryos are rare. If anyone would bother to read the study from which the 400,000 number comes, they would know that virtually all of them are stored for future family building. IVF works only 1/3 of the time. Embryos aren’t shelved for decades – they are used and renewed continually. Using embryo-stemcellline conversion probabilities w/CDC numbers we find Michigan would get about 6 new stem cell lines to start – and zero new ones annually.

    And, who gets to decide who gets embryos? U-M has 200 waiting (of which 35% won’t even survive the thaw process). Do they have to share or does everyone need an IVF clinic to do research?

    And, what about women? Drug-induced egg harvesting puts their health – even their lives at risk. The industry is moving towards abandoning this techinque in favor of using the woman’s naturally matured egg – which results in a healthier mother & baby – at 1/3 the cost.

    Eventually, there may be no embryos.

    Finally, other stem cells are already doing what embryonic ‘promises’. ClinicalTrials.gov shows over 1000 researchers recruiting patients for stem cell trials – and 0 for embryonic … because they are not safe and no one anywhere in the world are using them therapeutically. The development of induced pluripotent stem cells without using a retrovirus has all the ‘fathers’ of the embryonic branch of the discipline (Evans, Wilmut, Gearhart, Thompson) all saying this, and not embryonic, is the ‘future of stem cell research’.

    Embryonic is old news. Virtually obsolete.

    Big biz and snake-oil salesmen LOVE Prop 2 – because it would ‘prohibit state and local laws’, they can do what they want, pollute what they want – and we can’t stop them if they mumble ‘stem cell …”

    Vote NO.

    http://www.CureMI.com has links to clinical trials and amazing videos of how people are regrowing organs, regenerating limbs, recovering from diseases and more – using their own stem cells.

  143. Laurie Anne Says:

    Point 1
    Those of us who believe life begins at conception (and I really don’t see how you could believe otherwise – it grows, it’s alive, and it is human)
    believe that what you wouldn’t do to a newborn, you should not do to an embryo, or zygote, blastula, gastrula, or organogenesis. Once the sperm penetrates the egg, it’s a human being. If God chooses to take a newly formed soul home to be with him that’s His choice.

    Point 2
    Okay, suppose the embryo (let’s just call it that to be simple) isn’t a human at conception. When is it human? For the purposes of stem cell research it’s limited to 14 days, but abortion apparently has no time limit. Are you going to tell me it’s not human until it takes a breath?

    Point 3
    Suppose it was okay (and it’s not) for a woman to decide to do anything she wants with her body. (I’m not saying I’m perfect, but I do recognize it’s wrong to abuse your body with anything including too much of my favorite ice cream.) Feel free to PREVENT pregnancy any way you choose, but once you are pregnant, the embryo/fetus/baby etc, is NOT YOUR BODY.

    Point 4
    If killing (let’s call it what it is) an embryo/fetus/baby etc. is not okay 1 day before it is born, it is not okay to kill it 8.9 months before it is born.

    Even abortion/stem cell research supporters know deep inside that it is wrong to kill a full term fetus, and they know it doesn’t make any sense to say that’s wrong, but it’s okay right after conception. So there is no cut-off point for them. Why? because they want to be able to “choose” to kill it, so they make it okay ANYTIME before birth. There’s no way to say it’s okay at this point, and not okay at that point. They take the position that it’s okay anytime to kill the baby as long as it hasn’t been born yet. So, those of us who see that it’s wrong, must take the position that it’s wrong all the time.

    Point 5
    It is completely irrelevant whether stem cell/embryo etc. research will ever cure anything. What if they found cells from a two-year-old’s brain would cure Parkinsons, or Alzheimers (spelling)? Why not? I’m sure it would be humane. The kid would never know what hit him. It’s a slippery slope that needs to be walled up and kept away from at all costs.

    I am against stem cell research for the same reason I am against 70 mile an hour speed limit. They have determined its safe, but so what? When the speed limit was 55, people went 70. Now they go 80! We like to push the envelope, see what we can get away with.

    Many people accuse people who believe in God of being goody goody, or self-righteous, but it’s just the opposite. We recognize our nature. It’s why we keep the cookie jar out of the reach of children. It’s why we don’t even want them to know there even is a cookie jar.

  144. John McCain Says:

    I am always for you.
    Don’t vote for That One!
    Vote decent, vote for me.

  145. softwareNerd Says:

    Scientifically, life does not start at conception, it is already there. A sperm cannot be classified as inanimate, nor can an ova. Scientifically, even a tumor has life.

    However, a tumor, and a sperm and an ova, does not have life in the sense of being an individuated human being. Scientifically, just because two cells meet and start the process of becoming a human being, does not mean anything special. Therefore, any notion that there is something special at conception is simply a religious superstition.

    If people vote “No” on this, they will be denying real human beings the possibility of life-saving and life-enhancing medical treatments, on the basis of religious superstition. Sad! This attitude sits better in Iran. Even in Iran, theologists have a more lax superstition: they base their notion of the entry of the soul, upon the state of development of the fetus. While this is flawed, it does have the merit of looking at reality — at the actual state of the fetus — rather than basing it merely a superstition about the soul entering a cell.

    You Christians will take us back to the middle-ages with your superstitions.

  146. inkslwc Says:

    softwareNerd, we’re talking about human life, not whether it’s alive. We’ve alredy established that.

    How would we take you back to the middle-ages? I’m all for adult and umbilical cord stem cell research, and they’ve actually made advancements in those fields.

  147. Tony Sidaway Says:

    In ten short years, embryonic stem cell researchers have succeeded in synthesizing human cells on an industrial scale. That’s probably the most significant advance in medicine since Louise Brown.

  148. concerned Says:

    Correct me if im wrong here, but no where in this proposal does it say “lets make more embryos for research”. It simply states it will use those that will be discarded with the parents consent. If you vote no, it is not going to change how IVF is performed. IVF is very expensive if you have gone through it. By making only one embryo it will probably not be effective. Most people implant 3 at a time and they have to sometimes donate more then 3 eggs to have 3 viable embryos. So this is a proposal on what to do with the embryos being discarded. Not on how to get IVF clinics to make less embryos.
    Now with that being said if voting no means that IVF clinics are still going to function the same way. How can you let these clinics throw something away that could be used in science to help give a patient a cure.

    If you all have a problem with the ivf clinics that is a separate issue.

  149. inkslwc Says:

    You are correct, concerned, it doesn’t make any more embryos – that’s up to IVF clinics.

    I have an issue with both.

  150. Victor Says:

    Can we explain which has more value: a human person or a human being? A 14 day embryo does not have a brain; it is not aware; and it cannot conceptualize about a future. If the argument suggests we should protect all potential human persons, then masturbation should be illegal; women should have sex every day so they do not miss an opportunity to fertilize their eggs; all skin cells that we shed should be collected and saved so that we can take the genetic material from them and create babies; children should be having sex as soon as they hit puberty; and etc.

    But maybe we should ask another question on how much you value life. A fire is burning down a building. You can only pick one of two options: either save the 100, 7-day old embryos in room A; or save ONE 7-month old baby (7 months since birth that is). If you choose the 7-month old baby, you obviously place more value on one person over 100 little beings. If you choose the 100 embryos, you are one sick individual (who values fertilized eggs more than a being that can feel pain).

    See, because that’s what’s going on right now. There is a sizeable community out there who is suffering from unbearable conditions and diseases. There are embryos (like it or not) that are being created in excess and which are defected because couples are practicing their right to have children (which God wants, right?). These embryos aren’t suffering, and because of their defects, would never be able to feel pain or pleasure. However, there are real people, my neighbors and your friends, who are suffering incredibly. What gives you the RIGHT to deny them a chance, a hope, to relieve their suffering? Why does YOUR interpretation of when life begins and which stage of life has more value outweigh their belief on that issue — and why are we sacrificing THEIR personhood for a defected embryos blessing?

    But ya know, that’s been the republican platform: we’ll fight for them until they’re born, then they’re on their own!

  151. inkslwc Says:

    1. We’re protecting humans, not potential humans. So no, I don’t care about sperm, skin cells, and the rest.

    2. I’ve heard that scenario before, and it’s a dumb scenario, because it’s not practical. How bad is this fire? If it’s so bad that you can only save 1 or the other, you save the baby, because the embryos aren’t going to survive the trama of the fire and being exposed. If they’re not exposed, and safe from the fire, the tank they’re being stored in would probably be safe from the fire. If neither of these scenarios is true because the fire isn’t that bad and they’re not exposed, you’d have time to save both. Come back with a logical ethical question and I’ll answer that. But I can’t answer it without details.

  152. Victor Says:

    1. No, it’s very logical my friend. Don’t try to muddy the scenario with details. Which one(s) would you save? Don’t ignore the fundamental question. But you have to: because you’re afraid of how skewed you’re reasoning will become once you pock one option or the other. The option is IF YOU HAD TO. It’s like a politician trying to ignore an ‘if… then” scenario” because of its unlikeliness so he avoids telling the public the truth. INKSLWC: the truth, please.

    But here, I’ll help you out. Let’s say you’re an expert at diffusing bombs. Let’s also assume you’re the only available bomb diffuser because all other bomb experts have been called elsewhere (it’s a hectic day in this terrorist prone nation). Some radical extremist thinks the world needs population control. So he places a bomb inside a tank where 100 7-day old embryos are stored, and also one inside a room on the bed of a 7-month old baby (7 months since birth). You only have time to save the baby or the embryos. Which one do you save?

    You can keep on saying these are unrealistic, but most hypotheticals are. The point of them is so you can understand where your true values lie.

    2. No, you’re protecting homo sapiens, which has the potential to be a human person. I think we can both agree that a 14-day old embryo does not have a brain, and thus cannot be a person. You’re scientific philosophy may suggest that fertilization is when human life starts. But, the truth of the matter, is that human DNA = human life — wherever that life is. See, since I don’t believe that life starts at fertilization, but rather as soon as DNA is replicated and is nestled at home in the nucleus of a newly formed cell, all cells with human DNA are human life and have the potential to be human persons.

    3. BUT, I have a feeling you’re coming at this from more of a Christian or religious point of view (perhaps I’m mistaken). So you will insist that a soul enters the human DNA only when sperm and egg meet. I will insist that your religious beliefs should not override anyone else’s religious beliefs. It’s called separation of church from state. There are those of use who believe that no, the soul does not enter human life at conception. For example, many Jewish people believe the soul enters at birth. Another 10-15% of this nation (atheists/agnostics/humanists/non-religious people) do not believe in the idea of a soul at all. Just because the majority believe something, it does not mean that what they believe should hold true for the minorities also. So, you’ll have to resort back to science, and acknowledge that human DNA = human life. And that potential personhood does not = personhood.

    4. If you want to fight for a law or better science that says only 1 egg can be created for fertilization, then go ahead. But in the meantime, there are thousands of embryos being discarded or indefintely frozen. Man, what would the BIG MAN upstairs say about that? Either way, what spits on the face of human life: throwing them away, saying their worthless; or using that human life to potentially save other lives? I see it this way: if there is excess right, and even if you don’t agree how those excess embryos were created, those excess that are going to be thrown away should be put to some good rather than to no good. Many Christians feel this way: “Man, what would a rational and loving God want us to do? I know he doesn’t want us to kill human life, but I can’t control what the fertility clinics have already done. What would God think if I continued to support the throwing away and freezing of embryos rather than using them to save human persons?”

  153. Victor Says:

    And for those who argue about doing things the NATURAL way: what in the world are you talking about? There is no such thing as the unnatural (unless, that is, you don’t believe in evolution). But even if you don’t believe in evolution, then every thing in nature comes from GOD… so using the natural argument to attack IVF clinics is RIDICULOUS. Here’s why:

    Humans are animals. Humans come from nature. Humans are apart of nature. Which means humans are natural beings. The human brain is a natural thing. How can a natural thing (like the human brain) think of unnatural thoughts? It’s impossible! If it is nature itself, and if the thoughts originated from nature, then any thought is a natural thought! Any human-made thing is a natural thing because it came from humans, who in turn, come from nature.

    So, it is not UNNATURAL to use an IVF clinic. It is not the norm. And they didn’t have IVF clinics back in the day when the bible was written… shoot, they didn’t even have guns, but the NRA Christians love guns! There is no unnatural way to have a baby, just like there is no unnatural way to get to work every morning. Those are all human ways, and humans are part of nature, and everything we do is natural (originating from nature). SO PLEASE, don’t use the argument that it’s unnatural to have a baby in a clinic. You’re just trying to let your religious beliefs flourish in the public sector and are covering them up with misplaced reasoning and misguided science.

  154. concerned Says:

    Well said Victor.
    Can someone voting no on this proposal please give me a logical explanation on why it would be ok to throw away an embryo which is not suitable for implantation, but not ok to use this same embryo that would be in the garbage to save or cure a person already alive?
    Now before you answer, keep in mind what proposl 2 is about. It is not going to cange how ivf clinics function.

  155. inkslwc Says:

    1. If I have to choose, I save the embryos.

    2. Show me where separation of church and state (in the way you’re arguing for it) comes from and how it’s Constitutional.

    3. I’ve never said we shouldn’t use IVF.

    4. (to concerned) Because it encourages IVF clinics to function as they do. It’s the same principle as giving illegal immigrants driver’s licenses. If we do that, it gives more credibility to them being allowed to stay here. It’s the same reason that we should withdraw from Iraq as soon as rationally possible, because staying there sets a precedent.

  156. Victor Says:

    Concerned, good question… inkslwc, weak answer.

    1. And if it was 2 embryos instead of 100? Or if it was a 10 year old child instead of a 7-month old baby? So far I understand you’re sticking to your guns and putting more value to the #s of lives, rather than the kinds of live… that is developed life capable of suffering, and capable of being aware of it’s surroundings and the consequences of its actions.

    2. As far as separation of church and state, Amendment 1 clearly states that there should be no law put in place that establishes a religion. This clearly means: the state is separated from the Church. Which also means that any law dealing with religious overtones (the soul, God, etc.) can not be incorporated into the law. Which also means no one is fooled when the religious right and super religious people of this nation reconfigure their arguments to adhere to this amendment: we know it’s just another attempt by you to incorporate your religion into the law. Now you may say the same for me: “he’s just trying to incorporate his non-religious beliefs into the law, which are equally just beliefs.” The difference — incorporating my beliefs on this issue aren’t dictating what you can and can’t do with your body (including your eggs or your sperm); incorporating your beliefs ARE telling me what I can and can’t do with my body, telling me what measures I can and can’t use to relieve my pain and suffering. You will bring up that it’s murder; I’ll tell you since destroying a defected (dead-end) embryo is not killing a person, I have every right to do as I please with it… because it’s mine and because it’s not a person.

    So when we say separation of church and state, we mean we also don’t want the Jewish belief system that “the soul enters a human being at birth” to be part of the law. Many conservatives want laws to state that life starts at conception. Well, that is only partly based on science. To me, an egg is already human life, just not as far advanced as an embryo (the egg is still waiting for her second half). However, the 7-day embryo is still not as far advanced as the 7-month fetus (one is 100% dependent on another human being — the female carrying it — in order for it to grow a heart, brain, and etc.). Thus, the other half is purely based on religious beliefs. Which is fine — you vote your beliefs. But once your beliefs start governing how I lead my life and our worth more than mine, we’ve got problems.

    3. No, I know you didn’t. Another poster posted something about using IVF being an unnatural method to have children.

  157. Victor Says:

    Remember, if a law with religious overtones exists, it means that the government endorses that law. Which means the government is indirectly establishing certain religious guidlines as the law of the land — promotion of one religion over another. And I can’t have that. (Which is why I say take off “In God We Trust” from government issued currency — a clear reference to the Christian God which atheists and Buddhists don’t believe in. Unlike ESCR and abortion, conservative Christians can’t utilize a more secular avenue to promote their agenda. But all three are equally promoting the Christian agenda.)

    Our country isn’t a ‘majority rules’ nation. We are not a democracy. When the Federalists and AntiFederalsts were drafting our constitution, they made it clear their goal was to curb excess democracy. Our nation is a Constitutional democracy — meaning even if 99.9999% of the people are against an issue, the Constitution will have the final say. Eventually, if ESCR proposal does not pass in the next few years, the Courts WILL intervene — I can guarantee that. And the ESCR supporters will have a much easier time if the federal courts get involved because Michigan tax payer money wouldn’t be used to support this research, and invasion of privacy will be a focus point.

  158. Brian Says:

    This sounds like the proposal will limit the use of stem to the research of and treatment for fertilization only. If I am reading this correctly I will vote no on proposal 2. One because the state of Michigan is already far too puritan and I rather see thee use if stem cells in the use of research for duplication of stem cells and research for the curing of genetic diseases.

  159. concerned Says:

    It does not encourage IVF clinics to function as they do. They are going to continue doing the same thing whether you vote yes or no. They function how they function for a good success rate in helping people to have children who otherwise can not. The question again which was not answered yet is WHy would it be better to discard those embryo’s that are not viable for implantation rather then use them to help cure a patient? An already living human being. Please i don’t understand what is so difficult about this. The bill does not ask for funding, It still is against cloning. It only asks to use embryos THAT ARE NOT VIABLE AND ARE GOING TO BE CREATED WHETHER YOU VOTE YES OR NO for medical research. I realize that there are many issues in this world that you are all discussing but they do not all relate to this bill.

  160. inkslwc Says:

    1. You’re correct.
    2. Amendment 1 means that no national religion should be established by Congress, and I agree with that. You are taking the non-preferentialist stance. But if you take that stance, how can you make any laws. If you take non-preferentialism to its logical end, I could argue that my religion allows for me to kill my 8-year-old child, and you wouldn’t be able to stop me because you would be putting your religious beliefs (or lack of religious beliefs) above my religious beliefs. The only logical interpretation of the First Amendment is the separationist view.
    3. An egg is not a human life. It is a haploid gamete, not a diploid zygote.
    4. Just a correction – Anti-federalists were focused more on individual (as well as state and local government) rights and were opposed to the 1787 Constitution

    I have answered why. Because using these embryos will give more justify their creation of extra embryos. If a bill came up in the Michigan legislature that said, “One embryo created at a time” do you honestly think that the ESCR lobbyists are going to simply sit by? Of course not. I realize that they’re going to be created, but they shouldn’t be. It sets a precedent that makes it harder to make laws regulating the excess creation of embryos in IVF

  161. Victor Says:

    1. No, you could not argue that you could kill your 8 year old because of the violation of the 14th Amendment of “life, liberty, and property”. Yet, there is also a difference between beliefs and religious practices/icons/fundamentals. No law shall establish a religion — a law or government action that incorporates the Christian God is establishing a religion INDIRECTLY.

    2. An egg IS human life — it’s a LIVING human cell. If you deny that it is living, you’re wrong. If you deny that it’s a cell, you’re wrong. If you say that something that is living is not lfe, you’re also wrong.

    3. Anti-federalists were opposed to the power that a federal government would put in the hands of the elite. Actually, the antifederalists were divided as what they thought should be included in the Constitution. They eventually got their Bill of Rights added, and “agreed” to the Constitution. Either way, point is, the the framers understood and intented for Constitution to limit democracy — even the Antifederalists realized direct democracy was too much, and the reason for some antifeds wanting state governments to retain power (and not the people) was not because they wanted more of a democracy, but it was in their financial interest of a state of small farmers not to have some of their laws partly be created by property owners and merchants.

  162. Kristine Says:

    You are so wrong I don’t even know where to start. I thought anyone who actually read the proposal would be insane not to support it, and I guess I’m right.

  163. inkslwc Says:

    1. EXACTLY! You just proved my point, by showing that my Strawman argument was crap. And the 14th Amendment should be giving that right to unborn children as well.

    2. An egg is a LIVING cell, but it’s not a human life. This is a basic biology principle here. It’s made up of human DNA, but it’s lacking enough chromosomes to BE a human.

    3. I never argued for direct democracy, and direct democracy would be terrible, in my opinion.

    Kristine, nice ad hominem attack. Try sticking to the issues instead of calling me insane. Maybe that’s where you can start.

  164. pjaction Says:

    okay I would like to chime in after reading about half of these responses- I will respectively disagree and agree with the premise for proposal 2- first I am not concerned about the taxes- taxes are something we will pay regardless if this proposal passes- there are many more tax intrusive proposals than his one that will pass. I will agree the idea of conception is a valid arguement and I applaud the discourse- what is still being debated continuously from pro to con comments is that the current way couples try to make babies is wasteful at best- and is it OKAY to use this waste or loss of life for future life potential- maybe yes and no- we do have to admit that science and medicine up to this point has been at the expense of human life- so why stop now— the Tuskegee experiment comes to mind- this now outrageous neglect for human life was for a while considered a breakthrough in understanding STD’s….the other flip of the coin is -does this bring in new jobs into the State- that is unknown— I am only aware of one thing from this discussion- the debate is not what happens the day the proposal passes–its 10 years down the line and if abuses to the science and the embryos goes out of control— again maybe yes or no- what I dont want happening is this same issue to come up and be buried in a massive group proposal- then it would pass without clear debate… again sorry I did not pick sides- but now i know what I am voting on come November

  165. Victor Says:

    pjaction — Science and technology can either be used for good or for bad. The knife has killed more humans people than embryonic stem cell research has killed embryos, yet there is no call for a ban on the knife because it’s supposedly a handy tool. If the slippery slope argument is to be applied to one science or one tool, it should be applied to every tool.

    Inkslwc —

    1. An embryo is not a child. An embryo is not a person. So the 14th amendment doesn’t apply to the embryo. I was also showing that this secular/scientific argument from the “pro-life” corner is really a cover up for their religious beliefs. So since they can’t have religious wording as law, they are finding a different avenue (same thing with Creationism vs. Evolution in schools… they had to change Creationism to Intelligent Design so they could sound more secular and scientific).

    2. An egg is human life! You’re trying to say that it’s not a human being (a homo sapien). And I also disagree with the idea that a human embryo is a member of the homo sapiens speices. Humans are animals, in particular mammals. If you look at the definition of mammals, there are things like: brain, heart, blood, and etc. that make it a mammal and animal. I can argue that a 7-day old embryo is not a mammal, nor an animal (although it has the potential to become one of those) and thus cannot even be considered a human being! Either way, you have now entered the meshy area of saying you value certain types of human life over other types. And then that will alow me to argue that I agree, a 7 month old baby has more value than a 7-day old embryo. So, why again, is your assigned value have to be applied as truth, and written in law, and have more value than mine for me in my life?

    3. I know you didn’t argue for direct democracy. I was simply demonstrating that even if this popular ballot fails due to the majority are against it (majority rules), that the Courts who define the Constitution will have the final say. The people’s voice will not matter.

    4. Considering you’d pick the embryos over the baby, I consider you to NOT be pro-life, but rather anti-life — anti-human people. Man, if you were a bomb diffuser, and let my child DIE in order to save my 100 embryos in an explosion….wow, too speechless to even discuss what kind of person would be that heartless to do such a thing. The government doesn’t have the RIGHT to TELL me that my 100 embryos I create are worth more than my child — NEVER! I’ll make sure that never happens.

  166. inkslwc Says:

    1a. Why should YOUR definition of life be use, and not mine?

    1b. Both Creationism/ID and Evolution should be taught as theories. Neither has been proved, so neither should be taught as fact.

    2. An egg is not a human life. It has human DNA, but it doesn’t possess the 46 chromosomes that make homo sapiens. You’re biology here just sucks. An embryo is a homo sapien, just like an embryo of a dog is still a Canis lupus familiaris. Development has nothing to do with it. An egg is not a stage of deveolopment of a human, it’s a gamete. You’re missing basic biological principles here.

    3. The Courts would have no reason to overrule a ban on ESCR. The ban is in no way unconstitutional.

  167. Tony Sidaway Says:

    A creationist, too. I might have guessed.

  168. inkslwc Says:

    A creationist, but in no way am I advocating that it should be taught as fact. This is a belief that shouldn’t be imposed on others (which differs from my definition of life because it guarantees protection to all human beings), and anybody who says that this should be taught as fact is incorrect, and I would like to see any creationist PROVE that creationism is fact. Just as I’d like to see any Big Bang Theorist prove that the Big Bang actually happened.

  169. Victor Says:

    1a. I’m not saying that you should destroy your embryos or donate them. Your telling me that I can’t.

    1b. Creationism is religion. And you want religion in public schools. Which indirectly allows the government to establish the teaching of religion. And as someone who has “majored” in evolution (anthropology-zoology to be precise), I will have to say that you suggesting that creationism should be equated to a science like evolution is an insult on reason. Nothing can be proven — science doesn’t prove things. Science disproves things. Creationism is about whether a God created the universe or not, and it is not a science because it’s a question that extends beyond the natural world. Science is not in the business of answering questions about the supernatural. Evolution is one (the only) workable NATURAL theory that describes how life came to be on Earth. (whether you BELIEVE that God had something to with it or not is your business… but just because you don’t like what science has figured out thus far, it doesn’t give you the right to suggest that it not more sound than a belief — because evolution can be tested, and all the mechanisms of evolution have been tested and not disproved, whereas Creationism principles cannot be tested).

    2. Actually, my biology is very sound. But let’s play this game. An egg is a living cell. It’s a HUMAN cell. It’s human life. So is a skin cell. They are alive, and they are not pig cells, but human cells. So they are living human cells. Chromosomes are only PART of the definition of what a human being (or homo sapien) is. There are other factors (as I mentioned before — brain, heart, reproductive organs, etc.) that contribute to the definition of what an animal, mammal, and homo sapien is. An egg cell is also part of the developmental stage to becoming a homo sapien, as is an embryo.

    But using your idea that 46 chromosomes is what makes a human being a human being, then your logic would entail that a skin cell is human life (or human being) because a human skin cell has 46 chromosomes… hmmm, interesting, so it has to be more than just the NUMBER of chromosomes that defines what a homo sapien is… right? Just like an embryo, a skin cell has basically all the DNA necessary to create a human person — just certain parts aren’t “turned on.” Next, as far as being a stage of human life, isn’t it true that the human brain appears at a stage of life after fertilization? and isn’t it also true that you need an egg cell (when creating babies through sexual reproduction) to get to the next stage of human life, which is the creation of the embryo? Your stages of human life do not begin at fertilization, but rather with meisosis and the creation of sperm cells and egg cells… or rather with the replication of DNA…and so on…

    So how about you go back and study some biology before you accuse me
    of missing basic biological principles? Thanks!

    3. The courts had a reason to claim that abortion cannot be illegal; the Courts will have a way to overturn a ban on ESCR.

  170. inkslwc Says:

    1a. I’m protecting human lives, which is guaranteed under the 14th Amendment. Why should we use your definition of a human life instead of mine?

    1b. Evolution has been tested and failed these tests (for example: tests on zircon crystals showing that they have too much helium in them to be as old as Evolutionists claim). I hate to do this, but let’s stay at least semi-on topic, because this debate will just go on forever.

    2. You’re right, it’s part of human life, but it is not A human life. And you’re trying to equate the 2. An egg is not part of that deveolpment. An egg without the sperm will never develop into a seperate human, even if you could somehow implant that egg into the wall of the uterus, it’d never develop beyond an egg.

    A skin cell, again, is not going to develop any more than just a skin cell. An embryo is.

    And as for stages of human life – sperm and egg are not a UNIQUE human life – that’s what we’re talking about here, not components of humans. We’re talking about UNIQUE human beings. An egg is not a unique human being. An embryo is. It’s your biological principles that are lacking in logic.

    3. That cour decision had to do with allowing women to control things that go on in their body (although in my opinion, Roe v. Wade shouldn’t have been decided that way, since it violates the 14th Amendment). I see no way that the Constitution would outlaw a ban on using embryos for stem cell research. The only way that you might be able to argue that is by defining it as abortion, but the embryos are out of the mother’s body, so I don’t think that the Court could actually rule on that from any precedent already established. I just don’t see the legal means for it.

  171. Victor Says:

    1a. I’m not asking you to use my definition. But you’re asking me to use yours. However, 14th Amendment refers to life, liberty, and property. I imagine that the liberty and property clause can not apply to an embryo because something without a brain cannot own something, and cannot have liberties. Nor can an embryo have the freedom of expression, speech, press, etc. Now, if all these can’t apply to an embryo, why does it follow that the “life” clause applies to an embryo? The life clause actually refers to people who are entitled to all other aspects of the Constitution. An embryo is not entitled to ANY part of the Constitution (for the FIRST basic reasoning that it’s not a citizen. So, how can a non-citizens without a brain be entitled to all those rights that I am? And the clinical definition of death is “Brain-dead”. Where the brain completely does not function. An embryo does not have a brain — yet is given more value than a person who has a brain that’s not working. Even if we change the argument to a heart-dead, an embryo doesn’t have a heart, and is given more rights than a human who had/has a heart that no longer works. If you are going to protect human embryos, you need to protect ALL human life and keep all people hooked up to machines forever. Who cares how much resources are wasted or how much money it costs, because life is more important than cost.)

    1b. Okay.

    2. But you can create a human being from a skin cell. Besides the point, an egg IS part of the development because how can an embryo even begin without the egg through sexual reproduction?

    Well, I thought you were pro-life. Now your stance is changing to pro-human beings, and not pro-life. But you still have not demonstrated how being a human being entitles you to the same right as a human being with a brain? Or a human person? How can ‘you’ be ‘you’ without a brain? The ‘I’ doesn’t exist without the brain. So in essence, there is no ‘you’ that is having his right to life taken away when an embryo is aborted, discarded, or used for ESCR. Or why an egg doesn’t deserve the same protection as an embryo because the egg is “one UNIQUE half” that can never be created again; and without it, you cannot have a human embryo.

    3. Invasion of privacy. That’s what R v W is about. Invade my privacy when you tell me what I can do with my embryos.

  172. inkslwc Says:

    1. A newborn baby doesn’t have any more liberties than the embryo and can’t own property, so what’s the difference between being inside the woman and being outside?

    2. Because we’re talking about Unique human beings, not unique halves.

    3. But wouldn’t cloning be legal as well? This is an area of the law where I’ll admit that I really don’t know as much (I’m not talking about Roe v. Wade, I’m talking about cloning and stem cell research), mainly due to the fact that there are no laws on cloning, which is probably the closest case that would be used as precedent in an ESCR ban court case.

  173. Victor Says:

    Actually, the reason ESCR cannot take place is BECAUSE we have the strictest laws on cloning in the nation practically. Scroll down to Michigan and you can read our laws:


    Not only does Michigan ban reprouductive cloning, it bans therapeutic cloning. Which is why nothing can get passed in Congress and has to be put on proposal.

  174. Bill Says:

    Let’s cut through the entire chase here and say this is a issue that Republicans want to use to get their base to the polls. It happens every year. It’s either GOD, GUN, GAYs or Abortion. It like clockwork. Republicans don’t care one way or another until they need the vote. Their track record proves it. Same as Bush using anti-gay rhetoric then stocking his admistration with gays.

    They are tying to split the electoral vote in California and have the anti-gay marriage amendment on their ballot simply to draw out their base.

    These are facts. You can go on about the argument for years and it’ won’t change a thing.

  175. inkslwc Says:

    Victor, I understand what you’re saying, but I just don’t see the legal precedent there for a Court to make that decision.

    Bill, sure that was used in 2004, but come on, you really think that even with this McCain can win Michigan? If so, you have more faith than I do.

  176. LS Says:

    First, I have a question:
    I am not extremely aware of all christian beliefs and where they come from, so I’d like to know where the belief of human life at conception stems from?
    And where the belief of humans having souls (and animals not) stems from?

  177. LS Says:

    I just want to make known there are several problems with adult stem cells (the high incidence of DNA altercation because of toxicity of the environment {UV, Chemical, etc}) and that umbilical cord stem cells to be implimented within an individual must be from that individual. That is umbilical cord blood has only been largely stored after the 1990s (those older wouldn’t have that option, or if it wasn’t stored for the individual) or theraputic cloning must be used in addition to the umbilical cord stem cells so rejection doesn’t occur.

  178. LS Says:

    Has anyone considered the positive economic impact this would have on Michigan, specifically southeast Michigan? Between 5,000-15,000 jobs could be created. Please discuss.

  179. inkslwc Says:


    1a. It stems from David saying that he will see his dead baby again in heaven. I view human life as human life, no matter at what stage of deveolopment (we’re talking viable unique human life here, not skin cells from humans).

    1b. Genesis – God putting Adam and Eve in charge of the animals and putting them in Adam and Eve’s care.

    2. ASCs and UCSCs have at least had advancements. Nothing has been derived from ESCs.

    3. So created these jobs by doing research on ASCs and UCSCs.

  180. Tony Sidaway Says:

    I can’t believe that someone is actually quoting ancient fairy tales from Genesis and expects to be taken seriously. What planet is this?

  181. yutt Says:

    Hey we could save millions of lives and cure, currently, incurable diseases.

    But instead I will adopt the most extremist stance possible so that more people die and live painful, crippled, and shorter lifes.

    Isn’t fundamentalist Christianity wonderful?

  182. Rick Says:

    right on! You have been taking a beating here, but it has paid off. I am filling out my absentee ballot, and learning about the issues. I am voting no! I especially do not like the last paragrapgh that reads: “Prohibit state and local laws that prevent, restrict, or discourage stem cell research…” I also firmly believe that life begins at conception… not an arbitrary 14 days! Thank you for fighting the good “Fight for life” The same folks here who are blasting you for defending human life are probably the same ones who are outspoken PETA advocates defending animal lives. Why aren’t you folks defending your own species?

  183. Rick Says:

    Also with regard to Art. 27,2,b, ii: “ii. the embryos were not suitable for implantation and would otherwise be discarded unless they are used for research.”

    Basically this allows the doctors to use embryos without permission if they deem them not suitable for implantion. Is there going to be oversight?

  184. Rick Says:

    Yutt… let me put this in your terms… Karma; “The philosophical explanation of karma can differ slightly between traditions, but the general concept is basically the same. Through the law of karma, the effects of all deeds actively create past, present, and future experiences, thus making one responsible for one’s own life, and the pain and joy it brings to him/her and others. The results or ‘fruits’ of actions are called karma-phala. In religions that incorporate reincarnation, karma extends through one’s present life and all past and future lives as well.”

    If you save millions, and cure incurable diseases, populations will explode, and you will have war and starvation. Your choice, but wait… it won’t affect you, you will long be dead. It will affect your childrens children. This vote has far reaching consequences or our childrens children……War and starvation.

  185. inkslwc Says:

    yutt, why aren’t you trying to save lives with treatments proven to work instead of wasting time with ESCs? Isn’t opposition to Christianity just to oppose it wonderful?

    ESCR has yielded no cures (but they have outlined one process that MIGHT make a replacement for red blood cells – remember, that’s outlined the process for something that might work). Meanwhile, adult and umbilical cord stem cells have given us great results (Here’s a website that a pro-ESCR guy posted, not realizing that the cures on here were from UCSCs and ASCs: http://www.stemcellschina.com/)

  186. Victor Says:

    Two thumbs up for animal rights: newsflash, the Earth and life on Earth can survive without humans, but humans cannot survive without the Earth and other life on Earth! To deny that a being who can suffer and feel pain (like a cow, pig, dog, squirrel, horse) have less rights than an organism who can not (an embryo) is ridiculous simply because they are of another species! It’s the same thing as racism: enslaving an animal (in the 1800s it was a human animal, now it’s a nonhuman animal) because it’s different than us without considering that THAT animal is suffering. We truly are a cruel species. All because of this idea of “sanctity of life” and “dominion of other animals” that an immoral and rhetoric filled Bible preaches.

    Rick, if you save embryos and don’t have abortions and don’t use contraception and still have sex like the Christianity wants you to (which would be saving millions if you combine the four) populations will explode, and you will have war and starvation. I love your comparison, but it’s faulty. Because the aim is to heal suffering, not to attain immortality.

  187. inkslwc Says:

    Well, animals couldn’t survive without the Earth. Almost nothing could survive without the earth (maybe a bacteria or something would be able to survive on a space rock, but not for long).

    God made man in his image, not animals. Animals don’t have souls.

  188. quanloco Says:

    yeah all you repuklicans are pro life but let me just say that you can’t be pro life and pro war and I bet all of you are for the war and think killing is ok when it fits into what you beileve. I hate repblicans you are hipocitical ass holes who think you are always right.

  189. inkslwc Says:

    You can be pro-life and support the war. Nobody (normal) is pro-war. Some people support the choice to go to war, but if you’d go and read through my blog, you’d notice that I supported Chuck Hagel. Unfortunately, none of the Presidential candidates match up with my beliefs on Iraq (and none of the candidates ever running did), but I believe that we need to get the job done as soon as possible, and then get out. We never should’ve gone in, but now that we’re in, we should move our troops to the border, so that the Iraqis can deal with the civil unrest. We need to train the Iraqi army so that they can adequately do their job. And then we need to leave.

  190. Victor Says:

    Life (DNA) can survive without humans. But humans need other organisms on Earth to survive.

    Well, this is where Bible believers are wrong. Where does it say God made man in his PHYSICAL image? ….searching…. can’t find it. Maybe since God doesn’t have a physical image, he created man in his image of love and reason, not physical attributes. Ahh.. God wanted MEN to not cover their heads because the authors of the bible were sexist and believed only men were able to reason like God.

    Really, that’s just pointing out how the bible can easily be interpreted many ways and why there are thousands of different kinds of churches and millions of believers with greatly varying beliefs… because too many people are too smart to accept most of it as literal, but too influenced by 2000 years of myths and lies to completely let go of Christianity.

    Animals can suffer; they can feel pain. Enough said. A reasonable person knows that it is wrong to inflict pain and suffering on a living thing unless your life is threatened. Thus, animal killers (and not embryo destroyers) are murderers.

  191. Tony Sidaway Says:

    Rick, the proposal would not permit the use of the embryos without permission. See “were donated by the person seeking fertility treatment.”

    If the person seeking fertility treatment doesn’t actively donate her surplus embryos for stem cell research, they cannot be used for that research.

  192. inkslwc Says:

    God made humans in his image, meaning that we have a soul, just like God is a soul.

    So, you believe that eating meat is wrong (not trying to be condescending, I’m just making sure that I’m not inferring something that you didn’t imply).

    Tony, sorry – I had meant to comment on that. Thanks for clarifying that for everybody.

  193. Ben Voigt Says:

    Well, medicine has made progress again, and made destructive stem cell research totally unnecessary. It is now possible to obtain pluripotent stem cells without killing a single unborn human child. And the stem cells obtained are safer to use, carrying less risk of becoming cancerous.


    Stop embryonic stem cell research. It’s bad science, it’s bad medicine, it’s bad morals.

  194. Tony Sidaway Says:

    Ben, whilst that’s a promising technique, we don’t know yet whether those stem cells are as versatile as embryonic stem cells. As for the science and the medicine, ten short years of research have been productive.

    The ethical questions were addressed in my country some time ago and we maintain a national library of embryonic stem cell cultures.

  195. Tim Says:

    I’m sorry, but I cannot let go the evolution/creation argument from above. Victor hit the nail on the head when he mentioned that creationism (or ID, which is creationism in disguise) should not be taught in science classrooms, since it does not fall in the realm of science (testable by accepted scientific techniques). He was right in saying that evolution is the only accepted scientific theory explaining the origin and diversity of life on earth. These points are presented much better than my explanation in this excellent publication, from the National Academy of Sciences.


    It should be mentioned that the term theory, when applied to science, means something vastly different than what most people think it means. Webster’s defines a scientific theory as “a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena.” This differs from the everyday definition of a theory, which is more of a hunch. So evolution is not “just a theory”, because theories are what science is based on. It’s funny that people do not reject or argue against cell theory or gravitational theory, just because they are theories. Creationism or Intelligent Design are not theories, because they are inherently not scientific. They are religion, or dogma, beliefs based on authority rather than scientific evidence. That is not to say religion does not have value to humans, just that it does not belong in the science classroom along with evolution.

    As for inkslwc’s argument that evolution has been “tested and failed these tests”, he is completely wrong. Evolutionary theory has withstood scrutiny for 150 years, and while certain aspects continue to be refined, as all scientific theories are, the scientific support for evolution is overwhelming. In fact, evolution is often described as “the” defining theory in all of biology, and that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.

    As for inkslwc’s argument about zircon and helium, this document explains the poor science behind that argument.


    The data “supporting” the zircon/helium argument for creation was never published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal (a requirement to be considered valid science), rather only in Young Earth Creationists publications, and does not pass scientific muster. Inkslwc was most likely duped by nefarious creationist web sites or other publications whose goal is to create doubt about evolution with misleading or completely false information. When making arguments against evolution, check to see if you can find a reference to a study from a peer-reviewed journal. Most likely, one does not exist.

  196. Russell Says:

    I’m voting Hell Yes! I also believe life begins with conception, but ends in agony if we don’t take opportunities like this to allow beneficial research. Anyone voting no ever cared for a parent with Alzheimers? Or a best friend with MS. I have both right now and it is heartbreaking.

    I’ve signed my donor card to donate any organs or tissue in the event of my death to help my fellow man. If you need my heart and I don’t need it anymore – it’s yours. What is the difference if an embryo is not viable, and the parents agree to donate it to science? Yes it is life, but it did not develop further. Discard it or benefit disease research? Pretty closed minded to just discard it.

    Some of the best research hospitals in the country are right here in MI, and they cannot do the research being done in other states allowed by federal law, because of the extreme right to lifers here. Anti Prop 2 commercials that are just full of lies…

    Another example of this state’s weakness – lack of death penalty. Rampant violent crime, and the prosectors have no death penalty option. If Ted Bundy murdered all those people in MI, he’d still be alive watching TV in prison. Sorry for the sidetrack – Vote YES on 2

  197. Tony Sidaway Says:

    What is it with Americans and the death penalty? We won’t even let a country into the EU unless they abolish the death penalty, and it’s not as if we were overrun with violent crime and murder. In fact the UK murder rate is 1.4 per 100,000. Of all the American states, only Iowa and New Hampshire have lower murder rates (1.2 and1.1). The national rate for the USA is 5.6 per 100,000.

  198. Marie Says:

    It’s depressing to me that, being only fifteen, I can’t vote yet on this issue. I’m an intensely pro-life Catholic girl, just to clarify where I’m coming from. This is awkward because since I’m young, religious, and female, most people seem to simply dismiss me right off the bat. While I’ll admit that I’m not as educated as some (Because I simply haven’t lived long enough yet), I’ve done extensive research into this and other topics because I want to go into biomedical ethics when I get older.

    I agree with virtually everything inkslwc has said, and a lot of other pro-life people who have posted on here as well.

    If you consider it rationally, it is obvious that life begins at conception. If it is not killed, an embryo will develop and be born. Of course there are some that die of natural causes, but just because some babies die of SIDS, does that mean it’s all right to murder them? A creature that will grow and develop if not killed is a living organism in its own right. (It is interesting to note that the step after prenatal killing seems to be infanticide, happily advocated by quite a few people.)

    This proposal seems like a good thing on the surface, because the embryos exist anyways, and so why not put them to use? But the issue lies, as inkslwc has been saying all along, with the fact that the creation and subsequent destruction of embryos is a huge problem in its own right. Since slavery exists anyways, why not own slaves? They’ll only be mistreated and dehumanized by someone else if you don’t. It’s completely illogical.

    That embryonic stem cell research has produced virtually no benefits or developments only makes the entire situation more horrible. It supposedly justifies the killing of innocent babies (Yes, I said babies instead of embryos. So shoot me.), but there have been no actual, practical benefits! It’s just a pretty excuse for experimentation on people. I fully support stem cell research- Just not when you’re only theoretically moving in a vague direction towards possible cures, with very little evidence thus far that you’ll ever actually get there, and in the process exterminating thousands of lives.

    Life has been proven to begin at conception. That’s an obvious fact to most truly educated people. (Note the most- I admit that some educated people still believe otherwise, although I don’t know how.) One of the most fundamental rights of out people is the right to life. Is advocating the right to life forcing your religion on people? Saying that it’s okay to have religious ideas like that killing is bad form part of our governmental system, but that religious ideas like killing is -always- bad, even for unborn children, have no place there, is utterly ridiculous.

    Pro-choice people are constantly arguing for ‘logic’ and ‘reason’, and yet I have never come across a pro-choice argument that does not have a perfectly logical pro-life argument to disprove it. (Granted, you do have to accept the idea that killing is bad first, which I suppose may pose a problems in convincing all the serial killers out there. Oops.)

    (By the way, the serial killers comment was not meant to imply that pro-choice people are psychopaths or killers or anything. It was just sarcasm.)

    Some other comments on things that I read:

    Personally, if I were a legal adult and thus able to actually join a political party, I would be an Independent. People seem to just instantly connect Pro-life to Republican, which I take offense at. Because the issue is such an important one to so many people, I do not deny that some people are Republicans just because of that issue. However, many of them may be Republican -only- for that reason, like my mother and others I know.

    The same mindset seems to instantly connect Christian, Catholic especially, to religious fanaticism and closed-mindedness. If people would just bother to learn about the religion, so much of this could be avoided! It’s also sad that many Christian and Catholic people know so little about their own faith, or set examples that make the entire religion look bad, as well. Not all Christians dismiss evolution, are opposed to science and medical developments, or believe everything just because the Church says so. We have our own minds, and we’re not just brainwashed idiots! (Well, most of us. I won’t deny that there are probably a few out there.)

    Anyhow, I apologize if this comment seems disjointed, etc. It’s past twelve-thirty, I got four hours of sleep last night, I have to get up at six and go to another lovely day of high school, and I’ve got a heavy courseload.

    I’m going to check back tomorrow, so if anyone has anything to say to me please, please do! I am always willing to listen to other opinions and arguments, because looking at both sides of an issue is the only way to fully understand it and all that. (Please, though, no idiotic stereotypes about Pro-life people, Christians, or Catholics. That’s just annoying and completely useless. Thanks.) I’ll probably post again anyways when my brain is functioning better, because I know I didn’t cover all of what I wanted to say.

  199. Brad H Says:

    Do you stand around crying after sex? The reason for multiple IVF embryos being created is that most do not implant. Whether the embryo is created naturally or artificially does not matter; most do not implant. So when you have sex, let’s say fertilization occurs, and then implantation does not occur. Did you just kill something?

    I can’t help but find your arguments entirely ludicrous. A preimplantation embryo is essentially a collection of totipotent stem cells. Admittedly they have unique genetic makeup, BUT SO DOES CANCER.

    I understand the sentiment, you want to avoid any chance of killing a person. So you’ve drawn the line at “potential for life”. But embryos die all the time, even naturally. The majority of them die. Saying that IVF has to be BETTER than nature for ethical reasons is just silly, and frankly inconsiderate of those who cannot naturally procreate yet must function on a limited budget. So they should waste tons of resources and money to satisfy your uneducated moral qualms?

    Get real. Why don’t you focus on WAR instead. Those are REAL PEOPLE. Yet republican policy seems to be happy-go-lucky let’s bomb the middle east, filled with REAL PEOPLE not just POTENTIAL PEOPLE. I sometimes think if Iran were populated with embryos, republicans would think twice about wanting war.

    But that’s beside the point. Stem cell research is the holy grail. The potential to improve quality of life is immense. And frankly, seeing people shed tears over embryos without a second thought about the paralyzed and Parkinson’s ridden is sickening.

  200. inkslwc Says:

    Tim, it’s the law of gravity, not theory – that’s the difference.

    As for evolution, evolution and Big Bang Theory use assumptions that are even more impossible to prove than helium/zircon crystal methods of dating.

    An embryo failing to implant isn’t the fault of anybody, just like a miscarriage (normally) isn’t, so saying that “you killed somebody” if an embryo doesn’t implant doesn’t make any logical sense.

    Why do you people continue to associate me with war? You’re stereotyping Republicans and conservatives.

  201. John McCain Says:

    I will give some of my cells to every American woman who wants me to.

  202. Tony Sidaway Says:

    The use of the term “law” in science probably isn’t what you think it is. A scientific law is just a scientific theory simple enough to be described in analytical terms (for instance, as mathematical formulae).

    A scientific law is a theory just like any other, and like any scientific theory it can be tested and may be disproven. As it happens Newton’s law of universal gravitation has been disproven. It was found that this theory fails to predict the orbit of Mercury correctly.

    Einstein’s theory of gravity, more commonly known as the General Theory of Relativity, posits that what we perceive as a gravitational force is actually movement through space-time, a continuum which is distorted by mass. It correctly predicts the orbit of Mercury, and has also been tested by measuring gravitational lensing effects during solar eclipses (gravitational lensing is also predicted by Newton’s theory but the deflection of light predicted is incorrect).

    Although General Relativity is expressed as a set of field equations, and thus is a “law”, the term “theory” is more commonly used.

  203. Tony Sidaway Says:

    On the big bang, well let’s say it’s the best way we know to make sense of the data. If you can think of a better way, please submit a paper!

    On evolution, you really must read about the subject, and not in one of those silly creationist books. The evidence is overwhelming and only a few religious nitwits have any serious objection.

  204. Tony Sidaway Says:

    Really if you think the embryo is a live human being with human rights at the point of conception, why not stop women going to the toilet if they’re having sex? Doing so causes the deaths of these human beings in their millions, and surely a little inconvenience is worth it to save us from being complicit in this slaughter.

    The technology to extract blastocysts from the womb exists, and then the cells can be put back into the uterus at the appropriate time, as the wall thickens, ensuring implantation.

    Thus you would save millions of human lives every year.

  205. Tim Says:


    Further clarification on the differences between laws and theories from the National Academy of Sciences:

    “Laws are generalizations that describe phenomena, whereas theories explain phenomena. For example, the laws of thermodynamics describe what will happen under certain circumstances; thermodynamics theories explain why these events occur.

    Laws, like facts and theories, can change with better data. But theories do not develop into laws with the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the goal of science.”

    As far as your statement that “evolution and Big Bang Theory use assumptions that are even more impossible to prove than helium/zircon crystal methods of dating”, once again, science does not look to prove, but to disprove. And the assumptions science makes about those theories are consistently supported by the available evidence, which is why they are considered theories and not hypothesis. You are really treading on thin ice, and essentially disregarding the preponderance of evidence in your claims. If you mistrust the science supporting evolution, then how can you really trust any science, even that of stem cells?

    One final thought, if creationism or intelligent design should be taught in science classrooms, as you argue, then they must be regarded as science and therefor testable. Please give me an example on how one can design a test, or make valid inferences, that god exists and is “designing” organisms. Religion is a worthwhile way of knowing for humans, but it is not science.

  206. pjaction Says:

    wow los of conversation since I chimed in earlier- but I would lke to make a statement to both victor and inkslwc….

    Victor- your argument on on science being “all natural ” is kind of a crock-man has the ability to think naturally and un-naturally- this is called ” free-will” and as you may or may not be aware- some science we humans have tapped into were considered witchcraft to others….. but you are proposing correctly- do i think Invetro Vertilization is natural- I would say No… even if the expected outcome is a natural human life being born….

    Inkslwc…. your point of an embryo cell outside of the body is the same as one in the body is also a crock- although I understand your stance- if we stated that IVF now is not a natural way on conception- then those embryos conceived outside of the womb are also created un-naturally- so may or may not have the same view…- If we believe man made-aided conception is natural then the argument against use of excess embryo’s for research would hold more weight in this discussion…

    Long and short about it- i believe this debate is more complex then we all think and more vaporous than a solid issue- keep up the great concourse and thank you

  207. inkslwc Says:


    1. Law vs. Theory: It depends which definition you use. The most common definitions have to do with either mathematic definability or law being more proven through observation through the years. There’s about 5,000+ definitions out there, each one given a different definition by a different scientist. The most commonly accepted definition in the scientific community is that law is more observed (or adequately replicated).

    2. I have looked at stuff from both creationist and non-creationist points of view. Even Ben Stein will tell you that there are serious flaws in evolution theory.

    3. Tony – that’s nature. Death happens in nature. But that doesn’t mean that we should go and kill embryos for science just because.

    1. Again, it depends who/which association you ask – but arguing over law vs. theory is irrelevant to the whole thing.

    2. You said, “science does not look to prove, but to disprove.” So I claim there is a God. Disprove that. If you can’t disprove God, just like I (allegedly) can’t disprove the Big Bang theory, does that mean that there is a God?

    3. You cant test Creationism by testing young earth theories, which HAVE stood up to tests.

  208. Victor Says:

    Pjaction… my argument solely comes from what the definition of what natural is. Nothing man can think of can be unnatural. Nothing. It’s impossible. We are 100% natural: we are 100% nature.

    Marie: you have a few flaws in your reasoning. If an embryo is not killed, it MAY (not will) develop and be born. Thus, the same thing can be said of a sperm cell or an egg cell. Think of it like this: an embryo cannot develop into a human person unless the female host supplies it with nutrients to develop. The same applies to a sperm cell: unless it is supplied with the “nutrient” (in this case it is the egg cell) it cannot develop into a human person. Both a sperm cell and an embryo CAN develop into a human person. So how does this argument hold up for supporting the two concepts that life starts at conception, or that an embryo has more rights than a sperm cell? It doesn’t. You may say that an embryo has 46 chromosomes, while a sperm cell doesn’t. So this would be you telling me that life at a certain stage is more valuable than another stage of life. But if all human life has the right to life, no matter what stage in development it is at, then even the sperm cells have a right to life!

    Infanticide can also be justified and even sometimes necessary.

    I find it also ironic that many who are against abortion advocate that it’s okay only in the circumstance in which the mother’s health/life is at risk. Why does the mother have more of a right to life than the unborn child according to this pro-life argument?

    As far as your opposition to “the embryo exists anyway” argument: what gives other people to throw them away (hence, “killing” them?) There are only two evils to pick in this case (be real, there are not that many people willing to adopt the hundreds of thousands of embryos and allow them to develop into a human being): evil one is throw them away and kill them and not potentially save any lives; evil two is to use them for research and kill them and use them to potentially develop some treatments and cures that will save lives or ease suffering. Which evil does a sensible and moral person pick?

    Marie, in the world of science and research, 10 years is like a few seconds on the clock. For many out of those 10 years the science was really limited; new; under funded; unexplored; limited resources; and not widespread. As far as “little evidence:” how can you have ANY evidence in any new science or research when you first start it? It’s like saying this before we knew anything about Mars: “there is no water on Mars because there is no evidence for it.” Hmm… give it some time, and more research, and evidence may pop up.

    Killing an embryo is not killing a person. A person has a brain, or is self-conscious.

    Life has not begun at conception. That is not a fact. Fertilization is a developmental stage of life. Most truly educated people KNOW this.

    Killing is not “bad” in all cases. Many pro-lifers don’t follow the absolute morality ideas that Christians believe. Rather they believe that human beings, through reason, observation, experience, and judgment, decide how to act in every different circumstance. If killing was bad, I imagine we say it’s not as bad as for that soldier whose limbs are scattered around him and is losing blood so fast that his last few minutes of death will minutes of great suffering that he asks his fellow soldier to put a bullet in his head so he can die without suffering. If we can establish that some killings are not AS bad as other, we now enter the fact that killing is on a scale, not “just bad” or “just good.”

    Christianity, along with every other religion that listens to what men wrote what God said 2000 years ago (or even today), is a disgrace to reason. Pure and simple. To rely on belief, and put observation, rationality, reason, experience, logic, and judgment SECOND to beliefs is what is ridiculous. We all have beliefs. It’s when we say that our beliefs have more weight than the fact that 2+2=4 is where I have problems. If the Bible would have said that God says 2+2= 5, I’m sure you would have little problems leaving your religion behind. But many have no problem believing that what was it, 3 loafs of bread fed thousands of people. And if Christians who believe that that was simply symbolic, where do we get to draw the line in the Bible between what is symbolic and what is real? Oh yeah: we just leave it to belief!

  209. Victor Says:


    You’re wrong with your statement about disproving God (as well as with most your other statements). You can’t disprove God because God is not testable. Science tests the natural world, not supernatural. However, you can test whether the Earth is 6,000 years old or 4.5 billion years old. One has been disprove. The other hasn’t.

    Thank you very much and vote YES for CURES… vote YES for life… vote YES on 2!

  210. Acme Pete Says:

    • Proposal 2 Does NOT legalize Embryonic Stem Cell Research in Michigan, because it is already legal. In fact U-M in Ann Arbor has one of the largest embryonic stem cell research facilities in the nation.

    • Proposal 2 Authorizes Unrestricted Science/Research on Human Embryo’s, subject only to Federal Restrictions (Currently no restrictions exist). The Fed’s stance “Anything Goes for Embryos”. An Embryo is defined as the period between conception and about 7-8 weeks. This measure would allow unrestricted science during this timeframe on the Embryo. This could include the radical gene splicing research which occurs around the world, mixing human and animal DNA to create Hybrids. This proposal would create one “Human Race” to serve another “Human Race” haven’t we already been there in History and rejected it as evil?

    • Proposal 2 does not authorize immediate funding. But, in states where this initiative has passed, it has resulted in increased taxes. In fact the “Yes” Campaign Chairman has stated that not only must this research be unleashed, but it must also be publically funded. So if this passes, they will be in line next year for a line item in the state budget. So yes in the end it will cost taxpayers.

    • Proposal 2 opens the door for the trafficking of Cloned Human Embryo’s into our state for research.

    • Proposal 2 has a provision down near the end which would allow researchers to ignore any State or Local Law they feel prevents, obstructs, restricts or even discourages Stem Cell Research. Once again, we will be turning all control over to the Fed’s, our wonderful congress, senate & president and all the lobbyist’s who influence their decisions. Do we really want to turn control of Michigan’s laws over to the Fed’s???

    Currently we have a law on the books which prohibits research on live human Embryos. This law was passed by a Democrat led Legislature and signed into law by then Gov. William Milliken to proclaim that Human Embryos would not be reduced to Lab Rats.

    Embryonic Stem Cell Research is dead end science. Even the Pioneer of Stem Cell & Embryonic Stem cell research James Thompson is abandoning Embryonic Stem Cell Research. This was announced at the world stem cell summit last week: http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=797226

    Leftover Embryos from fertility clinics do not have to be thrown out, check out Embryo Adoption: http://www.bethany.org/A55798/bethanyWWW.nsf/0/177CAAF5EE8C77D185256E9E0051A3AF

  211. inkslwc Says:


    1. “Infanticide can also be justified and even sometimes necessary.” The Constitution disagrees. And even Barbara Boxer and Ted Kennedy agree with me here. That statement is clearly a violation of the 14th Amendment.

    2. As for 10 years – research on Adult stem cells have been around since 1998, and look how far we’ve come. Umbilical SCs were discovered in 2000. Visit http://www.stemcellschina.com for a list of what we’ve accomplished (and that site was posted by somebody arguing FOR ESCR).

    3. Young earth has never been disproved.

    Acme Pete:

    “Proposal 2 has a provision down near the end which would allow researchers to ignore any State or Local Law they feel prevents, obstructs, restricts or even discourages Stem Cell Research.” But they could be taken to court and the law would then be interpreted by the Court on whether or not they can violate whatever law they violated.

  212. Victor Says:

    Ink: This is not about Barbara Boxer or Kennedy. This is about what can be justified and necessary. Infanticide can be and should be considered in some cases. We ALL must remember that our Constitution is over 200 years old and that culture and technology has changed, and so has the needs of the world. When the Constitution was written, being dead meant that your heart stopped beating. Now it means that your brain stops working. So, if we consider the historical context of the Constitution, all brain-dead people with a beating heart should remain connected on life support until their heart stops beating. Talk about a waste of human resources!

    2. Actually, adult stem cells has been around for 40 years. Please check into your facts. Think bone marrow for the past 30 years.

    3. That the Earth is 6,000 years has been disproved simply by the age of human remains (between 40,000 years old and some at 200,000 years old). PLEASE stop insulting intelligence and reason with support for Young Earth Creationism.

  213. inkslwc Says:

    1. So after all that talk about sticking to the Constitution, now you’re saying that we don’t have to adhere to all of it, because it’s old? No. The Courts have ruled that infanticide is illegal. It is. Period. You can’t legally argue otherwise.

    2. My mistake. Adult stem cell derivation was first done back in 1998.

    3. Human remains dated by what method? The methods evolutionists use have been proven to be wrong before.

  214. Erin Says:

    I didn’t read all the replies, so I’m sorry if this question has already been answered. I agree that the ideal situation would be to limit the number of embryos created in the IVF process, but I was wondering if you think it’s really possible that, providing this amendment doesn’t pass, a law could soon come up that would limit the number of embryos produced? Or would hoping for that be an idealization that makes me pass up this ‘lesser of the two evils’ opportunity?

  215. inkslwc Says:

    Erin, good question, and it’s one that hasn’t been asked. Honestly, I hope so, but I have no clue. I’m really not sure if it’s ever been brought up in a legislative body. But as the IVF process becomes perfected, hopefully it will be brought up (I’d say bring it up in an initiative, but nobody would understand it enough to even sign the petition – it’s just one of those complex issues that a legislative body will most likely have to do).

  216. Victor Says:

    1. If you read carefully, it’s not about wavering from the Constitution. It’s about realizing that at the time of the writing of the Constitution, culture was differnt. You were alive as long as your heart was still beating. Today, not so. Your heart can beat and you still can be pronounced dead. The Courts are also only X amount of people’s interpretations of the Constitution of the time. Infantacide (especially for severely brain disabeld infants who have no prospoect of living more than a few weeks or few months as basically vegetables or over the course of its short lived life it will have to go through hundreds of surgeries and its only home will be a hospital) is a humane thing to do — it prevents suffering, and these infants don’t have a prospect of a life with any happiness.

    2. So now you’re acknowledgin that it took more than 10 years (about 40 years) to actually make any use of adult stem cells? And we’re comlaining that 10 years for ESCR is too short? But your misinformation and lies are truly hampering the process for a compromise. EMBRYONIC stem cells were first derived from HUMANS in 1998, not adult stem cells. Embryonic Stem Cells were first derived from mice in the early 80s. Adult stem cells date back to 60s and 70s.

    3. Human remains dated by MANY methods! Sure, all methods have their samping error, and some in certain envrionments are more reliable than others, and thus aren’t 100% accurate. So we might find something to date 150,000 years old when it’s really 175,000 years old. But they haven’t been proven wrong to the point where we can claim “now, I really think that 75 million year old fossil is really only 6,000 years old” by scientists other than those goofs that call themselves scientists who support Young Earth Creationism.

  217. inkslwc Says:

    1. So you’re one of the few who correctly interprets the Constitution when it comes to infanticide? That puts you above the Supreme Court, almost all of Congress, and even NARAL. Wow!

    2. I’m starting the clock from the first time that anything was derived from either adult or embryonic SCs. If you want to go when they were discovered, then ESCs were first really observed on the human scale in 1975. Adult stem cells other than blood SCs for bone marrow transplants (which were derived in 1968) WERE first derived in 1998. The point here is that most of the research has been done since the late 1990s, and that all of the breakthroughs have come from adult/umbilical cord SCs.

    3. Give me a method and I’ll show where and when it’s been proven clearly wrong.

  218. Tim Says:


    Show us any source that proves radiometric dating of fossils has been proven wrong. Remember, the source must be from a peer-reviewed journal to be valid, not from a YEC website. Your statements supporting YEC and dismissing evolution fly in the face of virtually all the scientific evidence available. Please let us know where you are getting your information, because it is factually incorrect. I’m not sure if you are looking at invalid sources, are confused by the evidence, or are just purposely making untrue statements. I have given a few sources in my posts, including the National Academy of Sciences, which is a “private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters.” Are you saying their information is incorrect?? Are you saying 99.9% of biologists working all around the world are wrong?? Where is your information coming from?

  219. Tim Says:

    Here are three websites that analyze arguments for and against radiometric dating, all of which point out that the overwhelming (and valid) evidence is in favor of dating methods that support the theory of evolution.




  220. Victor Says:

    1. No, but I may me be one of the few discussing here that understands that the Constitution is ambigious, loose, and flexible. I also recognize that, like the Bible, the Constitution is not a sacred text. It is not the authority we hype it up to be. For our founding fathers and our nation and in the world, it has been one of the best guiding documents. But even it had to be amended not to count people as slaves or as 3/5 of a person. In theory, every article of the Constitution can be ammended, 100% changing our Constitution to a virtually new Constitution. If that can be done, it shows that our Founding Father also KNEW that times were going to change. But some like you prefer to live by codes that governed humans 2000 years ago, and even more want to be live by codes that governed humans 200 years ago, and the very few intelligent people understand that the codes that we live by have to constantly be revised and changed as culture changes our lives and environment.

    2. You lied, though. Adult Stem Cells had been derived WAY before embryonic stem cells, which were derived in 1998. You lied and won’t admit it. Or at least that you misspoke.

    3. Well done Tim!

  221. Amy Says:

    For those of you stating that “nothing” has come from ESCs, let’s put that into context: the first human stem cells (hematopoietic) were discovered in the 1960’s, whereas human ESCs were first found in 1998…..do the math on the lead time other stem cells have had to be developed into (immensely beneficial) treatments.

  222. That guy Says:

    I would just like to through out the fact they have done things such as create heart and blood cells through stem cell research. If you don’t believe me then look it up.

  223. That guy Says:

    I meant to put throw not through. Sorry for the spelling error.

  224. inkslwc Says:


    1. Scientists have used Carbon-14 dating to claim that things are older than 60,000 years, the age at which Carbon-14 dating becomes inaccurate (I would claim it’s always inaccurate because too many assumptions go into it, such as the starting level of carbon, and the consistency at which it decays).

    2. Find me peer-review articles that refute helium dating in zircon crystals (the source you provided was not in a peer-reviewed journal). The fact is, when it comes to such a huge topic, it’s hard to find peer-reviewed articles for either side (I know it’s a crap answer, but I’ve tried searching my university’s article databases, and my searches are just turning up too many results for me to search through).


    1. Then Amend it to change the 14th Amendment. Until then, infanticide is unconstitutional.

    2. I admitted that ASC derivation was around before – bone marrow transplants were a derivation of it. But other than that (to my knowledge), there were no other derivations. If I’m wrong, tell me, but I admitted that blood cell SCs were derived to provide bone marrow transplants.

    Amy: Human stem cells weren’t found in 1998, they were derived in 1998.

  225. inkslwc Says:

    That guy: I haven’t seen anything about heart cells, and as for blood cells, I believe that it was only the process that was outlined. I may be wrong, but I haven’t seen anything that supports what you said (and even Tony said that they only outlined the process for creating the blood cells).

  226. Tony Sidaway Says:

    You have misunderstood me.

    Far from merely outlining the process for creating red blood cells, they have performed the process and fully documented it. The only thing stopping this process being used for production of blood cells on an industrial scale is testing on humans and licensing.

  227. inkslwc Says:

    Tony, sorry, I misunderstood your first statement.

    But why use ESCs when they can just use Hematopoietic stem cells to make blood cells?

  228. Tony Sidaway Says:

    Useful for therapy but unlikely to be available in industrial quantities.

  229. inkslwc Says:

    Why is that (sorry, I’m just not completely up on all of this – there’s a LOT of stuff out there, and I just don’t know EVERYTHING).

  230. Tony Sidaway Says:

    Same reason you can’t just take a pint of blood and grow it in culture to produce more blood. These are specialized cells. As I understand it, we don’t yet have the scientific knowledge and the technology to produce large amounts of blood from umbilical tissue samples.

    I think the notion that embryonic and non-embryonic stem cell research are competing technologies is based on a misconception. See the ISSCR’s FAQ on this:


  231. inkslwc Says:

    No, HSCs are found in the bone marrow of adults. They may be in umbilical tissue too, but HSCs are what they use for bone marrow transplants, and HSCs are the stem cells that give rise to: All red and white blood cell types.

  232. Tim Says:


    1. Nope, they don’t claim that. Fossils older than 60k years are dated with other isotopes that have longer half-lives, such as potassium-argon, or uranium-lead. Your claims of inaccuracy are typical YEC claims, and are, once again, not supported by the evidence.

    2. The links I posted already reference many such sources.

  233. chris Says:

    I believe life starts at conception too, but I am *for* proposal 2. Heres why:
    by voting no we are not changing anything fertility treatments will keep creating excess embryos.
    by voting no those embryos die for *nothing*
    I mean if I was an embryo and I was (not have to, I think they shouldn’t die) going to die I would want to know a least I was used for SOMETHING rather than *give my life* for NOTHING (other than my *parents* getting a baby)

  234. inkslwc Says:


    1. They don’t claim it anymore, but they have in the past (and I specifically wrote “have used” not “use”). Obviously they don’t claim that anymore since they’ve clearly been proven otherwise.

    2. What journal was that published in? I didn’t see anywhere on that page the name of the journal it was published in. All I could see was that it was a reply to an essay published on TalkOrigins.org. Nothing in there showed that it was peer-reviewed.

  235. THE FUTURE Says:

    What are we talking about, something the size of a pea?! Personally I’m Pro-Mind Your Own Damn Business! I think it’s funny how almost all hunters/republicans are Pro-Life! It’s O.K. to drive an arrow into an animal causing suffering and pain, but abortions and stem cell research are off limits! I don’t hunt, but I have no problem with hunting! I just think it’s ironic. Now I agree late term abortions are wrong, but I’m for abortions within the first tri-mester no matter what the reason. People need to worry about their own damn selves and keep their noses out of other peoples business! I’m also for the Death Sentence, as are most Republicans. So it’s not okay for a woman to have an abortion, but it’s fine to kill an adult?! HUH! Yes on Prop.2! Come on people get real! Not big on the soul thing either. Personally I think the bible is nothing but fiction. Earth created in 7 days? Wrong! Noah and the ark? Yeah right! Moses parted the Red Sea? Uh Huh! Sorry no proof no belief! Where do dinosaurs fit into that picture? Millions of people are sick and if this proposal helps just one percent of those people, then it’s worth it!!! A piece of grass is alive! Should we not cut it?! Frickin weirdos!

  236. Landon Says:

    First of all, Adult stem cells have NOT been proven to better than embryonic ones. Embryonic stem cell research has only been in existence for 10 years, and they have made AMAZING advancements. 10 years in the world of research is not a lot. Adult stem cell research has been around for 30 YEARS. Where are the cures from that? Nowhere, embryonic stem cell research is the hope.

    Vote no on 2- youre destroying embryos in the garbage

    Vote YES on 2- youre destroying the same embryos, but in research labs to cure disease like Parkinson’s, Diabetes, Alzheimer’s, and so many more!

    Please, people, vote yes on 2, otherwise youre just discarding embryos uselessly.

  237. Landon Says:


    Extra embryos are just part of IVF, it can’t really be controlled. And all this talk about Adult Stem Cells and Umbilical Cord Cells providing cures comes from hearsay and rumor.

    Show me proof of this. It doesn’t exist. To say “they’ve already produced some cures” is the perfect example of a vague and uneducated statement to describe the assumed glory of adult stem cell research.

    YES ON 2

  238. inkslwc Says:

    THE FUTURE, there’s a difference between humans and animals, but we’ve already had that debate.


    1) They have perfected the process so that they can insert a sperm into an egg. That means, that they CAN create one at a time.

    2) Bone marrow transplant are one cure. The others can be viewed at this website, posted by some guy who thought that it was a website listing cures derived from embryonic stem cells: http://www.stemcellschina.com/

  239. Manny Says:

    Not to get into the pro-life or pro-choice arguement (I know it is a very touchy subject for most people), how does this proposal use up taxpayer money? I bet we’ve all seen those commercials on tv about how other states have shelled out hundreds of thousands of dollars. I don’t get it.
    So can we shift the conversation from number of embryos wasted to number of dollars wasted

  240. inkslwc Says:

    The theory is that once it’s allowed, it’s only a matter of time before the state legislature appropriates money toward it. I don’t see that happening in MI, and if it was, it’d have to be immediately after the new people assume office, otherwise, with the spending crisis in Michigan, they’d be voted out in 2010.

  241. midge Says:

    The reason you believe that this law is wrong is because it’s part of your ideology. What you believe maybe right for you but is wrong for everyone else. If you want to believe that stem cell research is immoral and useless that’s fine, but you get those beliefs from your religious agenda.

    You have absolutely no right to ban that which would benefit those individuals based on your religious views and morality. You are trying to impose your non secular beliefs in a secular society. You are attempting to exploit the government into a system that imposes your beliefs on everyone.

    You believe that conception is the beginning of life cause some magical entity places a soul into the body at that very moment. There are people who do not believe that, therefore you don’t have the right to ban what we believe just cause you disagree with it. That’s vile and unjust.

    You have the right to excercise your beliefs by NOT participating in stem cell research or by not contributing material to the research. You have no right preventing those who do want to contribute to it just because they don’t believe what you disagree on or disagree what you believe the time of life begins.

    Your just trying to further your ideology and beliefs by imposing them on all of us. Do not do that because that sir is intolerant. You are welcome to not participate in what we participate in. If you really are the better man you can keep yourself from using the treatments you think are immoral, but to prevent us from using them ourselves is just as immoral. People like you always act so tolerant and so caring, but you don’t have the patience and virtue to simply excersize your right by simply not participating. Instead you have to force us to do whatever you see fit.

    This is just propaganda spouted from the mouth of another ideological religiuos fanatic who thinks all life is sacred.

    (feel free to regard everything before this point, because the cream of the crop is right here)

    If your so pro life you must believe that any wasted egg or sperm cell is a waste of life because it’s their combination which results in the creation of a soul coming into existence because your good would inevitably place a soul into it. By not believing that you sir are a hypocrite.

  242. Ed Says:

    The part of this bill that I do not like nor support -and the ONLY reason that I am voting against this is:

    “Prohibit state and local laws that prevent, restrict or discourage stem cell research, future therapies and cures.”

    So… if this is passed, as it is written, there is NOTHING that can ever be done to regulate the usage -no law may ever be written that could restrict stem cell research. EVER.

    I do think stem cell research is important… but taking this to the point where it can, essentially, never be questioned… I really strongly disagree with that.

  243. inkslwc Says:

    “If you want to believe that stem cell research is immoral and useless that’s fine, but you get those beliefs from your religious agenda.”

    No, I support stem cell research, but not EMBRYONIC stem cell research. Don’t over-generalize my beliefs.

    Sperm and eggs aren’t life, so no, I’m not a hypocrite. Don’t use straw man arguments.

  244. Judy Wood Says:

    Ask this question in a T. V. add:

    Since when does the right to life end at birth?

  245. Ken Smythe Says:

    ok i’ve read the majority of the opinions in this blog and i have an opinion for inkslwc. You said quite a while ago that you, who believes that life begins at conception, and me, who believes life begins at birth, can never convince each other otherwise. can i first ask, are you religious? i am not. And i believe that if u want to say that our opinions are separate, and there is no universal truth, how can you vote for something, where, if you are in the majority, your religious beliefs will infringe, nay, overtake someone else’s moral beliefs. Excuse me, im talking now about abortion, pro-life or pro-choice. If you indeed believe that we can have separate views, then you HAVE to, based on your own logic, not vote one way or another at all! Am i wrong, did i miss something? Those of you out there whos religous beliefs cause to vote pro-life do so on the basis that your views are MORE IMPORTANT than the views of a woman who is not religious and doesnt want to have a baby. Here is where the separation of church and state come in, and where your argument ends. In the case of abortion, there is no legitimate way for you to vote pro-choice and allow for their to be beliefs other than those of a christian, there is no way

  246. Proposal 2 « This too shall pass… Says:

    […] https://inkslwc.wordpress.com/2008/09/18/michigan-ballot-for-2008-proposal-2-stem-cell-research/ […]

  247. inkslwc Says:

    I said that a debate over that is pointless because we’re coming at it using 2 different definitions of life, but I never said that there’s not absolute truth.

  248. Ken Smythe Says:

    ok, so what are your feelings on absolute truths? bc the only rationale you can have for taking a pro-life stance is your belief in catholicism (for example) as the absolute truth. It is for this reason that I have come to despise religion…

  249. inkslwc Says:

    I don’t believe in any denomination as an absolute truth. Denominations are man’s interpretation of the Bible and God’s actions, and thus, all denominations have flaws, but I do believe in absolute truths (such as general principles of Christianity).

  250. Ken Smythe Says:

    the question is, if someone who is does believe in the so-called absolute truths of christianity, are they, in your eyes, wrong? i dont mean like killing or stealing, but only in the normal christian stance on abortion. just trying to gauge your opinion, not trying to attack your religious beliefs.

  251. Larry Boyle Says:

    Research, done on anything, will not be completely approved by any society. From what I’ve read adult stem cells work great, so why change? What if a cure could come out of using ESCR (Embryonic Stem Cell Research)? What if mass cloning eventually comes out from ESCR? Of course there will be some bad that comes out from this, will that be greater than the good that could come out? We’ll never know if we don’t try.

    Here’s another thought on this…try to leave religion out of this. Have an open mind not influenced by what has been drilled into your heads over your lifetime. I am a Catholic, but I’ve been taught the Bible and its beliefs by priests who have interpreted it in their own way.

    I still don’t know which I will vote. Give me UNBIASED facts nothing else.

  252. inkslwc Says:

    Ken, yes.

  253. Mike Bolo Says:

    Send me a vote YES signs. Two if you can. I put them in my yard. It could definately save a life.

    Michael Bolo
    990 S. Charlton Pk. Rd
    Hastings, Michigan 49058

  254. Brian Munley Says:

    Stem cell research has been the subject of much controversy, especially now with proposal two set in place. Is stem cell research really as unethical as everyone claims, and is it really worth any tax money we may put into the project? First, there is the topic of life starting at conception and that using stem cells from any type of fetus is wrong. This belief, scientifically, is inaccurate; the belief of life at the moment of conception is purely based on spiritual beliefs. Scientifically the stem cells that would be harvested for research are just a cluster of cells with the potential to become human life. They can be taken from a 15- to 20-cell “pre-embryo” called a blastocyst, about three days after fertilization. At this point in development, each cell is “pluripotent,” meaning that it has the power to become many different parts of the body. So technically this is not a human fetus and therefore, ethics does not play a role in the issue. Although, even with this, people are still questionable about the issue, but the government places strict regulations to ensure everything is ethical use of the stem cells. Some examples are: the stem cells used would be the “leftovers” of in-vitro fertilization, that would be discarded unless used for research, or stem cells that were donated by the person seeking fertility treatment. If they were donated, they would have the person’s full consent and then it wouldn’t be considered unethical. As for “are they worth it?” without a doubt they are! Stem cells can reproduce indefinitely, meaning there is no end to the help that they provide. With the use of stem cells, scientists can grow whole organs from your own cells, meaning they will not be rejected in an organ transplant. With the wide potential of stems cells, they have been thought to have the ability to cure previously-incurable diseases such as Alzheimer’s, diabetes, childhood leukemia, and numerous others. Uses for stem cells continue to be discovered. Scientists have just scratched the surface of the potential they hold. With more research and federal funding, stems cells could be the cure to nearly all life threatening diseases. So as you can see the arguments and counterarguments are all baseless and the fighting over it could cost millions of lives. In conclusion, stem cell research is ethical and worth all of the money we may put into it in the future, so vote yes on proposal two.

  255. Scott Says:

    I am anti-abortion. I have moral problems with it, and I hope I never have to deal with it personally. But I support other people’s decision if they want to do it. It’s a necessary evil, as it will still be done even if it was outlawed, only in back alleys without proper techniques and supervision. Women will find themselves infertile or with an infection if they’re lucky and dead if they’re not. That’s not something I’m willing to tell someone they have to go through because of MY OWN personal beliefs.

    I do support comprehensive sexual education and contraception, which if in place would almost entirely negate the need for abortion in the first place. Everybody’s happy, right?

    I however do not believe that a blastocyst is a human being. Self awareness and consciousness are the hallmarks of humanity and without those it’s merely a clump of cells. I feel the same way about brain dead people on life support. They’re empty shells.

    I will be voting yes on prop. 2 because I value actual people more than potential people. I support science and oppose laws based in religious dogma that hinder it.

  256. Happy Naysayer Says:

    Proposal 2 has the words “Slippery Slope” written all over it. This doesn’t even have to be an argument about where life begins.

    Without regulation in place, this is simply bad law.

  257. Ken Smythe Says:

    its funny scott, i agree with you in every way except im “pro-choice.” I do not believe that sex ed and contraception will never reach the poorest of the american poor, but i agree with you that its a step in the right direction. Let me ask you tho, do u vote pro-life?

  258. Scott Says:

    Pro-choice and pro-life are loaded phrases. Is the other side anti-choice, or anti-life?

    I just said that I personally don’t believe in it, but I also don’t think my personal beliefs should be legislated. That’s a big problem I have with a lot of religious people. They want everyone to live by their morals to the extent that they will lobby the government to pass laws to that effect.

    inkslwc is selling you a load of bs if he says he’s against prop. 2 for anything other than personal religious/moral beliefs. The 14th amendment? Is he for real?

    Sorry if I’m ranting. No, I don’t weigh anyone’s stance on Roe v. Wade when I am deciding who to vote for. With so many problems facing the country right now it’s absurd that we still have single issue voters like that. The fact of the matter is it’s not going to get overturned anyway – it brings a lot of republicans to the polls, and the rest of the country wouldn’t stand for it.

  259. inkslwc Says:

    Brian, I have no problem with stem cells. I have problems with EMBRYONIC stem cell research.

    Scott, I’m against Prop 2 because it’s a religiou belief and that has effects on my interpretation of the 14th Amendment. If there was no legal guarantee to the right to life, I’d have no way to Constitutionally argue against prop. 2 (or any other form of murder).

  260. Rex A Crouch Says:

    1. I undestand the value of stem cell research.

    2. I believe religion is the most evil thing mankind has ever invented.

    3. I think even the amendment is too limiting on stem cell research.

    Here in the UP of MI, I will be voting YES for PROP 2 but I will urge our legislative body to further amend this to allow stem cell research to become more dynamic.

  261. inkslwc Says:

    1. As do I. But what have they found from EMBRYONIC stem cell research?

    3. How is it limiting?

  262. kayness Says:

    My doctor said embrynoic stem cell has not shown any promise, but adult stem cells have….also I read not long ago, they have found a way to make embryonic stem cells from the adult ones….so theres no reason to pass this ammendment

  263. English G Says:

    This proposal can only HELP PEOPLE. This will not hurt anyone. People that are against this proposal will be for it when the time comes for them to need it.

  264. Ken Smythe Says:

    inkslwc, the whole point of the Supreme Court’s ruling on separation of church and state is that religion SHOULDNT impact your interpretation of the 14th amendment. Its not like it matters, but religion should have zero influence when deciding whether to vote for a piece of legislation or not. I am not religious, so this is easy for me. But i have a problem with Catholics who use their belief of abortion as a sin to keep others from having them who do not have the same religious obligation. It is, in essence, promoting a national religion. If you dont like abortions, fine, but to keep others from having them is unconstitutional.

  265. inkslwc Says:

    It is not establishing a national religion in any way. It is saying that you happen to believe something that a religion believes. It’s not like you would argue that assault should be OK just because I happen to believe, based on Biblical principles that assault is wrong. And the ruling on separation of church and state was, in my opinion, a violation of Article VI.

  266. Ken Smythe Says:

    well you can believe whatever you want, but its what the Supreme Court believes that affects the law. They believe that it is unconstitutional for a law to be based on faith alone, which is exactly what being “pro-life” is. I know i’ve only been talking about abortion, but even with stem cells, the fundamental issue for those that oppose these things is religion, which is why I have a problem with it. You can say your beliefs happen to coincide from religion, but in reality, they came from religion. Killing and stealing are fundamental laws that, if gone unregulated, would result in the downfall of society, so there is an overlap in religious and secular law. Abortion does not fall under this category, so please do not compare the two. (i am aware that you didnt, but your example of assault falls under the umbrella).

  267. inkslwc Says:

    I understand that. But remember that they could overturn a ruling, and in my opinion, should overturn it based on Article VI. But this would never happen unless they defined life. And what are you going to base that on? We had one guy argue for infanticide. For that to be legal, you would have to define life as something other than a human after he/she is born.

    But why are we protecting society? Are these unborn children not the future members of society? And why is society or humanity as a whole even important?

  268. Victor Says:

    They are not children. Unborn masses of cells are not children, so even if you are against Prop 2 because of your belief of where “life” starts…

    ….don’t mislead others by LYING and PRETENDING that a 14-day oly embryo is a child. It’s ridiculous!

    VOTE YES ON 2!

    And for those who want signs to put in your yard, go to http://www.curemichigan.com to find places where you can pick up free signs to put in your yard and in your windows to support HUMAN PEOPLE in their search for cures!

  269. inkslwc Says:

    They’re unborn children, but that’s something we’ll never agree on.

    For yard signs, bumper stickers, or literature for the side against Proposal 2, go to http://www.2goes2far.com/.

  270. Ken Smythe Says:

    im not going to quibble over whether they are children or not, because i truly believe that it can be seen either way. But in regards to your question about society. We protect society from killers and theives so that we can function as a civilized, stable society in which people can live. I dont really think you can argue with that, but if you want to, thats all i can really say about it. But i think these unborn embryos are but a small part of society, and them not being born does not affect much in the big picture. I realize in your view this sounds inhumae, but you have to remember that i dont consider them human beings yet. It will be interesting to hear your response.

  271. Marcus Says:

    I feel like voting NO on the prop simply because of all of the rude comments you received from PRO 2 people.

    You presented what I felt was a fair article with your opinion that represented both sides well, so why are these people bitching? Get a life.

  272. inkslwc Says:

    But why should your definition of a small part of society matter? It’s that same attitude that leads you down the slope of slavery and genocide. What if I don’t think that African Americans are an important part of society? Why should I have to have my tax dollars go toward lazy blacks who will just suck up welfare? I hate blacks, and I think we should abort all new black babies. (Obviously I’m not being serious here – I’m pointing out that defining someone as a “small part of society” has lead us down DANGEROUS roads before).

  273. Jacob Says:

    I hate to invoke this, but I think that the evolution point was sort of derivative. I don’t want this to turn into an evolution debate. However, there is plenty of criticism of the zircon crystals test.


    Yes, even a costumer review of the book that proposes this. I don’t expect anyone here to understand this science, so parroting information is to be expected. I even do it. What is important, however, is that which stands up to scientific scrutiny. If flaws exist, then let’s examine them. If they hold up, then let’s teach them and let others judge for themselves. But the biggest proponents of these supposed flaws always have something to peddle, usually creationism. Creationism carries with it a series of suppositions. And that is what I have a problem with. Regarding the soul in particular: why would you wage your belief system on something that has no proof? It’s almost like the dragon in the garage example, though I understand that the soul exists to provide an explanation to something very rational that we are aware in a metaphysical sort of way. But science has advanced far enough to account for even that. It’s an interesting hypothesis, but it tips the argument too far to one side. One can simply invoke the soul, and without any proof whatsoever, the person cannot be unhinged from that idea. This entire debate certainly delves into the philosophical realm a bit, but it is underscored by facts. And using the soul is just putting yourself on a platform that cannot be disproven, so the argument already has a leg up, but in itself it is hardly a rational position.

  274. Tami Says:

    I just don’t understand how people can not think that embryo’s are not human. As soon as the sperm fertilizes the egg, it starts dividing into cells. That in my eyes means that a human being is being created. But, people are killing people everyday, right?!?!?! So I guess in some eyes, why not allow this to happen, people do it everyday. What a sad society we live in, and it’s only going to get worse!

  275. Tim Says:

    For the following argument’s sake, let’s assume a zygote is a full-fledged human life (which is obviously open for debate, see above). If we can sacrifice human life to end suffering, such as we sometimes claim to do with war, is it that much different to sacrifice human embryos to potentially end suffering in the form of disease? Those lives lost in war are often as innocent as embryos. Not all are adults making the choice to sacrifice. Sometimes they are soldiers drafted against their will, and sometimes they are innocent civilians (children and adults) caught in the war. Embryonic stem cell research may or may not end suffering, we don’t know yet, but one could just as easily argue that war often times does not end suffering, yet lives are still sacrificed. Any thoughts? It does seem to be paradoxical to be pro-life and yet support war.

  276. inkslwc Says:

    Jacob: The book review clearly doesn’t believe in the Flood, and without that, of course Creationism makes no sense, but I believe the literal story of the Flood. And he doesn’t even analyze RATE’s positions (and I haven’t read enough of RATE recently to analyze it). He makes sarcastic comments such as “The sky-fairy of Abraham just magically zapped away the heat,” so I can’t even try to analyze RATE’s position, because he doesn’t talk about it.

    As for the blog post – when it comes to using a constant temperatue, there wouldn’t be millions of years to go back over coming at it from a Creationist view.

    Also, like RATE, neither of those are peer-reviewed, so why are we to take one over the other?

    Tim: Where have I supported war? I have said that we need to finish what we started in Iraq, because that’s our obligation now that we’re there, but we never should’ve gone in in the first place.

  277. Victor Says:

    If you don’t support war, you’d advocate for leaving IMMEDIATELY! Not staying to finish a job that can not be finished by us.

    Tim: You make a very good point. Our country has a system set up so there are millions who don’t get educated and millions who are poor so that they turn to the military. Without these poor and uneducated people, our military would not be as strong, and the military complex would not be making any money. In this way, war is WORSE than embryonic stem cell research because with war we’re taking advantage of peoples’ brains, and with embryos, there are no brains to be taking advantage of.

  278. inkslwc Says:

    That would cause more death and destruction. Besides, the Bible is clear that killing during a time of war is different. Trying to equate the 2 doesn’t make any sense. Also, saying in Iraq is not directly going and killing people. Death is a possibility of war (a VERY high possibility), whereas killing embryos will always result in death.

  279. Victor Says:

    The Bible says………. I imagine if the Bible said to molest your children you would follow the Bible’s orders, obey your God, and pretend nothing was wrong with it.

  280. Lance Says:

    “I need no warrant for being, and no word of sanction upon my being. I am the warrant and the sanction.” – ayn rand

  281. Chris Doran Says:

    Jesus, that is your healing. His name is healing. You are going to die one day. Jesus did not use any embryos to cure people. The problem is you keep trying to have man fix your problems, when the problem is always man and his ways. God has put you in your position for your good. You may not see it this way, but your ways are not his. I suggest you read about Johnny Erickson Tada at http://www.joniandfriends.org/about_joni.php

    For those of you who cannot read and define words in the Bible, I suggest you are nothing more then a child of the devil. Yes, there is a God, our Father in Heaven and your enemy, your father, the devil. You are blind guides for those who are perishing. Quit looking for temperal solutions. Go to the first paragraph, first sentence, for your solution.

    God gives the power to those who are leaders. These leaders are allowed by God to enact justice. This include the power to choose life or death – Romans 13. Citizens are not allowed to make choices when it comes to life and death.

  282. Sciosa Says:

    I’m not getting into this abortion/embryonic stem cell/define life discussion because no one is ever going to come to a consensus and adding my opinions (probably with snark) will only make matters worse. And I actually like the OP, even if I don’t agree with him, so I’m not going to harass him.

    Brief aside, aimed at Victor. No, the war in Iraq should not have happened. It was a strategical error, and the American public was not really aware of what it was getting into. What we are really doing, Victor, is a process called nation-building. It is a process usually relegated to the United Nations, but which the United States had decided to undergo on its own initiative. It involves completely reworked the power structure of an undeveloped country. The process typically takes at least 15 years, and may take significantly longer. Some troops are required to be stationed in the nation-in-progress throughout the process, in order to maintain order while the infrastructure is built up. Issues in Iraq have been sped through the nation-building procedure much too quickly, and matters have undergone some devolution. This is unfortunate, and may be due to a lack of awareness of the current administration of exactly what they were getting into. Nevertheless, matters are slowly resolving as the Iraqi government establishes itself in the region. To remove troops immediately will result in a power vacuum that is usually filled by criminals, terrorist, and puppet-kings. It would mean creating a breeding nest for political scorpions of the worst order, and would result ultimately in further bloodshed. Observe your history as well as your current events, and do try to link them up. Everything that is happening NOW has happened before.

    Now do try to stay on topic, and… from one non-religious person to another… stop insulting the OP’s religion. You only make us look like nasty, hateful creatures. You do nothing to help our cause.

  283. Chris Doran Says:

    Ken Smythe Says: October 21, 2008 at 4:20 PM
    “… Its not like it matters, but religion should have zero influence when deciding whether to vote for a piece of legislation or not.”

    I am glad you were not there when our founding Fathers of America decided to launch this nation. Go here to see what Faith they were:


    Boy, all these believers made a decision at the time, all of them looked to the Bible for their decision. When we decide, that we ourselves in our infinite wisdom can run a country, this country will eventually destroy itself: Israel, Rome, England, Assyria and so on. After the revolutionary war, people left God behind and now, like you, all we have is ourselves.

    Just think, now we kill children, rampant fornication, spread std’s, have porn on the internet for free, legalize prostitution with adult friend finder, homosexualality and drug use spreading aids, and throw in embryos from women. The Land of the Free or the land I pay for in TAXES, so people can enjoy life in perversion? All we need to do is vote for Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. Sounds like Sodom and Gomorrah is coming, becausing paying more taxes is patriotic.


  284. inkslwc Says:

    Victor, the Bible doesn’t and wouldn’t say that, so no I wouldn’t. You’ve talked about the Constitution and separation of church and state, showing that you want to abide by the Constitution. If the Constitution said that you had to stab your kid every year would you do it? Of course not, and the Constitution wouldn’t ever say that, so to give a hypothetical like that about the Bible is asinine.

    Chris, I’ll just note that you have to be careful not to argue to just rely on God for cures. I’m not saying that that’s what you said, but we have to remember that God did charge us with the resources of the earth to use for our benefit; however, other human beings are not resources.

  285. tiffany rodriguez Says:

    uhhhh hi. id like to start off with,
    stem cell research- why kill babies when you can get stem cells from bodies that are already dead? how do you know baby stem cells cure when scientists haven’t actually proven that it cures yet.
    religion- apparently obama’s a christian but about a month ago my mom and i were listening to the radio and obama was being interviewed, he had said he sticks to his muslim faith and quickly corrected himself saying christian faith. if he is a christian why was he mocking the christian faith and why is he so afraid to show his records. hes the only candidate in the u.s. that has ever done that. gay and lesbian rights i don’t believe that i stick to my christian faith and if obama was a real christian he would know where it says in the bible about having only one kind of marriage and not supporting gays and not killing babies which everyone should know, its in the ten commandments.
    terrorists- obama isn’t a terrorist but hes friends with one, he actually just got out of jail.
    war- i support our troops. its not george bush’s fault recruiting people in the army, that peoples jobs and their dreams. were at war because we are defending ourselves. if we don’t we will just be getting bombed over and over again. if you want peace you gotta put up a fight.
    respect- obama can’t even respect our country and hes disgraced by america, by not wearing the american flag and he couldn’t even participate in the national anthem. how could you have a president like that, its ridiculous. your choosing the future president of your kids and your grand kids and me! hes going to be my president not yours so i should have a say.
    currency- are you complaining that taxes are too high, well that’s the state governments fault…and who’s your governor? probably a democrat. well mine is and people are complaining that their tax and gas prices are too high, well you chose this guy as your governor so don’t complain.
    oil- we should dig for oil, but animal activists are saying its hurting the environment for animals…okay well our environment is getting ruined anyways by dumb people who are polluting, so it doesn’t make that much of a difference. go yell at them and stop shouting out stupid stuff that doesn’t make sense and you probably don’t understand it yourself. so when we do dig for oil they should make a rule all animal activists and democrats go to the back of the line, republicans go first at the gas station. complaining about immigrants not working taking our money because they’re on welfare or taking our jobs…who’s fault is that? uh democrats! i don’t get how immigrants just sneak into the u.s. and have babies here so they have to stay and were stuck here working our asses off paying for each baby they had. so dumb. don’t complain if your voting for obama.
    gender- you democratic girls out there are like ooooooooooo, vote hilary because shes a woman!!! and now that shes out of the running your like obama because i hate sarah palin because shes a woman!!! you stupid party line people, vote fair! and you democrats complain sarah palin is just like the people, well you guys vote for obama because he plays “basketball” like us! its freaking good that sarah is like us because she can relate to us a lot more.
    race- obama pulled the race card upon himself. did you know race slowly stopped about 60 years ago and now its back again because of him.
    candidates- obama wants change, do you know what kind of changes? hes probably talking about giving us a hundred dollars and asking for 99 back. mccains cute, i dont see any reasons why you wouldn’t vote for him.
    and are you a obama mama? well your a mama who likes drama!!!
    wanna hear a joke? joe biden. ahahahahahahahahahaaa hes as old as mccain, or at least looks it. and i dont wanna sing obamas “anthem” and wear his stupid pin to school either, that’s not rite. hes doing all these things already and hes not even our president yet!!!!!!!!!!!!! GAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH i hate stupid people!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

  286. tiffany rodriguez Says:

    haha that had nothing to do with anything but yea idc [i dont care]
    that was my opinion about everything, don’t criticize me people.

  287. inkslwc Says:


    stem cell research: I haven’t heard anything about harvesting stem cells from the deceased. Adult and umbilical cord stem cells are used, but I’m not sure what you’re talking about.

    Obama’s religion: If that’s the clip I’m thinking of, he was talking about the public’s view of his alleged “Muslim faith” and it was taken out of context, but I will agree with you that I question his views on abortion, but this doesn’t make him not a Christian. It’s not our place to judge anybody.

    War: I will note that nobody forced anybody into the armed forces. There is no draft. (good point)

    Respect: He does participate, he just hasn’t at certain events (agian, not a huge deal to me – I find his extreme liberal issues to be the problem, such as his support of infanticide).

    Our Governor is a Democrat, but it’s a woman, not a guy, 😛

    Immigration: I don’t see the problem with anchor babies. I’ll deport the parents, and the parents have the choice of taking the kid with them or leaving him/her here, but there’s no reason weshould let an illegal immigrant stay here becauses they have a legal resident kid.

    Sorry – I just wanted to interject there.

    But, back on topic…

  288. Tim Says:

    Ink: My comments about war were actually not aimed at you, I had already read your posts about war, I was just bringing up the topic for discussion. I’m not even referring specifically to Iraq. It was obviously necessary for the United States to enter WWII, and lives were sacrificed to save others. I do think the two issues relate to each other, however. Regardless of how one may interpret the bible, I think most free thinking people could see a parallel between destroying embryos and destroying innocent life during war. I think if we consider it ok to sacrifice life for the goals of war, we might also consider it ok to sacrifice embryos to save other lives. And as far as your statement that death is a possibility of war, give me a break, it is guaranteed. Name a war where people have not died.

  289. Victor Says:

    Ink: The Bible says a lot that I’m sure you don’t do. That’s my point — religious people nowadays picking and choosing which parts of the Bible they should abide by and which ones make sense. Which applies directly to their views on ESCR, abortion, war, guns, homosexuality, alcohol, drug use, marriage, personal issues, and about every single issue!

  290. Victor Says:


    You make no sense. None. Zero. Not at all.

    The Republican party is brainwashed by religion and nationalism. And Tiffany is the result.

  291. inkslwc Says:

    Tim: The Toledo War. And as for the legitimacy of death in war versus ESCR, there haven’t been any cures from ESCs yet, after 10 years.

    Victor: I abide by the New Testament, because the Mosaic Law of the Old Testament no longer applies as a means of salvation, as stated by Jesus in the New Testament. So I may “ignore” parts of it (sacrifices), but general principles such as the 10 commandments still apply.

  292. Loopy Says:

    IRAQ War
    Per Month – $10.3 billion
    Per Week – $2.4 billion
    Per Day – $343 million
    Per Hour – $14 million
    Per Minute – $238,425
    Per Second – $3,973

    Reported US Deaths: 4186

    Which Republicans are complaining about this cost of life and tax dollars?

  293. inkslwc Says:

    Just to note about Iraq. It’s not like Republicans enjoy being there. And Obama won’t withdraw withing 16 months. He’s already changed his stance from 12 to 16 months, and the Students for Obama President here at Central Michigan University has said that Obama’s “goal is not to get out of Iraq, but to put pressure on the leaders there.” Both McCain and Obama will stay until the job is done. What we need to do is make sure the Iraqis are getting trained, while we move our troops to the border so that the Iraqis can stop the civil unrest, and then withdraw.

  294. tiffany rodriguez Says:

    and jerks like VICTOR are the reason why democrats have a donkey representing his party =p

  295. Jacob Says:

    Then the test relies on a presupposition to start. It can’t prove what it’s already assuming. Furthermore, he had four other objections, one of which he listed. The other link was to simply provide a rational discussion on the science of dating. His tone shouldn’t take away from the science. If we want to go farther, then here is a review of the RATE project from a Christian science journal:

    “However, the diffusion rate of noble gases in minerals is so complex both theoretically and experimentally that helium concentrations are not considered by geochronologists to be reliable for any dating implications.”

    “The vast majority of the book is devoted to providing technical details that the authors believe prove that the earth is young and that radioisotope decay has not always been constant. All of these areas of investigation have been addressed elsewhere by the scientific community and have been shown to be without merit. The only new data provided in this book are in the category of additional details and there are no significantly new claims.”

    “In this book, the authors admit that a young-earth position cannot be reconciled with the scientific data without assuming that exotic solutions will be discovered in the future…or else there are radical scientific laws yet to be discovered that would revolutionize science in the future. The authors acknowledge that no current scientific understanding is consistent with a young earth. Yet they are so confident that these problems will be resolved that they encourage a message that the reliability of the Bible has been confirmed.”

    Written by Randy Isaac. My entire point in bringing this up is to say that religion starts with a position and seeks to prove it. That’s dangerous. It can seriously lead one to pick and chose the evidence. I don’t want a scientist doing that, and if it does effect their methodology, then I think they should be called out on it. As a corollary, I’m not crazy about people basing their morality around something that also has no proof. Again, what makes you so sure about any of this that you’ll bank your entire morality system around it?

  296. inkslwc Says:

    “Again, what makes you so sure about any of this that you’ll bank your entire morality system around it?”


  297. Tim Says:


    Should’ve known you would mention the Toledo War, but it doesn’t change the point that war leads to certain death almost every time.

    As far as the argument that ESCR hasn’t produced a cure in ten years, that is not reason to abandon it. Funding has been poor, and research takes time. Should we quit looking for a vaccine for HIV, since one has not been found in over 20 years of research? I think if you had an understanding of how science research takes place, and talked to any investigator in any laboratory, they would laugh at the 10 year argument.

  298. Why? Says:

    This proposal is necessary to human life even if it is morally wrong. My grandmother has parkinsons disease, diabetes, Multiple sclerosis, she suffers from migraines, she has hypothyroisdism (for those who don’t know what that is, the thyroid is deficient and cannot run without midicine), she has many heart problems. Do any of you who are against this think that it is easy to live with that. Still not convinced? My mother has diabetes, her Multiple sclerosis is dormant but can come back at any time, hypothyroidism, heart problems, she also suffers from migraines, she has neuropathy(her nerves are shot) and she is prone to much more. Need more? I suffer from migraines, I have hypothyroidism, I might possibly be hypoglycemic and I have a low immune system which causes me to get sick more than the average person. I am also prone to get what my mother and grandmother have. I think that it is necessary because I do not want my children and children’s children to end up like my family.
    I vote yes!

  299. Why? Says:

    Faith is not something to gamble on.

  300. allison Says:

    does this cover for stem cell research for people with debilitating conditions such as huntington’s disease and people who are paraplegic? don’t you think that to come up with cures for those people would be appropriate. I have family suffering from huntington’s disease and i would like nothing more that to be able to find a cure for the disease.

  301. inkslwc Says:


    You’re right about the war, but I’m pointing out that there’s a fundamental difference between the two. In one, death is a (almost guaranteed) product. In the other, it is the process itself.

    We’ve made tons of advancements in ASCs and UCSCs.

    Why?, see this website for a list some of those diseases (Parkinson’s and MS) where ASCs and UCSCs (not ESCs) have cured people: http://www.stemcellschina.com/.

    As for diabetes, that cure for that would come from either embryonic or adult stem cells (http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/scireport/chapter7.asp). They would be able to use either embyronic or adult stem cells, but they don’t have the process to then derive that into pancreatic islet cells.

    As for heart muscle repair: research has been done that shows that adult stem cell treatment has worked in mice (http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/scireport/chapter9.asp).

    Migranes: There’s never been evidence that stem cells could help.

    Allison: Huntington’s has already had progress made with umbilical cord stem cells, and possibly adult brain stem cells (http://www.stemcellschina.com/content/view/680/399/lang,en/ and http://www.hda.org.uk/research/rs027.html).

  302. just me Says:

    This has been extremely informative and entertaining to read…..it has changed and enhanced my decision on proposal 2…..

    I could get into a lot of the discussion that have been brought up. being a christian i know I am on the minority side of this thread. I will say just a few things.

    1. I dont like religion either, its man made and its a black eye on the church of Jesus Christ. its been a battling ground that will never be won. I dont want releigion i want a relationship with Jesus. Through that relationship and the influence it has on my life it doesn persuade me to rethink some things that would normally be called “common” sense. I dont understand you and you might not understand me but that doesnt change the fact that we are all living on this world togehter ever day and we need to do the best we can to try and make this a pleasant world and a blessed nation. God is Pro-choice because He gives us all the right to choose the path we want, you can even choose to deny Him, thats your right. But God is a big supporter of life, however you decide to interrept that.

    2. when I, a conservative, decide to disagree with a liberal….i agree strongly and try to change that persons mind…some times the conversation gets loud and sometimes we use words such as “ignorant” or “stupid” which we use in the term that you dont have the necessary knowledge to prove your statement……why is it that when a liberal argues with me they call me words like “fanatic”, “dammned”, “ass”, “fairy believer”…..why so much hate and pure disgust? because i differ from you and think you should think like me…..so what, why get so nasty. We all believe something absolute, and we deep down think everybody else should believe like us…thats human nature, dont let it make us monsters.

    3. From my research, which is limited and without sources that I can remember, I have been persuaded that creation is a more plausible solution that evolution. I attended a creation seminar for 3 days and was suprised at all the information this man had on scientific reasons why creation makes sense…..i’m not trying to argue, i’m telling you my belief…..I think if you put a notable creation professor togehter with a evolution professor i think the creation guy would have more reasonable proof than the evolution guy….can i prove that….no. But i can tell you the info of the guy who teaches the creation material and you can see for yourself….

    i’m sure someone is going to slam me for something, even though i’be been extremely civil……..and transparent………..

    God Bless you all (whether you want it or not)

  303. Why? Says:

    inkslwc, in order for any of that to work on any of those that I mentioned one or more of the other diseases have to go away and vica-versa(that has been what we were told by top professionals) so basically I want them to find a way no matter what.
    As for the migraines that I had mentioned. From information they can grow a brain and find out what causes problems (I heard this from someone who may not know what he/she is talking about so do not think I am unintelligent)

  304. Why? Says:

    Bless you to just me.
    I have nothing more to add to what you said except this.
    If we do not realize that religion is a battle ground it will be our downfall and strictly speaking, God will not be very impressed. Jesus may not be sent to save us again. But I still believe there is hope.BY the way, If this war in Iraq hasn’t become religious yet I guarantee it will be in the next few years.

  305. inkslwc Says:

    Why?, the stem cell process will be the same for adult/umbilical cord/embryonic SCs. It’s a question of whether or not an ASC can be derived into the _______(fill in the blank)_______ cell that you need. There have been quesions about whether or not adult stem cells can turn into as many things as ESCs, but for the things I listed, both ASCs and ESCs should work (I say should because with science, we’ll never know until we actually do it).

    As for migraines, they could grow brain cells, but you can’t just grow a brain and watch it work. It won’t work without at least a heart and lungs. And even then, you have nothing to stimulate it. They could find out more about the brain by doing MRIs and dissecting one than making brain cells (plus, without a living organism, it wouldn’t just form a brain, it’d be a lump of brain cells).

  306. Acimah Says:

    Hi, Tiffany Rodriguez:

    “gay and lesbian rights i don’t believe that i stick to my christian faith and if obama was a real christian he would know where it says in the bible about having only one kind of marriage and not supporting gays and not killing babies which everyone should know, its in the ten commandments.”

    Show me a quote in the Christian New Testament in which Jesus Christ mentioned homosexuality. You will be looking a long time, because it was not mentioned a single time. You have to dig around in Leviticus to find it being admonished, where YHWH also admonished things such as eating pork, wearing two different types of fabric, planting wheat and barley in the same field, trimming one’s beard, and so forth. In Leviticus, oddly enough, it is never stated that female homosexual relationships are an abomination. It only mentions male relations. But there are a lot of other things from Torah that do not apply to the modern world. And there are many things in the modern world not addressed in Torah. For example, stem cell research is not mentioned once. 🙂

    By the way, infanticide was supposedly practiced in those days, as can be found in many places in the Hebrew Bible (aka Old Testament to Christians). In one such passage, it clearly indicated to drive the sword through a pregnant woman’s belly to ensure that the fetus was killed–this is what YHWH instructed of the Hebrews post-Exodus, a direct order in fact, as a sort of revenge for what the Israelites were made to endure in the past. That sure sounds like abortion to me.

  307. Ken Smythe Says:

    Sorry didnt mean to be gone for so long.

    To Chris Doran: it doesnt matter whether they were religious or not, so long as their beliefs did not interfere with their writing of the Constitution, which i do not believe it did to any significant degree, unless I am wrong.

    To inkslwx: sry for not responding earlier. As i said before, I do not believe that these cells are people yet, and as such, I dont believe they are a part of human population like African Americans are (to use your example, if you dont remember). But the point remains, if the Supreme Court (and as I have later learned, Thomas Jefferson) believes that there should be a separation of church and state, why is it constitutionally permissible for your religious beliefs to affect how you vote for a bill?

  308. inkslwc Says:

    Ken, that’s what it comes down to is a definition of life, and that definition has to be based on something. Why are African Americans humans in your mind, but not in others? What makes your definition the right one?

    And as for separation of church and state, the Supreme Court took Jefferson’s quote out of context. He was assuring a group of pastors that the First Amendment would guarantee that the state wouldn’t come in an start restricting religions, like what had happened in England.

  309. Ken Smythe Says:

    There does not need to be a universal definition of life, only what an individual feels about the issue. The problem I have is that you (collectively) are trying to force your opinion on life on others who do not feel the same way. That is my problem. The fact that I have a different opinion than you does not make mine better, but my view does not inhibit anyone else’s. If a woman believes that the thing living inside her is part of her, who are you to say that its not? That is all im saying.

  310. inkslwc Says:

    Well, there does need to be a universal definition. What if I believe that a black person isn’t a life? Can I go kill him/her? No. You need a legal definition of human life. To say otherwise leads to disaster.

  311. Todd Says:

    inkslwc, I am 42, white male. I am not a bible thumper, however, I am a believer in Christ. I will be voting “No” on this proposal. Even when I read the actual proposal it makes my heart hurt or I guess it saddens me. I guess I just appreciate life. I know there are other ways to do this research.

  312. mike Says:

    to all the people that are voting yes stop and think about what you might be doing…. the government doesnt need to be about to do anything more then its is already doing now…… i think that if the government wanted to do this then they would even ask the people what they thought that would just do it and try to hide it…. there going to do it even if more people vote no because its something they want to do…. but please vote no!

  313. mike Says:

    who is going to vote yes and why? i havent made up my mind yet

  314. Why? Says:

    I tell you all what I have learned this morning disturbs me even further. I know I said I was for it but I thought about it and I discussed it with my teacher and we came up with the idea that this is a curtain for what they really might try. That is cloning. If we say yes they might have a loophole where cloning is permited. which means they get funding for something totally unethical.
    Ken Smythe,
    I am not trying to force my opinion on others. It is just a good idea to see what others have to say about the subjuct, what they think then form your own opinion on the subject. As far as universal definition I think it is imperative because what we think as one does not really count. If I walked up to a group of people and sayed what I believe they won’t care. especially if I don’t believe what they believe.
    I understand what you say but it can be (not it must be or should be) important to others who care just as much for life but cannot enjoy it as much as you.

    Now I gave both reasons. As you can tell I have changed to undecided. It is a little scary to think that someone would clone another person just to see if the clone is exactly like the donor. THat is another morality issue which I have a feeling that it will show up on a ballot sometime in the near future bluntly.
    inkslwc what do you think about that? Isn’t that a little disturbing to you?

  315. Ken Smythe Says:

    inkslwc-if we are going to have a definition of life, the only thing that would be arbitrary would be when life started, not what groups were “life.” The question in this case isnt who, but when.

    todd- are you honestly telling me that those who vote yes for this proposal dont appreciate life. That is ridiculous, of course i do. But remember, these embryos would only be thrown away anyway, i just want to use them just to TRY to help those who might benefit.

    why?-i dont really understand what you’re saying. To have an opinion on an issue is to think as one, as you put it. The point is, when voting, the majority of those who have the same “belief as one” should determine how law is passed. That seems pretty fundamental.

    and mike: I will be voting yes on prop 2 because i wish to put people who are already living over tiny cells that would just be thrown away. If you want to talk about producing (or whatever you want to call it) less embryos, fine, but its a separate issue. Here and now, this proposal puts use to cells that would otherwise be thrown away.

  316. just me Says:

    I am leaning right now on voting yes because it is an issue that is focused….they are wasting them now, why waste life when you could use it….i’m still thinking though.

  317. just me Says:

    I think this subject is far more complicated in its moral string than abortion……I would never say that my value should be the value of everybody else but I will say that my value is the only one that is valuable to me…….if I think it is right I would think that everybody should, but I am not arragont enough to think that is true……I think that seperation of church and state is good…..but i dont think seperation of God and state is good…….keep religion and politics seperate but you cant seperate God from anything in my life and that also means my political views and choices…..just trying to be honest.

  318. Chelsea Says:

    Obviously nobody in your family has a serious disease that could someday be helped due to stem cell research. My brother is 19 and has been diabetic since he was 5. He doesnt even remember a day where he hasnt had to prick his finger to test his blood sugar or give himself insulin shots. Would you want your daughter or son to live like that? Probably not. His chances of getting sick are greater, his chances of going blind are greater, and as he gets older circulation will also decrease causing other serious problems. Maybe you should think about these things before you say that human life is being destroyed when in the end it could save millions of lives and better many lives! So obviously I appreciate life, and believe that stem cell research is a great idea. But please, don’t make up your mind because of what everyone is saying, or the church is saying you should believe. Do research and make up your mind for yourself.

  319. inkslwc Says:

    Ken, but what if in my definition it’s who, not just when? Why should we go by your rules of defining life? What makes when more important than who? That’s your opinion, based on what? What if I want to base my opinion on race? Do you see what I’m getting at here – you can’t argue for freedom to define life based on “when” without opening the door to define it by “who.”

    Chelsea, clearly you don’t know my family and shouldn’t make asinine assumptions like that. And besides, diabetes could be cured by EITHER adult, or embryonic stem cells (http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/scireport/chapter7.asp).

  320. Jacob Says:

    Faith is meaningless without evidence. Faith is putting your life in the hands of a parachute because you know that the chances of it failing are small. Faith is sitting in a chair because you know that it’s new and made of sturdy materials. Or you can have a lack of faith because the chair looks like it’s about to fall apart. These things are based on empirical evidence. Faith does not give a person the license to believe in something for which there is no empirical evidence. I don’t necessarily have a problem with someone believing in the spiritual. However, when it becomes the cornerstone of an argument about something clearly empirical, non-empirical should not be a testimony to that.

    Otherwise people can claim anything based on faith. People look at evidence based on the most probable. But others can use faith as an excuse to slot in beliefs where they wish on the “probability tree” simply because it is an assumption that a lot of people share. When dealing with others, it is an impenetrable fallback position. I think that when dealing with the self, it is disingenuous. It’s an excuse to turn feeling and emotion into solid fact and belief. If one cannot find a reason to believe in something, then why is it worth holding onto? Very few would do this if we were talking about the purely physical. Why does the metaphysical get a free pass? Because it can’t be disproven? It can’t be proven either, so where does that leave the one who believes it? The burden of proof is always upon the person positing a belief.

  321. inkslwc Says:

    If the burden of proof is on those with the belief, how are you proving that embryos are not lives?

  322. Ennio Says:

    Its not a baby yet. Its only a cell that has been in development for 14 days. It has no physical characteristics that make it a baby. It doesnt have eyes, hands, ears, a head, a brain, its still a cell.

  323. inkslwc Says:

    It has the DNA of a unique child, and it will develop into a fully functional child. It’s a baby.

  324. Ken Smythe Says:

    the “baby” issue will always be a matter of opinion. But as for the definition of life, i thought the only thing that we had a disagreement over was when. I wasnt stating that “when” was the only issue, just the only issue that we had conflict over. Is that right?

  325. Landon Says:


    it will NOT NOT NOT “develop into a fully functional child.” It’s NOT “a baby.” It is a leftover embryo that is thrown away anyway.

    If you vote no on this proposition, all of these embryos will be destroyed and killed anyway, they’re in excess, leftover, not needed to become children. If you vote YES, the embryos get to go to research.


    Explain that, ink.

  326. Ken Smythe Says:

    Landon, the answer to your question is religion. Its not based in logic.

  327. Moaty Says:

    Ennio, im afraid your wrong. within the second week of the life of a fetus it has already begun to develop a brain and a heart, which means both the nervous and circulatory systems. It can think, feel pain, and it will bleed out when they kill it. Physical characteristics don’t define what something is, even by a scientific definition its already a human. For a very short time is it only 1 cell, and this proposal specifically states “after cell division begins” meaning that its at least 2 cells, and already living. A new born baby has trillions upon trillions less cells then an adult, that doesnt make it less human. The only thing that matters is that from conception and through life it has 46 chromosomes, which makes it human, just like you.

    Jacob, By definition faith would be nothing with the proof your looking for. the definition of faith is “firm belief in something for which there is no material proof.” While you say that you have a problem with people basing their arguments on the faith, your doing the same thing. Your basing your arguments in your faith that there is no God.

    Landon, your saying that ESCR is okay because these fetuses were going to be aborted anyway. Were all going to die anyway. Why wouldnt it be okay to use the adult stem cells that are PROVEN to work from people who “are going to die anyway”? Why not take them from prisoners on death row, or people with terminal illnesses? These people wouldnt even have to die for us to get their stem cells. Based on logic that makes more sense, doesn’t it?
    Your going to die someday, can we have your stem cells?

  328. Ken Smythe Says:

    Moaty your argument towards Jacob is ridiculous. Separation of Church and State, as was established by the Supreme Court, states that it is unconstitutional for religion to interfere in the passage of legislation. But by Jacob not believing in God, he is taking religion out of the equation altogether. By removing religion, he removes any conflict with the separation of church and state. Time to find a new argument.

  329. inkslwc Says:

    Ken, “when?” is the only issue we differ over. I’m just pointing out that we do need a legal definition of life, otherwise, the disagreement can spread from “when?” to “what color?” and so on.

    Landon, why not give those embryos up for adoption? That would save parents who want to have IVF processes tons of money.

    Moaty, ASCs can be harvested with little medical danger (obviously any medical procedure, even removing an ingrown nail has the possibility to go wrong, so I can’t say no medical danger).

    Ken, the Supreme Court misinterpreted the Constitution, and the ruling should be overturned. And we can even leave religion out of this by simply legally defining life.

  330. precious Says:

    Lets look at it this way, WHAT WOULD JESUS DO? That sums it up!!!!!!!

  331. ayun Says:

    First, thank you inkslwc for moderating a great discussion. Even though I disagree with your stance on the problem centering around in vitro practices, I respect your opinion and equally your level-headed explanations.

    I have a question about the wording of the amendment. I have to admit that I don’t have the endurance nor the time to read through all of the posts, so I’m not sure if this has been discussed. I made it to about Oct. 2nd. (erk) In section 2(d)(i), what is the implication of this wording? I have read some articles where people have taken issue with this section, but I don’t understand the problem. If we want them to research, don’t we want them to be able to do anything they want? Is the problem cloning?

  332. ME Says:

    Here’s another well written article articulating some of the concerns about prop 2

  333. inkslwc Says:

    ayun, some argue that that would basically remove any restrictions on the research (as I believe that clausse would), but I don’t know the specifics of why that concerns people – I’m not sure exactly what it is that people are afraid will happen.

  334. Bob Says:

    ESCR has provided absolutely NOTHING to help or cure diseases or tissue damage. On the other hand, Adult Stem Cell Research has proven to be very effective. It makes absolutely no sense to continue to use ESCR. It’s pointless, ineffective and stirs debate whether it should be used or not. ASCR on the other hand has proven to work far better than ESCR, doesn’t raise any ethical or political debate, and is already readily fundable by the federal government. Scientists who have worked on both ESCR and ASCR on both humans and mice, will tell you that in the last 25 years, ESCR has provided them very little evidence that it’s worth continuing. They say that they have found breakthroughs in ASCR to help rebuild tissue/muscle damage and is more possible to find cures for diseases. Let’s put ESCR to rest and let everyone rally behind ASCR.

  335. Bob Says:

    BTW, I have a 7 year old son who has Type 1 Diabetes and a 5 year old who has Hemophilia B. I care about both of my sons and their conditions. I would absolutely love to see them be cured. But, I can’t stoop this low to be taking life from someone else to help my two sons. It isn’t worth it. I will be voting NO on Prop 2.

  336. Got Brains? Says:

    ayun & inkslwc,

    about the clauses in porposal 2. “…to the extent that any such laws do not prevent, restrict, obstruct or discourage any stem cell research…”

    “In other words, if Michigan laws discourage or restrict scientists, they can ignore the law and proceed down the path to radical science. They could mix human DNA with animal eggs-which is being done legally in England- and in the quest for cures, actually open a Pandora’s Box to interspecies diseases entering the gene pool.”

    As for human cloning. The ban is a Michigan law. That means they will be able to ignore it and do what they want. What do you think is going to happen when there aren’t enough embryo’s from fertility clinics? They will either endevour to encourage clinics to produce more or they will clone them. Plus, all the restrictions in the proposal would also be a mute point since that would be a Michigan law that would restrict them should fertility clinic embryo’s become scarce. It’s a slippery slope that just keeps getting steeper.

    And noone ever answered my question before. If Embryonic stem cells are so productive and usefull and such a hot thing, why isn’t the private sector and the hollywood gazillionaires and all the other guber rich folks who approve of it racing to fund it? Why must it fall on the shoulders of the tax payers? If you’re for it why do you expect me to pay for it? Why don’t you write them out a check?

  337. Got Brains? Says:

    Jacob, there is no imperical evidence that embryonic stem cells will produce anything. They haven’t done anything so far except produce cancer type growth. So what do proposal 2 supporters base their “faith”in?

    When the perponderance of the evidence shows one thing to be more true then another it generally leads you to “believe” or “have faith” in where the perponderance of evidence is leading. Faith is about taking that next logicall step even though the last bit of evidence is not yet know to you.

    If you know ALL of the evidence that is no longer faith but knowlege. And there is a difference. I may have faith that a chair will hold me up even though I did not make it myself or see it being made to know that all the pieces are there. But when I see someone else sitting in it or I sit in it myself and it holds me up it is no longer faith but knowlege.

    Supporters of proposal 2 are operating on a faulty faith because they have no evidence with which to bolster that faith. Opponents of proposal 2 are opperating on faith based on the evidence that is has not even produced one advancement whatsoever. Except to produce cancer cells which I’m pretty sure we are not in short supply of at the moment.

  338. inkslwc Says:

    Got Brains?, thanks for clarifying – I had a feeling that’s what it was, but there’s already a ton of misinformation out there, so I didn’t want to throw something out there that wasn’t true.

    As for cloning, I need to correct your statement. Section (1) of the proposal clearly states: “(1) Nothing in this section shall alter Michigan’s current prohibition on human cloning.”

    You bring up a good point. Even my moderately pro-choice friend has said she’ll vote against this because this is just pro-choicers doing this to prove a point, and it’ll eventually fall on the taxpayers to pay for. It’s not in there now, but the proponents of this proposal want it to eventually be publicly funded.

  339. Got Brains? Says:

    I realize the proposal says it will not alter the ban on cloning, however, it also says that ANY law that would restrict the reasearch may be disregarded and not followed. There are already murmurings of a shortage of embryo’s for this research if it is given this approval. The only options to fix this are 1) encourageing more embryos to be made in the fertilization clinics to be donated, 2) ingnoring the restriction limiting it to leftovers from clinics and encouraging wmoen to donate or sell their eggs for research, 3) cloning what they have, 4) all of the above.

    Maybe not tomorrow, maybe not next week. But it is coming, I gaurantee it.

  340. Got Brains? Says:

    Also, Leaders of Proposal 2 have already introduced bills into the Michigan legislature in an attempt to legalize human cloning.

    Without public funding the promise of biotech jobs is an empty one. Why? Because the private sector is not rushing to fund it themselves. In fact, they are avoiding that option like the plague.

    If 2 is approved they will just come back and say, OK now we need to fund it, on the next ballot.

    Also, this is not just a law that would be passed but a constitutional amendment. It would make it extremely difficult for lawmakers to regulate human embryo research to prevent abuses. It would have to wait until an election to be changed. The supporters went this route to gaurantee the biotech industry the maximum immunity from law makers and voters.

    Also, the successes in ADULT and Umbilical cord stems cells are numerous. Scientists now know how to change adult stem cells into embryonic-like stem cells. If scientists ever do find value in embryonic stem cells in the future (my guess is they won’t), they could use this new process without the use of embryo’s at all.

  341. YouSwungFirst Says:

    “I’d better fork over my life saving or I might go to hell because I’ve deprived someone the chance to kill another life for a cure they have NO PROOF of finding!”

    if you have no proof of one day finding a cure,
    *ahem* need i remind you,
    you ALSO have no proof of NEVER finding a cure.

    perhaps that even now,
    since we haven’t found a cure for cancer
    and we haven’t found a cure for AIDS,
    we should stop trying…

    … we apparently have “””””””NO PROOF”””””””
    of ever really finding a cure anyways.

    [take some satire; give some satire]

  342. inkslwc Says:

    Got Brains?, I see what you’re saying, but Clause 1 would prevail in a court (both the current Michigan and Federal Supreme Courts).

    Michigan won’t legalize human cloning. I’ll be surprised if this wins more than 45% support.

    YouSwungFirst, stem cells couldn’t cure AIDS. At best, it could counteract it. But stem cells won’t kill a virus.

  343. eb123sb Says:

    Hi everybody,

    My name is Emily, and I’m a junior in high school here in northern Michigan. In english and speech classes over the past couple of years, myself, and classmates have had the chance to wirte papers on life issues such as abortion, and yes ESCR. I would just like to point out, like many others have posted before me, that ESCR has cured nothing in all the time it’s been being researched. On the other hand, ASCR has found 70+ cures for health issues, or at least helped doctors discover some. All this information may sound repetative from all the anti-prop-2 posts before this one, but I really wanted to put this on here simply because I wanted to show voters that when you go to the poles to vote on this extremely important issue, that the outcome won’t only affect you and some so-called “unborn children” out there, it will affect me, my friends, my family, you, your friends, and family, and basically any other citizen here in Michigan. I am not able to vote this year, but I really wanted to put my beliefs out here to show people that young people do care about the issues, and we are willing to stand up for them.
    Thank you all for your time, and I hope all of you decide to make the right choice Novemeber 3rd, and vote NO on proposal 2.

  344. Geri Kartes Says:

    I fail to understand why the “Prop 2 Goes 2 Far” folks are not running ads that follow the ideas that:
    – We are no opposing STEM CELL and UMBILICAL CORD STEM CELL research. That is already being practiced AND is producing some excellent treatments, cures, and possibilities-including the areas of spinal cord injuries
    – EMBRYONIC STEM CELL research, where it has been happening, has resulted in no (that’s ZERO) positive results (treatments, cures, or even promising possibilities – if the truth is told)
    – EMBRYONIC STEM CELL research requires the destruction of a life.
    – EMBRONIC STEM CELL research WILL cost Michigan far more financial support from its citizens than is being reported !!! Just look at the state’s that have approved this type of research already (ie: California; ye gads!).
    – The way the current proposal is written allows for an actual law to be far different from what SEEMS to be shown in the proposal. Be careful and be sure that you fully understand all of the implications of the way this is written.

  345. Ken Smythe Says:


    The fact that it hasnt produced treatments doesnt mean it wont produce results. Unless you can prove to me that nothing will ever be gained, that argument will never hold water. As far as your opinion that it destroys a life, what if i believe that life begins at birth? Is your opinion just right, and mine wrong?

  346. NIH Admin Says:

    I personally know some of the researchers involved in stem cell research. I can attest to the fact that these MDs and PhDs are committed to serving humankind. Some of these doctors have to deliver devastating news to patients on a regular basis. They care deeply about their patients and about taking their research from the lab to the bedside.. I understand those folks here that believe life begins with a fertilized egg and am not writing to try to change your mind. But for anyone that would like to better understand this subject you may want to visit the UM website. It provides solid information, may clear up some misconceptions and will introduce you to some of the leaders in the field.

  347. inkslwc Says:

    Ken, but ESCR proponents have no plan of action. What do you want to cure that we can’t cure / aren’t trying to cure with ASCs or UCSCs. Inventors don’t just take a pile of parts and try to build something, they go in with a problem and try to design something to fix that problem. What is the disease that you want to cure? Parkinson’s? Use UCSCs. MS? UCSCs. Diabetes? We’re doing research with ASCs. Either ASCs or ESCs will be able to be used to produce pancreatic islets once we have the derivation process. We’re just working on the process now.

    Also, why should we take your belief that life begins at birth? We’ve gone over this before. When you begin to define a being as not human you lead yourself down a slippery slope (Jews and World War II).

    NIH, we’re not talking about stem cell research in general. WE’re talking about EMBRYONIC stem cell research. I am fully for stem cell research.

  348. Ken Smythe Says:

    I know we’ve been over this, i guess i dont really understand what you’re saying…how could a definition of when life starts turn into a racial thing?

  349. somedude Says:

    Well I didn’t take your poll because I’m undecided on this issue. I’ll probably vote no for it. I’m not opposed to doing this research or using stem cells. What bothers me is that it seems very inappropriate to be amending the State’s Constitution for this thing. The Constitution should be reserved for matters of state, this does not seem to be a matter of state.

  350. obla obla Says:

    i think ur all obla obla’s

  351. DJ Nagers Says:

    I hate Censored by admin!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  352. DJ Nagers Says:

    I hate censored by admin!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11 the south will rise again ahhhhhhhhhhhhh

  353. mrs forgo Says:

    I agree i hate em 2 ——– McCain 08

  354. DJ Nagers Says:

    kkk for life forgo we need to start the revolution

    mcCain o8

  355. Charity Says:

    DJ… Those are pretty harsh words coming from someone who can’t even spell the word or use punctuation correctly. You’re obviously not an educated person. Therefore, I’m not too surprised by your stance. It’s so unfortunate that there are still people like you and Forgo in this world. It’s time to grow up and learn to be compassionate to all life!!!!

  356. inkslwc Says:

    Ken, because you’ve been saying, “Why should we accept your definition of life?” Well, what happens when I say, “Why should we accept your limitations on the definition of life?” If you can define life by excluding people who aren’t born, why can’t I choose to define life by excluding people who aren’t a certain race?

  357. inkslwc Says:

    Folks, I’m sorry that I didn’t censor DJ and forgo sooner. Normally I don’t censor comments, but that crossed a line. I will also note that DJ and forgo were the same person, and will be banned if he/she spams my blog again.

  358. Joanna Says:

    VOTE NO. The research will get done anyway and Michigan will benefit from it JUST THE SAME with out any costs to the public. YOU WOULD BE SMARTER TO TAKE THE MONEY YOU WILL BE TAXED AND INVEST IN STOCK IN THE PHARMA/BIOTECH THAT ARE DOING THE RESEARCH.

  359. Election Time — Bethel Baptist Church Kalamazoo Says:

    […] Blog addressing Proposal 2 […]

  360. DJ naggers Says:

    Yeah censor me now bitch i hate them censored by admin the south will rise again !!!!!!!!!

    McCain 08

    if it aint white it aint right


  361. Bill Says:

    i love to hate
    censored by admin


    McCain 08

  362. Bill Says:

    Hey yall this is DJ Nagers and i just want to tell charity to censored by admin ===========) 0=

  363. inkslwc Says:

    Alright, you’re done.

  364. smartass. Says:

    you can get the exact same stem cells from umbilical chords without destroying the plausible human life in the process. this argument shouldnt even be happening.

    i’m a libertarian, don’t know what it is? look it up. there’s nothing wrong with the research, jsut with how we get the cells.

  365. nathaniel Says:

    No way VOTE NO pls, ur killing baby’s, and so what if it’s granted still, these damn doctors are taking the hand of god with this crap, its wrong, NO ON PROP 2

  366. YouSwungFirst Says:


    i apologize. i wasn’t clear.
    i didn’t propose ESCR would cure AIDS.
    i’m just using the mere fact that
    even though we still haven’t found the cure for AIDS
    doesn’t default us never being able to find the cure for AIDS
    as an analogy to the stance of…
    “we haven’t found a single cure from ECSR,
    so i guess i can ‘logically’ infer that
    we’ll NEVER find a cure from ECSR.”

    and for that reason,
    anyone who uses that stance to drive their argument,
    i really don’t feel i can take seriously.
    it’s a major logical flaw,
    the same type of technique used in propaganda…

  367. inkslwc Says:

    YouSwungFirst, I’m merely pointing out that there’s never even been a hypothesis as to a cure that ESCs would provide that ASCs or UCSCs couldn’t provide. Give me a hypothesis, and I can see that argument as logical, but with no game plan, it seems pointless.

  368. TEB Says:

    in our government class we are discussing the two michigan proposals, and we agree that this proposal should pass for the following reasons;

    1.as teenagers, we want to help future generations by finding medical cures. We will never know if this works if we don’t try. if the cave man was scared of fire, we would be in the dark and how would you feel about that?

    2.we are both pro-life and see abortion as immoral and most abortions are due to the irresponsibility of the parents. This is a totally different issue in the way that in abortions, nothing comes of it except death. In ESCR, peoples lives COULD be saved. It’s the truth.

    3.we both look forward to our life. If we get a disease that could have been cured by experimenting on embryotic stem cells, would you save one life to lose another?

  369. lil jac Says:

    this the last thinf we need in thier state

  370. inkslwc Says:

    1. But if the caveman could light fire with a lighter (ASCs and UCSCs) why use flint (ESCs)?

    2. Peoples lives ARE being saved with ASCs and UCSCs.

    3. Yes, I’d save the embryo.

    Look, nobody on here has given one example of what could be cured with ESCs that can’t with UCSCs or ASCs. If you don’t even know what you want to do with the ESCs, why legalize it? Like I said, inventors don’t just start putting a pile of parts together, they have a game plan. So, proponents of Prop 2, what’s your game plan?

  371. TEB Says:

    this is why the law must pass, to see if something can be cured by ESCs and NOT UCSCs, we wont know until we try so if nothing comes from the law can always be repealed. science is about making mistakes and learning from them. if it does’t help any than you will be happy because it will stop, and we will be happy because we know someone tried. if it does help than you will realize, like us, that many people can be help from different forms of cures, THINGS JUST NEED TO BE TESTED.

    so are you saying that abortion and murder (cause apparently you’d kill us) is not as bad as ESCs?

  372. inkslwc Says:

    TEB, so what do you want to try? What do you want to test?

    And abortion, murder, and killing embryos are all hte same thing.

  373. js08 Says:

    Alright, I didn’t really plan on posting in here but I’ve read the “you’re killing babies” argument waaay to many times. They’re going to throw the cells away!!! THROW THEM AWAY!! Prop 2 doesn’t kill babies. It uses a resource that is already there and not being used.

  374. Matt Says:

    Religious people are crazy. I have a pink unicorn in my closet, want to come see it?

  375. Charity Says:

    What’s ethical doesn’t have to be religious. Also… recall the point that inkslwc made about “extra” embryos being created in the first place. If that wasn’t allowed, there wouldn’t be any issue here to debate.

  376. TEB Says:

    inkslwc- I AM NOT A SCIENTIST!!!! i won’t be the one doing the testing, i won’t be deciding what test will be done! your last comment was ridiculous! How would you expect me to do that!

    charity- if people are so worried about the EXTRA embryos then they should create the “unprotected sex” police to make sure that whenever people are having sex, they aren’t producing extra embryos that will be wasted! its the exact same thing just the setting is a laboratory, not a bedroom. if you are against the extra embryoes you need to be against murder in general so inkslwc needs to know that taking my life is just as equal as, what you think, an embryo

  377. inkslwc Says:

    js08, why not give them up for adoption then?

    Matt, this doesn’t have to be tied in with religion. Why should we accept you definition of life, but refuse to accept definitions that exclude blacks or Jews?

    TEB, you’re arguing for the scientist. Go find me something they want to try that can’t be done with ASCs or UCSCs. You can’t, because there is nothing they want to try that they can’t do with ASCs/UCSCs that they could with ESCs.

    Or just outlaw abortion and promote adoption, so that if people have unprotected sex, we aren’t killing babies.

    Yes, taking your life would be teh same as killing an embryo. What’s your point?

  378. Jennifer Says:

    Hello, fellow Michiganders, I am a 25 year old resident of the Metro Detroit area. I work in a hospital, and I have friends with devastating diseases such as Multiple Sclerosis and Cystic Fibrosis, among others. I have come face to face with patients in pain and suffering from these debilitating diseases. If research on an unplanted embryo could possibly provide a cure, or open the doorway to fabricating that cure, then I’m for it. A ball of cells has no feelings, has no consciousness, and despite the fact that given the opportunity, it may have developed into a living, breathing, feeling human being, I also think that those who are losing their lives to extreme diseases like Progeria and Muscular Dystrophy deserve the chance at a full life as well. I would much rather see those people who are already here and currently suffering given a chance at a cure, than worry about what an unplanted embryo might think about their prospective future.

    Although I have not experienced IVF firsthand, I make a habit of watching Discovery Health and I’ve seen many episodes about this very thing. I don’t claim to be an expert on the subject, but it seems fairly obvious that the procedure is not cheap by any means, and that successful implantation of an embryo is less likely, which is why they use more than 1 at a time. We’ve all heard the stories about someone getting 8 or 10 implantations and most if not all of them actually develop, but that’s so rare. And we never hear about how many times all of those implantations fail and a couple has to go through yet another harvesting, fertilization and implantation process. This is very costly. It just makes sense that a clinic offering IVF would harvest a number of eggs and fertilize all of them to give their client the best chance at a natural pregnancy and childbirth. While I would tell these people that adoption is a great alternative because there are so many needy kids out there, the drive to want your own children is something within us all, a preprogrammed instinct to ensure the continuation of the species (not that we are in any danger of extinction). If a couple experiences a positive implanation and they have left over embryos, then what do you propose we do with them if not put them to good use? If you want to eliminate the need for extras, then become a doctor and pioneer a new, better way to ensure implantation. And when you’re actually doing something other than throwing your opinions on the internet, you’ll have the right to complain about the current methods.

    As for my vote, I’m voting against it, simply because in this economic crisis, I can’t afford a single dollar out of my check. It has nothing to do with my ethics.

  379. Judy Shapiro Says:

    Cost is NOT the main reason why extra embryos are created during the IVF process. The main reason is that the process of creating the embryos is EXTREMELY risky for the woman involved. It requires huge amounts of hormones to be injected, with side effects that can be severe and occasionally deadly. Also, each cycle of IVF substantially increases the woman’s risk of ovarian cancer, which is usually fatal.

    Limited the number of embryos per IVF cycle would force women to undergo multiple cycles, dramatically increasing their risk of side effects and cancer.

    And of course, even somehow there were a safe way to limit the number of embryos, that still leaves the main problem — stem cell research is needed to provide a cure for many horrible diseases.

    It seems that you care more about the well-being of week-old embryos than you do about the well-being of feeling, breathing women and people with incurable illnesses.

    I’m obviously voting YES on 2.

  380. Lansing Resident Says:

    For those of you who are voting no, let me say this: If someone in your family came down with a disease and the only way to cure it was through stem cell research, you no damn well you would be for it.

  381. inkslwc Says:

    You’re right, I would use stem cell research, just not EMBRYONIC stem cell research.

  382. Jacob Says:

    I’m not trying to prove anything about embryos, so this isn’t a referendum on that subject. Two people jump to that conclusion, of course, but I never once mentioned it. I think that the best thing about a belief system is that it can be abrogated at any moment by a new piece of evidence. If it can shift even a little, then it’s not going to be a complacent worldview. A faith based worldview unfortunately is so far removed that it is almost beyond reproach at any level. That might be fine on some accounts, but at the heart of the belief lies a staunch opinion – for which there is no proof – that cannot be moved. I understand that people build evidence around that. But at ground zero there is this disconnect between belief and proof. If I were to take the opposite side on embryos, then I essentially have an argument that could be vetted and contained by all of the discourses of nature and of science as opposed to something absolutely unprovable that forms such a rock hard core of belief that there is this huge gap between what can be proved and the staunchness of that belief conflated together.

    Moaty – If you want to call that faith, then go ahead. I don’t believe that total certainty exists. I’m 99.99999% sure that I’m not living in the matrix, but who really knows? It’s not exactly testable from our position. I have “faith”, however, that I am not living in the matrix because there is no real reason to believe that I’m living in the matrix. Everything that I know about reality tells me otherwise. I’m not going to hide in my basement because a meteor might fall on my head. From what I know about reality, that’s virtually impossible (though not completely impossible).

    Again I say that faith without evidence is meaningless, and I think that people can be hypocritical in this regard. They’ll accept their religion without proof, but they won’t accept other things without proof. Try to feed them something else and they’ll simply scoff at it. It’s my opinion that people will accept anything as reality with enough conditioning. That usually means what one believes while growing up, but it also refers to the way in which someone claims to perceive and sense something supposedly beyond this reality. It’s an assumption of the senses. The only question is: does that assumption correspond with reality? I don’t perceive God, therefore I assume that there is no God. Just as I assume that I’m not living in the matrix. I can’t test for a soul, therefore I assume that it doesn’t exist. People do this all the time: they throw out what they assume to be false because they do not perceive it.

    And there is a simple reason why this is true. Let’s reuse my chair example. If you have a ton of evidence that a chair is going to hold you, then by faith you have an excellent chance of being right. If the chair is about to fall apart and you still have faith, well then you get what’s coming. If you don’t even know if the chair exists, however, then how can you possibly have faith in it? You could just fall on your ass. Faith is at its best when you know that you can fail and still do it anyway. But that only works when you make good decisions and try to limit failure. It means that the outcome isn’t guaranteed. It isn’t fixed, so there is an upside and a downside. When you play the stock market, you have faith. The smartest, most knowledgeable, most intuitive will usually come out the winner, but that isn’t always true. That’s part of the gamble in which faith can bring solidarity to. In an argument about the basic truth and falsity of the universe, you have faith that your conclusion is correct. This almost always means having an informed and well reasoned opinion with a good dose of facts. Because the better the argument, the greater chance you have of being correct.

    These aren’t 50/50 propositions. There are such things as better arguments and better reasoning. We take what is most well reasoned, apply that to reality, and act under the assumption that the rest isn’t true because we don’t have the time to waste accepting every little possibility. I certainly should not have to disprove what cannot be proven in the first place. If that were true, then I have to put on equal footing the argument that cannot be proven along with the standard position about knowable reality. The fact is, I don’t like to guess about reality. By not believing in something, I am not saying it’s false. What I am doing is living my life as if it were false, which is to say that I’m not letting myself be affected by something I can’t really be certain about in its present state. That’s why the burden of proof exists in the first place. Reality is guided by what is asserted. We act by what we believe. Action in itself is an affirmation. A failure to act is not necessarily a denunciation. You could essentially say that instead of putting my faith in something that isn’t provable, I am putting my faith in the belief that what cannot be proven should not be asserted. What cannot be asserted cannot be acted upon. In other words, I’m putting my faith in this reality which can be proven reasonably and not putting my faith in the supernatural that cannot be proven reasonably. This is an assumption, but I think that it is a good one given the available evidence.

    The soul is kind of like a non-argument, really. And I’m well versed with the arguments for religion in general, but it’s almost always an emotion and perception thing.

  383. akl29 Says:

    I have very strong Christian beliefs. But I don’t believe life is there at conception. In order for a person to have a soul, I believe that person would have to be that…a person, not a clump of cells. I will be voting YES on Nov. 4th, for 2 reasons. 1. If this could find a cure for just 1 condition, it would be worth it. 2. The opposition has done nothing but post false ads claiming that this will allow cloning and will be paid by taxpayers, whicj it won’t. As a Christian, I don’t much care for liars.

  384. inkslwc Says:

    akl29, you’re right that it won’t allow cloning, but it will lead to public funding. Although this proposal doesn’t give money, every state that’s passed props like this have then publicly funded it. And the major proponents of the prop want it publicly funded. Even my pro-choice friend is voting No because she knows that’s where it’ll lead.

  385. kelro7 Says:

    If they aren’t YOUR embryos being tested on then why are you concerned with what happens to them? Whatever your religion, beliefs, ect, why should you decide the fate of a cell that does not even come from you? If this reaserch could help people, how could you say no to that? People who would like to be able to donate their own cells for research, should be able to do so if they wish. Those who dont’t believe in it, don’t have to. If you are one who does not agree with me, I respect your opinion. But times have changed and science is advancing everyday. This could give a chance to many ill people to give them another opportunity at life. We are never going to know the outcome unless we let them try it. Cures dont happen overnight, I think everyone realizes that. It takes time. But without ever giving it a chance, you do not have the right to assume nothing will come of it. You can provide all the links and factual information you would like about how immoral it is, or how other testing hasn’t pulled through, to say why not to support this. When in all reality, admitting it’s defeat before it is even given a chance is absurd.

  386. inkslwc Says:

    Because it’s murder. The same reason I don’t want people killing other people, even though they aren’t my family members.

    What diseases do you want to try to cure?

  387. tiffany rodriguez Says:

    does the president control taxes or the government?

  388. Angie the 8th grader Says:

    Prop. 2
    Angie Simpson
    6th hour
    In my opinion, I think stem cell research is a vital procedure. It enhances the quality of life for people, for example finding a cure for AIDS or cancer. Proposal 2 clearly states that no cell would be taken from a human embryo more than 14 days old (after conception). In which case, to get technical it is not considered a living organism. For an organism to be living it has to do all of the following; organization, homeostasis, metabolism, growth, adaptation, reproduction, respond to simulation. You are probably thinking that an embryo does all of that. Well you’re wrong; it can’t respond to simulation, reproduce or conduct homeostasis. For all we know there could be a pandemic and we will not know what to do because there was no research. Some medical procedures that have been immoral and obscure due to religious reasons are now known as an everyday thing; autopsies have found numerous medical advances. So in my guess stem cell research will follow the same sequence in the next ten years due to the advances in medical technologies. In conclusion, for the common good I agree with stem cell research.

  389. Sadie Says:

    A lot of people don’t realize how many children and adults are at risk of getting Diabetes. I myself being a Type 1 Diabetic am going to vote yes on proposal 2 without giving it a second thought. If it’s something that isn’t harmful to other human beings and could potentially cure others than I don’t see why anyone would vote no, unless they have a one-track mind and believe that it’s immoral and against god. Just because someone doesn’t know someone who has Diabetes doesn’t mean that they won’t in the next 10 or 15 years. If anyone is thinking about voting no please reconsider. I’ve had Diabetes since I was 3 years old, it’s been 15 years for me, don’t make it another 50.

  390. inkslwc Says:

    Angie, you’re right, stem cell research is vital. But I’m not arguing against stem cell research. I’m arguing against EMBRYONIC stem cell research.

    Also, there’s no possible way that stem cells could cure AIDS. It could counteract the effects of AIDS (by making more thymus cells to regenerate the thymus which would make more T-cells, but would never cure AIDS.

    I’m not arguing from the legal definition of organism. I’m saying that it’s still a human life. Also, a person in a coma doesn’t respond to stimulation, so are they not organisms?

    Again, if it was sa pandemic, it would never be cured through stem cells, only repressed. Stem cells can’t cure infections. The only thing they might be able to do is build cells to regenerate the thymus.

    Also, when it comes to hematopoietic stem cells (the cell that would be used to regenerate the thymus), stem cells from mature adults are better to avoid Graft-versus-host disease (it’s where the donor’s derived T-cells attack the body of the recipient).

    So, for all of your examples given, adult stem cells would already be fine. We just need to find hte process to derive the necessary cells.

    And, again, you concluded by saying that you support stem cell research. So do I, but I don’t support embryonic stem cells. Why use embryonic stem cells when we can do the same with adult stem cells?

    Sadie, we can use adult / umbilical cord stem cells.

  391. NIH Admin Says:

    The reseachers I work with tell me no. Umbilical cord stem cells and other adult stem cells are already partially differentiated to become blood or some other organ. While its true umbilical cord stem cells have proven very useful in treating blood related disease, i.e., leukemia, researchers say it is unlikely they will ever find a way to stimulated them to differentiate into islet cells, for example, to treat diabetes, or nerve cells to treat spinal cord injury. Only embryonic stem cells are completely undifferentiated–meaning no genes have been switched on yet to make them develop into a specific cell.

    Currently, no public funds are used for research on embryonic stem cells except the 22 lines currently available. The problem with these cell lines is 1) they have been contaminated and will never yield therapies useful in humans and 2) the genetic background is too limited (they all came from 1 fertility clinic in Israel). In recent years, on 2 occasions, Congress has passed with bipartisan support bills that would expand the research to include new cell lines. Pres. Bush vetoed both times. What Prop 2 would do if passed would permit research with non-public dollars from foundations and other private sources. It will take a bill passed by congress and signed by the oval office to permit public dollars to support expanded embryonic stem cells research.

  392. inkslwc Says:

    NIH, the National Institute of Health’s page about stem cells (specifically with diabetes) completely contradicts your statement: http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/scireport/chapter7.asp.

    As for spinal cord injuries (http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/scireport/chapter8.asp), the NIH says, “Whether through developing replacement cells or activating the body’s own stem cells in vivo, research on the use of stem cells for nervous system disorders is a rapidly advancing field.” But they note that much more research needs to be done here. So before we start with embryonic cells, do research with adult stem cells.

    As for funding, California voters voted for a bond to fund it, but there are still some ongoing court battles there (at least back in 2007 – I haven’t been able to find recent news articles). The point is, you’re talking about Federal funding. I’m talking about state funding.

  393. Oh please Says:

    How many people have been convicted of murder for destroying these embryos? If you believe life is at conception than are miscarriages that are caused from neglect on the mothers part, say due to drug use manslaughter? Is the couple that signs out their embryos to dispose of on their own guilty of murder!! We were blessed with intelligence and the desire to improve our quality of life as a whole. As long as we have been on this earth there has been sacrifice for the good of the many. If God had not intended us to use our intelligence he would have left us in the woods with the rest of the animals. Don’t get me wrong I believe this should only be allowed to be done with available embryos that are going to be destroyed. Yes life must go on but so must the QUALITY of life!

  394. Mysterhi Says:

    OBAMA FOR ’08!!!

  395. inkslwc Says:

    Oh please, none, because right now the law doesn’t define embryos as human lives.

    If you could prove that, then yes.

  396. AL Says:

    Sorry, but all of your arguments against this proposal hold virtually no weight. Just admit you are against it because you’re religious and/or you think life begins at conception – and then just be quiet. The proposal is not infallibly sound, but it covers its ankles quite well. What it proposes is very reasonable, logical, AND FAIR. Half the stuff it clearly says won’t happen, all the anti-2 commercials bitch and complain will happen. Like 85% of people against prop 2 are like the blind pscyhopaths who want prop 8 in california – the use mostly lies and only care about preserving their personal morals, even in the face of true advancement.

  397. Emery Says:


  398. Emery Says:

    I’ve read all of this and I wanted to say thanks to inkslwc for putting up the info and responding to everyone in a way that was not childish as it very well could have gone in that direction considering the way the conversation has gone thus far.

    I had to write something after I read Tiffany’s response because there were so many bias and disrespectful comment’s made in regard to the historical journey that has brought our society to where it is. Despite the rather blatantly racist comment’s made by the obviously unintelligent folks after her entry I found the length of her response was more so thought out and less a childish attempt to jab a punch before the election.

    “Obama pulled the race card upon himself. did you know race slowly stopped about 60 years ago and now its back again because of him”

    You’re quote made me sad because the problem with this idea is that racism was only, allegedly, legally stopped sixty year’s ago. In reality racism is happening every single day, or some form of oppression that is ultimately linked to the same type of ideologies that surround race. One reason I really respect Obama and find his overall character refreshing is because of that speech he gave in response to the accusations about his relationship with his former Reverend. He looked right into the Camera and into our homes and said it; he opened the floor to the conversation none of us ever initiates. I know some will act as though they do not know what I mean in saying this but I’m going to ignore that because it’s kind of like the whole religion topic that keeps being brought up. God is there. We just know it right? Well than you all should know what I’m talking about.

    As for your idea’s about Gender you, again, have assumed that women in the liberal party wanted Clinton and than Obama only after she was knocked out. Don’t make generalizations about people it’s bias and rather childish.

    I live in Michigan and I’m voting yes

    I’m not touching on the life argument even though it is one of the two reasons for your objection inkslwc. It’s just something that seems illogical to me, thinking that something without a heartbeat is alive. The heartbeat is the only fact I’ve found that could support why I am pro-choice and Yes on two. Jacob made more than a few point’s that I really felt I could relate to, at least in an attempt to explain why the religion factor and/or those unexplained answers to our existence cannot be used as substantial proof from, perhaps, us yes voters. His use of text to explain why this, arguably, unexplainable topic, religious belief, should not be held relevant in matter’s of fact, and or substantial proof like legislation I felt was done very well.

    Everything I think about all the things that have been discussed thus far in this blog have been things that I myself have fought with my entire life to understand more clearly. I have come to accept that such things may not be possible for me to understand and/or ever truly find a correct answer for, thus I have just followed my instinct to conclude my ideas on matters falling under this umbrella.

    I appreciated all of the comments that I read here and the writers on the other side of the screen who were willing to have a discussion about a topic I wanted to learn more about and discuss.


  399. inkslwc Says:

    Al, even pollsters I’ve talked to expect Prop 2 to fail with less than 45% of the vote. So 46.75% of Michigan voters are “blind pscyhopaths”?

    And yes, it’s based on my religion, but it’s also based on the fact that ASCs and UCSCs are just as useful as ESCs. See any of the links I’ve procided to the National Institute of Health.

    Even my PRO-CHOICE friend has said that this is jusst extreme pro-choicers voting for it because they want to further their agenda. She’s pro-choice and voting against it because it IS unecessary.

    And like California, eventually state money would be allocated toward research, at least, that’s what teh designers of Prop. 2 are hoping for.

  400. The Reticulator Says:

    Where can I get a yard sign to urge a NO vote on this proposal? I don’t have any election signs in my yard, so there is plenty of room for one of these.

  401. mary Says:

    My stepmother is suffering horribly from Alzheimer’s while my Dad with a stress and heart condition is heartbreakingly dealing with the possibility she could go on from 8-20 years thanks to drugs that merely keep them alive to suffer longer.
    I am a “tolerant” Christian voting in support of this proposal because the fact is right here and right now there will be NO PUBLIC FUNDING for it. If we cross that bridge later then so be it. At least people who are already living and breathing and suffering are held in a position above an unborn person. We need more progress!

    VOTE YES ON PROP 2! There’s NO public funding in it YET period.
    If there is, I’d rather tax dollars go to this than for war and good ol boy networks that no one seems to complain about.

  402. inkslwc Says:

    The Reticulator, either order one here: http://volunteer.micause.com/volunteers/new_volunteer (might be a little late to do that) or pick one up at one of the locations listed here: http://micause.com/yardsign.html

    mary, you can use adult stem cells to treat those.

  403. Victor Says:

    Coming down to the final days, people. Let’s defeat the control fundamentalists and radical religious brainwashers have on our citizens and vote YES for cures, and YES to help end suffering.

    Vote YES on 2 — please disregard the horrible and embarassing misleading advertisements put forth by MICAUSE (they are a truly misguided bunch of people). PROP 2 will not increase taxes and enforces the ban on cloning and puts to use embryos that MICAUSE and opponents of PROP 2 would rather seen thrown out — spitting on any value of life that they have, and spitting on the value of all of us who want to find treatments to end suffering.

  404. inkslwc Says:

    No, we wouldn’t rather see them thrown out. We’d rather they not be created at all.

    You still haven’t listed a disease ESCs could cure that ASCs or UCSCs can’t.

  405. Ken Smythe Says:

    Stopping them from being created at all has nothing to do with this proposal. If you want to campaign to stop the overproduction of stem cells, fine, but its an irrelevant argument in this context. The fact is that RIGHT NOW, these cells are not being used, and could be used productively. End of story.

  406. Victor Says:

    Thank you KEN! These embryos RIGHT NOW will be thrown away, and be spit on by the religious right. There are thousands upon thousands of them. Now, do what you want to try and stop more from being produced. But, like Ken says, it will do NOTHING for the ones that are being thrown out now.

    +1 for team cures and life!
    -1 for team anti-life and anti-cures!

  407. WilliamJ Says:

    For those voting yes on prop 2. Who died and made you God of this planet and universe? What gives you the right to experiment on unborn human life for your own selfish gain? Ok now name me one human embryo that gave full consent to this kind of Butchering?

    Coming up with statements such as radical religious brainwashers or fear mongering shows ones immaturaity to say the leadt. How can you call yourself a good christian if you vote for this legistation? I’ll be voting against this myself

  408. inkslwc Says:

    But once you allow this, it gives incentive to produce extra embryos. Like I said before. If you give illegal immigrants driver’s licenses, you’re going to start deporting less and less of them, until it’s completely excepted.

    Plus, they can be given up for adoption.

    Victor, spit on by the religious right? You’re a disgusting cocky person. I am not anti-life or anti-cures. ASCs and UCSCs can provide the same cures that ESCs can.

    You’re a disgusting person. You’ve gone from at least arguing with logic to just ridiculing my views.

  409. Alex Koss Says:

    I am completely for proposal 2. I fail to see any reason why these embryonic stem cells shouldnt be used to research cures for diseases that have killed or crippled many. The alternative is to throw them away. I mean, why wouldnt you choose to make use of the cells???

  410. inkslwc Says:

    Because they shouldn’t exist in the first place, and it justifies creating these extra embryos.

    Besides, the same treatments can be made with adult and umbilical cord SCs.

  411. Alex Koss Says:

    The only thing it justifies is putting the embryos that would have previously been discarded to good use. Plus the adult and umbilical stem cells dont treat a lot of things. With time and research, the embryonic stem cells have the potential to treat some of these diseases. Im not saying that they will cure everything, but just the chance that these cells will be able to help is a good enough reason to vote yes on prop 2.

  412. Steve Needs Clarification Says:

    Would someone in simple terms, without bias from either side explain what this proposal means for my wallet as a taxpayer as well as what it means for the science. I don’t have any pre-knowledge of umbilical cord cells and all that stuff. If someone tells me what currently happens and what this will change, I can make my decision right. I try reading through these posts but it’s just each side trying to defend and then complain about the other. I just want it clean and simple. Thanks in advance.

  413. inkslwc Says:

    Steve, I’ll try my best.

    When it comes to money: Proposal 2 doesn’t allocate any money to stem cell research. However, states like California, after legalizing stem cell research have decided to fund money with grants. No federal money would go toward it due to restrictions, however state money could be allocated. There was a lawsuit to stop that in California, but I haven’t been able to find the results of the lawsuit (so I’m guessing that it hasn’t been resolved – the grant voted on in 2004, and the suit was still ongoing in 2007).

    When it comes to stem cells themselves, a website I’ve found very useful is the National Institute of Health, where they outline how adult, umbilical cord, and embryonic stem cells could be used. The 2001 report is especially helpful in understanding the different stem cell types, and that is available here: http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/scireport/2001report.htm.

    Another good website is http://www.stemcellschina.com/.

    Hope this helps – let me know if you have any questions.

  414. WilliamJ Says:

    Victor that is a baseless argument.. that the embryos will be thrown away if the proposal fails to pass.

    FACT: Research with human embryonic stem cells has been occurring at the University of Michigan with the support of federal tax-dollars since 2003. The University of Michigan has also been raising money to conduct research on human embryonic stem cells which aren’t approved for funding by the federal government That is what this proposal is all about. ” Expanding ESCR”

    Ink I find it incredibly ironic that some people are willing to kill in the name of science. Killing in the name of religion was bad enough when it started. But killing in the name of science goes way over the top.

    The thing is. If they want it so much they can raise funding privatley without soaking the taxpayers for their genicidal cause. Since they already been doing research on embryonic stem cells in Michigan. They want to expand the research. To even cite contempt for those against this proposal goes way far beyond delusional thinking. It is simply not the case. The parents generally have at least two other options. First, preserve the embryos for possible future attempts at pregnancy. The other is to donate the embryos to another couple struggling with infertility so they can have children

  415. CF Daddy Says:

    Quite the interesting debate here. I feel compelled to post a reply because this is an issue that impacts my family directly as I have a three year old son who happens to suffer from a condition that stem cell research has promising potential to produce treatments or a cure for.

    In response to any of the posters above who have argued an embryo has a “soul” I have only to say, “You don’t know.” You may well believe that this is the case, but your belief is grounded in your chosen religion whatever it may be. To pass (or refuse to pass) legislation on this basis alone is to infringe upon other citizens freedom of religion. If you believe that a soul is present at that point, then that is cause for you not to donate your unused embryos to research, and I would never infringe upon your right to choose not to donate. However, there is no reason you should block the right of others to choose to donate when you have zero emperical evidence to support your belief.

    As a side note to the above for any who are against the “Seperation of Church and State” I happen to know of a country where nearly everyone agrees with you. It is Iran. Perhaps you should move there and see what it is like when there is no seperation of the government and the religious leadership of the majority. Oh, thats right, they don’t practice YOUR religion there and your rights would be marginalized at every turn. Maybe that little thought experiment is compelling enough evidence that you shouldn’t attempt to marginalize the rights of others here because they don’t share your religious beliefs?

    For the opponents of Prop 2 that make the statement that life begins at conception I would suggest an alternate theory that (in my opinion at least) holds more water scientifically and still allows you to hold a position that life begins early in the pregnancy process. Fertilized eggs do not always attach to the uterine lining, and this is a critical step in the pregnancy process. A fertilized egg that does not attach to its mothers uterus cannot, and will not ever result in a human being born and therefore this occurance is a requisite for human life. In the state of nature fertilized eggs often do not result in actual pregnancies and therefore it seems a stretch to insist that “life” has begun at this point. Unimplanted embryos therefore should not be considered human beings (especially at the 70-100 cell count stage in my opinion).

    Anyone making the argument that public funding is bound to take money out of your pocket to fund this research is probably just regurgitating what they have seen in falsified and misleading television commercials. None of this proposal relates to taxing you. None of this proposal is directed at giving public money to any organization that is engaged in this research. If you are that concerned about public funding write letters to your representatives in the state legislature and the Governor. The reality here is that passing this proposal is likely to create high technology biomedical jobs that this state desperately needs. Anything we can do to promote more non-manufacturing jobs in this state is a must at this point.

    Clearly I am voting for 2 and hopefully I have swayed others to consider my position.

  416. Victor Says:

    Yes, spit on. Religious righ is disrespecting the embryos because they are doing nothing to stop their destruction. And then they are disrespecting all those who have illnesses by prolonging their suffering and squashing their hopes for treatments.

    I’m not ridiculing your views — I’m stating them for what they are. Anti-life. Anti-cures.

    And call me disgusting, please do. But what’s disgusting is that you think evolution is a crock. You also want your views on life/soul to be imposed on me by combining Christianity with the government and by restricting what I can do with my embryos.

    Now THAT’S ridiculing my views/beliefs. That’s ridiculing reason and science.

  417. CF Daddy Says:

    Victor, while I appreciate your passionate support of the Proposal some of your statements are a bit more inflammatory than I think they need to be.

    Posters like Inkslwc have contributed valuable intelligent information to this discussion despite being anti’s.

    By the way INKSLWC, you asked for instances where research on Embryonic cells is more useful than adult or chord blood… Genetic disorders that are multi-systemic in nature are much more likely to be addressed in this research because the stem cells in the embryo within the first 14 days of cell division have not yet been “assigned” to a specific bodily system and are therefore more useful in the research for treatment of multi-systemic disorders.

    I also want to hit the point harder that the Television adds from the anti’s on this particular issue are gross misrepresentations to an extent that I feel they should be illegal. Freedom of speech is an important part of our Country, but telling outright lies about a ballot proposal because you disagree with it on moral grounds is misleading, irresponsible and ought to be criminal.

    FACT: This proposal as it is written is costs the Michigan Taxpayer ZERO.

    If anyone wants to talk about California’s bond issue, then I would suggest to you that your point is irrelevant to the proposal. Vote against a bond issue when it reaches the ballot, but don’t torpedo a proposal that creates no taxpayer liability on the basis of cost to taxpayers. Think about the obsurdity of your argument.

  418. Victor Says:


    Not enough people are angry about it. I drive by churches, and they plaster huge “NO on 2” signs all over their property, and the pastors and preists direct their congregations how to vote, and they still don’t have to pay taxes.

    They say that WE (who are going to do research on embryos) are destroying life, and that we are for the killing innocent people. Yet, is it not true that innocent people will die and needlessly because the chances of finding treatments continue to be delayed? Are they not passively killing these people?

    And then they claim that all life is equal and it’s worse than disrespectful to perfrom “scientific research” on an embryo. But then when I point out how they disrespect the embryos by throwing them away, they cry foul.

    What the religious right has begun is a war and assault on reason, humanity, and hope. And they convince people who are otherwise indifferent and genuinely good people to follow along, since they “preach” some kind of moral “authority”.

    But I’m sick of it. I’m disgusted with it. So I’m sorry if their feelings are hurt, but just because they declare themselves the “pro-life” group, it doesn’t mean they are immune from the truth and from bearing the brunt of a counter attack.

    So are my remarks inflammatory? Maybe. More than they need be? NO — they aren’t nearly at the levels they need to be in order to bring justice to our society.

    I wish there was a little more passion and anger coming from the YES on 2 side. It’s just another aspect that’s wrong with society — they view these issues as “just politics”, and will pick a side, but won’t go further than that. We have raised a young generation of indifferent individuals who are only focused on the self and aren’t willing to sacrafice some time and money in fear of creating enemies in order to control the direction the opposition is taking our country and world.

  419. CF Daddy Says:

    ah, but Victor, Anger accomplishes little. It is passion that inspires people. If you can separate the two you will articulate more clearly and generally be more persuasive. A person incensed is far less likely to listen to reason.

    On the topic for instance of “Pro-Life” and the “Religious Right” it is not exactly fair to generalize either category as being clearly anti on this proposal, because it is not about abortion. The simple sheep that are going to vote as their pastor commands them are not reachable for you, so you may as well concede that vote and work on the reasonable people that you can reach. I myself am a pretty far right leaning person on most issues, but I think for myself and find my own way.

  420. Victor Says:

    Passion and anger aren’t always independent of each other.

    I’m mad because we’re in a war we shouldn’t be in. I’m angry that racism is still rampant in our society. I’m angry that people in our own neighborhoods are struggling to bring home food — let alone have the ability to take care of themselves when they’re sick. I’m angry because as a nation we’re letting our own citizens down.

    Anger accomplishes alot — because it’s only when people are mad to they learn how to act… take Vietnam War, Civil Rights movement. I’m not talking about violence, I’m talking about being mad. Get mad first, then reason how you will do things.

  421. tlwoody Says:

    Thank you for offering up this public discourse. This is a challenging proposal and this intelligent discussion has helped me to make a decision. I tend to be pro-choice, but anti-abortion, which is to say that I believe human life to be sacred but do not wish for my government to have the power over a woman’s decision regarding what to do with her unborn child. I have not done much research in the area of ESCR and really appreciate so many of you taking time to comment. It is clear that many of you have done your homework on this.

    Since these extra embryos ARE currently created, I believe it would be more beneficial to use the embryos for research than to simply discard them. At least they could potentially be used to make a scientific breakthrough. I believe that all of the scientists working on this are working hard to make a breakthrough for the benefit of mankind and do not wish to be harming human life in any way.

    I do not agree that using these leftover cells necessarily makes it more difficult to stop producing extra embryos.

    I am not sure that I believe these embryos already have a soul. If they do, I believe that that soul travels elsewhere and ends up in some other living being when the cells are discarded. So, I don’t believe that the soul would in fact be discarded along with the human tissue.

    I will vote yes on this proposal.

  422. inkslwc Says:

    CF Daddy:
    1. Nobody here has opposed stem cells overall, just embryonic stem cells.
    2. If we’re not accepting my definition of life, why should we accept yours?
    3. Um, defining life at conception based on religious principles is nothing like Iran. Let’s try to stay away from the logical fallacies here.
    4. Even my pro-choice friend is voting against this, because there’s a pattern: legalize it, then publicly fund it.

    Victor: I am trying to stop it by trying to change laws regarding the IVF process. My views aren’t anti-life or anti-cures. Anti-cures would be somebody opposed to all stem cell research. Again, let’s try to steer clear of the logical fallacies and try to actually have an intelligent discussion. Evolution has nothing to do with the debate on life. And I never ridiculed your views, I just don’t believe them. But I’ve never called your views anti-life, or anti-cures (which, I guess I probably could, because you want to waste time on ESCR instead of ASCR or UCSCR, which have given real cures, but I realize that your goal is still to provide cures, as is mine).

    CF Daddy: Just wondering, did you have specific examples? (I don’t mean to be demeaning – I’m asking this seriously, I just don’t want it to come across the wrong way).

  423. stemcells Says:

    I can’t stand the fact that people don’t get all the information before they go out and talk to the world about topics as controversial and important as this. inkslwc, I respect where you are coming from and your believes at where life begins, but what I can’t understand is the fact that you think that ASC’s are just as useful as ESC’s. You see the reason that no one has a specific example as to what ESC’s can cure that ASC’s cannot, is because ESC’s were only found ten years ago in 1998. If you understand anything about the field of Biomedical research, you would know that it is a type of research determined by time.

    Bone marrow transplants are a result of ASC research which has been conducted for the past 30 to 40 years. It helps leukemia patients and many others, but what you don’t realize is how long it took them to develop this treatment. From the first time that scientists attempted a bone marrow transplant, which failed, to the first time they got the treatment right and it actually helped someone live, took 14 years. Which means it took over 14 years to develop this treatment. That is why a state like Michigan needs to be able to use embryonic stem cells as quickly as possible. That is something that must be considered. Another reason why ASC’s are not as helpful is that they cannot be used by anyone. In order for someone to get a bone marrow transplant they must find a suitable donor that matches a number of similar genetic markers. This is at times impossible and people die because of it. Michigan has some of the brightest scientist in the nation and incredible research facilities, not to mention a lot of money already donated to the field of biomedical research at their disposal.

    Embryonic stem cells have that the ability to cure a vast amount of diseases because they can specialize into anything. Using only ASC’s it would be impossible to cure things like diabetes, pancreatic cancer because there are no ASC’s in the pancreas. Also it is impossible to obtain ASC’s from the brain without incapacitating someone, so they wouldn’t be able to cure things like alzheimers. ESC’s have unlimited possibilities, and if embryo’s are going to continue to be thrown out, then parents should have the choice to donate them to scientists. Because ultimately it is not up to us what should be done with someone else’s embryo’s, it falls upon the people whose embryos they are. If they chose to put them up for adoption then I absolutely support that, go ahead. But if they are going to be thrown out and they want to give them to some of the most gifted researchers in the world instead, then they should have that option as well.

    As for money, that is not a debate for proposal two, but it should come up if another bill is introduced to publicly fund it, so no one should be bringing money issues into this debate. I hope this helps you to see that ESC are very promising much more so than adult stem cells, but when they discovered adult stem cells over 30 years ago, everyone was able to research them, and have been doing so for over 3 decades. Not nearly as many people have been able to research ESC’s, and they have only existed for ten years, which is a very short time in the biomedical field.

  424. Victor Says:


    You want to have an intelligent and logical discussion. But you keep on denying that ESCR can/might be able to do things that ASCR can’t. You keep on insisting that life that starts at fertilization is equal to value as other forms of life. You are also stuck in a bind: excess and deformed embryos exist right now. There is no way these ones can be saved. Yet, you’d rather not use them because of such future “hypothetical.”

    We can try being logical and discuss this with intelligence, but if you can’t accept basic facts, there is really not much more room for intelligent and logical discussion.

  425. inkslwc Says:

    stem cells, I’m not going to directly address your question, because my answer to Victor will have my answer to your question(s) in it. Let me know I don’t completely answer your questions.

    Victor: I have not found 1 disease where the scientists say that ESCs might be able to cure it, but UCSCs/ASCs can’t. Name me one disease where ESCs even MIGHT be able to work, but we know that ASCs/UCSCs can’t.

    Why shouldn’t we keep trying with better options like ASCs and UCSCs. What if all 3 options would work? We should still use ASCs and UCSCs, because there’s no moral problem there.

    Think of it this way: Why would we authorize the use of force agaisnt Iran unless we try other options? Both Obama and McCain have said they’d use military force against Iran if necessary, but want to try other options first? Allowing ESC research is like saying, we’ll authorize force, but we want you to try other things first.

  426. stemcells Says:

    “Name me one disease where ESCs even MIGHT be able to work, but we know that ASCs/UCSCs can’t.” -inkslwc

    To answer this I give you diabetes. There are no, absolutely 0 adult stem cells in the pancreas, which is where insulin is produced in the body. Therefore embryonic stem cell research are these people’s only hope.

    I agree with you that all options need to be used, and using ASC and UCSC’s are very important and research with them should not be stopped. But the thing about ASC is that they only exist in the following organs: Liver, skeletal muscle, bone marrow, skin, heart, lungs, umbilical cord, kidney and the brain (which are impossible to get to). Those are where they come from. Do you think that we have only 9 organs in our body? I know you don’t because you are clearly an intelligent person, but I am just trying to show you that there are numerous diseases that can be cured with embryonic stem cells that cannot be with adult stem cells.

    I can’t agree with your comparison about Iran. That is ridiculous. We have explored other options and continue to do so, but we need to use everything we can to save lives not to start a war. What else is there to try, they are trying everything. This is nothing like what you are suggesting. I have seen people suffer from these horrible diseases, people inside my family and outside. I know that people throw out embryos at IVF clinics everyday, and while I don’t agree with that I think that they can take those embryos and instead of putting them in a biohazard bag, they can give them to scientists to help those are suffering.

    Why not use everything that we can? I refuse to watch people I love continue to suffer and die slowly, it is the most painful thing I have ever seen in my life. I suggest you go to a hospital and you meet these people you talk with them, and you look into their life and see what they have to live with everyday, things you and I take for granted. The research for embryonic stem cells is unending and infinite, while ASCR stops at those certain organs. There are numerous disease that they cannot cure or even treat with adult stem cells. We should use everything in our arsenal and find cures for the people who need them, we can’t let them suffer any longer. As long as IVF clinics are throwing out either defective embryos or healthy embryos then parents should have the choice to donate them to save lives.

    There is a movie called Life is for the Living, it is a documentary that was made by a student at the university of michigan, it is eye opening. I research the reasons give rise to why people are against ESCR, and I think those who are against it should fully research its benefits. This documentary shows what ESC’s can do that ASC’s cannot, and show what people with uncureable diseases go through everyday. Contact the filmmakers and see if you can view the movie, they are very accomodating, and wish to all everyone to see it if they want to.

  427. inkslwc Says:

    stemcells, that’s simply not true. According to the National Institutes of Health’s own web page on stem cells regarding diabetes(http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/scireport/chapter7.asp), “Another promising source of islet progenitor cells lies in the cells that line the pancreatic ducts. Some researchers believe that multipotent (capable of forming cells from more than one germ layer) stem cells are intermingled with mature, differentiated duct cells, while others believe that the duct cells themselves can undergo a differentiation, or a reversal to a less mature type of cell, which can then differentiate into an insulin-producing islet cell.”

    So again, name me a disease that can’t be cured by ASCs/UCSCs that might be cured by ESCs.

    As for Life is for the Living, can I buy it somewhere, or see it? They didn’t have any screenings listed under events. I’d be interested in seeing it though.

  428. stemcells Says:

    your right. Induced pluripotent stem cells (IPS cells) or as they call them insulin-producing islet cells are derived from adult stem cells. It should also be noted that these cells are cancerous cells. They immediately cause cancer when entered into the human body. So that is why that are ineffective and cannot be used to treat these diseases. I hope that scientist can find a way to make them non cancer causing, because then everyone will be happy and adult stem cells can effectively become embryonic stem cells. However the reality is that they cannot right now. They are still cancer causing cells. The stem cells researchers are dedicating a lot of research to find out how to make them non cancer causing, but have yet to perfectly succeed. That is why we need to use absolutely everything that we can to find cures, and until they can make these cells non cancerous that includes ESCs.
    I fully supports IPS cell research, and ASCR, but IPS are still cancer causing and ASCR therefore cannot cure certain diseases. It is a sad reality but a reality non the less. It is as much a reality as the fact that IVF clinics are continuing to throw away embryos everyday.

    Life is for the Living: I will try and see if you can get a viewing, I will talk to some people and see if they can make a copy or if there will be a showing near you, or I can give you a schedule of where they will be showing it. I just need to some people, but I will be able to do that soon, tomorrow hopefully.

  429. inkslwc Says:

    Do you have a source for that? I didn’t see that anywhere on NIH’s website.

    Also, another method for treating diabetes, that I forgot to post (also courtesy of NIH) is taking islet cells from deceased donors and differantiating them to produce insulin. NIH says that there is one problem with this though: “these cells do not produce as much insulin as normal islets, but it is within an order of magnitude.”

    So, it’s not perfict, but it still is a huge step.

    One other possibility is taking cells from adult pancreatic ducts, which has reversed diabetes in tests done on mice.

  430. stemcells Says:

    It is a huge step, I remember reading all about it when it was first discovered that they could do this not too long ago, and being very happy thinking that this could be the end of the debate, but they are still cancerous cells. Here are some websites. I’ve also talked with researchers about it. They are working very hard to figure out how they can make these non cancerous cells. Here is a link to the NIH’s website where a study was done using the islet progenitor cells. You can read the experiment if you like, but in the results section they say that

    “We produced 11 transgenic founder mice by using a βGK−1000/+14–simian virus 40 T antigen (Tag) fusion gene. Seven of these animals died within a few weeks of birth. Histochemical analysis of the tumors in the four founders that survived to breeding age revealed pancreatic, pituitary, and antral stomach tumors in all of the animals, with hepatobiliary and thyroid tumors also being rarely observed in one or more founders”


    Here are some peer reviewed journals specifically about islet progenitor cells


    Here is some information on Induced pluripotent stem cells as a whole.


    There is a lot more information on IPS cells if you would like me to search it. Those other methods that you are mentioning do the same thing, the problem is that they take a cell and introduce it with a retrovirus to revert it back to the same state it was in as an embryonic stem cell. When they start injecting cells with viruses it makes the cell cancer causing. Hopefully it is something they can fix and soon, but it doesn’t seem too likely to be fixed soon.

  431. Hate arguments that use relgion as a backup! Says:

    “This isn’t practicing religion – this has to do with killing people. And the whole separation of church and state thing is not even IN the Constitution iteslf, so arguing that as some supreme doctrine is kinda ridiculous. It seems that as time goes on, the 2 are growing farther and farther apart. The Constitution outlaws a national church, this has nothing to do with a national church.”

    Are you saying that this country SHOULD be based on Christianity. It seems like you are implying it……If you are…..this is the kind of shit that scares the crap out of me. Christians make comments like, “this country was founded on Christianity.” and all other kinds of bullshit comments. I understand the concept of disagreeing with the creation of extra embryos because it simply wastes. However, if you are using the soul argument, I cannot sit here and listen to that. I would like to know how many actual biologists are here typing comments that are: A) Unbiased with no religious affiliation and B) Sees all types of research done with stem cells that actually KNOW if there are ANY cures or treatments they have come up with.

  432. Anne Says:

    I have had type 1 diabetes for 34 of my 39 years. I see this as a way that people with diabetes and other life threatening and altering diseases a chance to survive. I know that the longer I live with diabetes the more the toll on my body will be and if stem cells could help I am so for this proposal.

  433. inkslwc Says:

    stemcells, but not all methods use stem cells fused with the simian virus 40 TAG.

    Also, that’s only 1 study that rules out ductal cell differentiation (1 of 5 theorized methods of treating diabetes with ASCs), and even the NIH still says that more experiments need to be done.

    Hate arguments…, Yes, I believe we should be based on Christianity, but we need to allow freedoms of religion (if you want to sacrifice a cat once a week, go ahead, as long as it’s YOUR cat).

    But this doesn’t have to do with religion as much as definition of life. If we defined life at conception, then the 14th Amendment, not religion would ban ESCR and abortion

    Anne, I want stem cells to help too, and they probably will. I just oppose embryonic stem cells.

  434. Victor Says:


    You said, “if you want to sacrifice a cat once a week, go ahead, as long as it’s YOUR cat).”

    I now say: “if you want to sacrifice an embryo once a week, go ahead, as long as it’s YOUR embryo.”

    That’s what ESCR is — sacrificing dead-end embryos for curing people. Yet, opposing Prop 2 is precisely restricting freedom of religion. Because my religion tells me that embryos aren’t human people with souls.

    Life begins before fertilization. Jewish people don’t believe the soul enters the fetus until birth. So “life beginning at conception” IS restricting freedom of religion and imposing your religion on everybody else.

  435. Ken Smythe Says:

    there will never be a universal (or even legal) definition of life, so theres no point to discussing it. People are going to have different ideas about when life begins, which will in turn, impact how they vote. I have a problem with Christianity’s definition of life, however, because it does restrict the views of other religions, like Judaism as Victor said, and it also restricts the freedom of the mother to make a decision that is hers, and hers alone. Im sorry, im talking about abortion now, but the issue is the same.

  436. Chris from Ypsilanti Says:

    I’ll be voting “no” on this come Tuesday and I hope you’ll all join me in voting that way.

  437. stemcells Says:

    Ink: The adult stem cells that COULD one day be responsible for curing diabetes are spliced with a virus whether it is simian virus 40 TAG or another different retrovirus. My point is that it is still cancer causing. IPS cells cause cancer as of now, and yes NIH is correct to say they need to continue research on them, but we also need to do research on embryonic stem cells. Scientists, those who know an infinite amount more about stem cell research than we do, call ESCs the gold standard of stem cell research. This is the most promising way to save people’s lives and find cures for an unending number of diseases. You should take your questions to a stem cell research specialist, or at least a biomedical researcher at a hospital in Michigan or outside of it, because they will know the most about it. They could give you a detailed list of what ASCs can’t do that ESCs can. They can show you that IPS cells are ineffective in providing cures for diseases. We need to save people’s lives, so Chris from Ypsilanti, I will not be voting with you and I hope that the majority of Michigan shares my decision. If you don’t want to research embryonic stem cells because it dismantles and embryo that was already doomed for destruction. If you can’t live with the fact that embryo’s are killed then what say you to those mature humans that feel and recognize pain who you are condemning to horrors because ESCR can be the link to finding a cure for your disease. If you don’t like that embryos are being destroyed then you should fight the IVF clinics, and until you make headway with that, we should allow ESCR for the possibilities that lie within them.

    I’ll be voting “YES” on 2 this Tuesday and I hope everyone joings me in voting this way. Thank you all.

  438. Landon Says:

    Two issues that came up in response to my comments above were that A) what about people who will die anyway? and B) what about adopting embryos.

    A) The terminally ill, who will die anyway, have the choice to donate their organs. And over 60% of Americans are organ donors. Right now, parents in Michigan do NOT have the choice to donate their embryos…embryos that are going to die anyway. Prop 2 provides parents an option, it does not make this a requirement…just like organ donation.

    B) FACT: Of the 400,000 frozen embryos in the world, only 210 have been adopted by other parents. 210/400000!!! Clearly, adoption is not a popular option. MORE IMPORTANTLY, Prop 2 doesn’t get rid of the adoption program, it only gives parents another choice in addition to adoption: research.

    If you religiously are against Prop 2, I can’t argue with that. But logically, this proposition makes perfect sense for our State. We must VOTE YES ON 2.

  439. Landon Says:


    Good point. Voting no on 2 is restricting religion for me as well since my religion considers ESCR completely ethical. If you take the religious standpoint on this issue, then you are telling everyone that your religion is Michigan’s religion and is the more ethical religion.

    If you vote yes on 2, you can still be against embryonic stem cell research. You can still refuse to donate your embryos and still refuse treatments from embryos. But at least you are allowing other people (and other religions) that are for this research to follow their ethical beliefs.

  440. Flo Says:

    i have been diabetic for 4 yrs now and I have watched my uncle suffer with the complications of diabetes for nearly 15 years until 2 weeks ago when he passed….he was only 58. I will be voting yes on Prop 2.

  441. inkslwc Says:

    Victor: cats aren’t constitutionally guaranteed a right to life. People are. Embryos aren’t pets, they’re children.
    Also, they’re not dead end embryos – they can be given for adoption.
    So, if I’m opposing your religion because your religion tells you that embryos aren’t humans, should we allow killing of blacks because some religions think that blacks aren’t people? No, of course not.

    Ken: Why not? There SHOULD be a legal definition.
    Not all methods are cancer causing.
    I’ve seen researchers say that ESCR will lead to no cures, and that we should focus on ASCs and UCSCs. Both sides have researchers arguing for both points.

    Landon: I don’t remember who brought up point A, but since it wasn’t me, I’ll leave that alone. As for point B, I hope my answer to Victor was a good enough response to your comment.

    Flo: Adult stem cells.

  442. CF Daddy Says:


    You asked above why my definition of when life begins should be accepted in favor of yours above. My suggestion is this: Making the assumption that life begins at fertilization is a bit too far of a leap for me to consider. An embryo requires sustinance, homeostasis and auto-immune capabilities (among other things) from its mother in order to ever reach birth. Often times a fertilized egg fails to result in the birth of a baby in nature, and therefore it seems too far to the extreme to grant the assumption that “people” are dying each time that this occurs.

    My point of reference to Iran is valid even if you dislike the comparison. I used the example of Iran to illustrate some of the negative consequences of intermingling government and religion too much. The problem quickly becomes that the religion of the majority dominates and all the members of minority religions are aren’t able to maintain the same degree of freedom of religion in any area where the doctrines of religion conflict. Your religion may guide you to what you feel is correct, but right and wrong exist independent of religion. A compelling argument must be secular in order to reach accross the lines of religion.

    Public funding is not on the ballot. No taxes, no bond issue, no public money whatsoever. The pattern you refer to is from other states and therefore irrelevant to Michigan law. Again, if you don’t want public money to go to this cause advocate to prevent public money going to the cause, don’t block the legality of medical research.

    With regard to specific examples I assume you mean of multi-systemic disorders that are more likely to find treatment or potential cures from embryonic stem cells. Naming specific diseases is neither practical or relevant in this case, because an exhaustive list of multi-systemic disorders is far beyond what the scope of this discussion needs to get into. You only need to accept the facts that:

    1)Medical conditions exist that affect more than one organ/bodily system at a time

    2)Adult Stem cells have not been discovered for every organ of the body and therefore may not exist for every organ of the body

    3)Embryonic stem cells certainly are responsible for generating the organs for which ASC’s have not been discovered or do not exist

    It follows from these three premises that if you wish to research treatments and cures for multi-systemic disorders then the embryonic stem cell is the only avenue currently available to seek such treatments through stem cell technologies.

    On the “sacrificing of cats” topic… Is it really necessary to make the implication that all non-Christians engage in the practice of animal sacrifice? Be careful who you are accusing of logical fallacy here.

  443. Kirsten Says:

    I do believe that the argument that the author of this article says about creating too many or extra embryos is valid, but it is not valid in terms of what Proposal 2 is trying to do. Proposal 2 does nothing to stop the creation of extra embryos or to try to fix the problem – if you consider it a problem. Infertility treatments are very expensive and not 100% fool proof. If you get 20 embryos, it is very possible that not all of them are viable or would turn into humans given the right conditions. If it was affordable and easy for people seeking fertility treatments to create only what they can use during that cycle, there would be no argument to even have here. The process is neither inexpensive nor easy. There are also proponents of proposal 2 who also support the adoption of embryos for couples looking to have a family yet help reduce their costs. I think this is a great option that should also be supported. There are bigger problems here that proposal 2 does not fix, such as the cost of fertility treatments and health care in general, the adoption systems, or the actual definition of when life beings. It does provide a legal and regulated mechanism to do research that could save lives and wipe out conditions and diseases that still plague the world. I do not want to be the parent who has to lose a child to a disease that could have been fixed. People give their lives all the time for good causes in this world – if you consider a 5-14 day old embryo that has never completed all the needed conditions to become a human still a human, then you need to do what you feel is right on this vote. However, I feel that the need is there and I am voting YES on the proposal.

  444. Alexandra Says:

    My children and I would like to thank all those who plan to vote YES on Proposal 2. Unfortunately, I am one of those who struggle with an incurable disease. I, along with my doctors, have great hope, in stem cell research.

    To those of you planning on voting no, I have a question to ask. When will my life begin to count? When will tens of thousands of other lives begin to count? Why, on the list of “all life counts” am I placed below medical waste?

    The truth is IVF clinics do dispose of surplus blastocysts as medical waste. In the past, they have literally been tossed down the drain. Why, when we can use this surplus, would you ignore the possibilities of saving lives? Why would you prefer to flush our hope down the drain than fight for our lives?

    Look at the period at the end of this sentence. That is the size of “life” you would prefer to save rather than mine.

  445. Jennifer from JCC Says:

    I would say that one persons trash is the world’s treasure, u may say no now, but when the time comes for u to need the help think back when u said no & remember u signed up for ur own death when voting NO on 2, I will be voting YES b/c we need this for all of us to live & to help others live. Whoo- go stem cells!!!!

  446. inkslwc Says:

    CF Daddy: Making the assumption that blacks were humans worth being one person (instead of 3/5) was too far of a leap for many of the Founding Fathers too.
    I only want to involve religion in a way that would define life, not every day applications. If you want to define life another way, and we can do it without religion, I’m fine with that.
    I’ll accept your argument about funding, since that’s not the reason I’m voting no.
    I’m not asking for specific examples. I’m just asking for ONE example.
    On the cat sacrifices – I wasn’t implying that at all. I was merely pointing out that I don’t care what you do with your religion. Cat sacrifices was an example (I use that because it was my example earlier in the year at a forum about religious freedom). The point is, I don’t care what you do. Sacrifice cats, do communion, sit and meditate for a week, watch Lord of the Rings and pray to Gollum – I don’t care. But I was not making that implication, merely giving an example.

    Kirsten: It’s easy, just not affordable.

    Alexandra, what disease, if you don’t mind sharing? And I do want you to be cured, through ASCs and/or UCSCs. Your life always counts. Now we’re basing the matter of one’s life on size? That’s a dangerous road to take.

    Jennifer, I’m all for stem cells too, just not embryonic stem cells.

  447. Trish Says:

    Definitely voting yes tomorrow. An egg or embryo is not a human being, it is a potential to become a human being. I believe a live person has more rights than the potential of a human being. I think it is absurd to think an egg or embryo has rights.

  448. inkslwc Says:

    Trish, that’s what people said about black people too.

  449. Victor Says:

    Ink: Cats are moreso people than are 14-day old human embryos. Cats have a brain; embryos don’t. Cats can feel pain; 14-day old embryos can’t.

    Ink: Your argument about blacks have no connection to this at all. There will be no new scientific studies that will make people change the value they put on the life of a 14-day old embryo. We know the science. Blacks were thought to be an inferior race or species by some, and scientific research/studies HAVE proven that wrong. Scientific research will never show that a 14-day old embryo can feel pain, or that it has a brain.

    Landon’s adoption argument makes complete sense. Something opponets like to ignore.

  450. inkslwc Says:

    Victor, that’s a basic flaw in biological knowledge. Ask any biologist – even if you don’t define embryos as people, they’re still closer to being a person than a cat is.

    It makes sense if you don’t define embryos as human lives, but I don’t.

  451. Alexandra Says:


    My point in sharing the size of a blastocyst was not to start a conversation on when life begins. It merely was to show what is already being discarded by IVF clinics. Neither side will be able to change one’s mind on the topic of when life is created. Even I have conflicting opinions and feelings on the matter and am unable to definitively say when life begins.

    However, numerous excess blastocysts are already being thrown away and disposed of by IVF clinics. Why not use the IVF’s clinics refuse to help save lives? Why some people prefer to discard blastocysts rather than save lives is incomprehensible to me.

  452. inkslwc Says:

    Right – we aren’t going to agree on the definition of life, which is why we need a legal definition. Again, would you mind sharing what disease you have?

  453. CF Daddy Says:


    Your comparison to slavery is so far from being a viable argument I am stunned to see it. I can make the distinction very clear for you. Black people have all of the same physical features as any other race of human being with the exception of skin color. Blastocysts have no heart, brain, lungs, liver, circulatory system, etc. You are projecting an opinion here that has no basis in fact and is strictly belief based.

    I would like to point out that you have done nothing to refute any of the premises of my argument that ESCR can provide meaningful medical progress that ASCR and USCR cannot provide.

    You seem hung up on the idea that you want a specific condition to pursue argumentation on. I suggest that until you come up with a viable refutation to the argument that I have given above you can only concede the point and any counter examples you may wish to furnish about a specific disease/disorder are irrelevant.

    I am however willing to play devil’s advocate for the purpose of our argumentation in order to advance the goals of our discussion. Lets assume that you can manufacture a reasonable refutation to my argument without circular logic (doubtful, but I will grant you the assumption). There are a number of genetic disorders that science has yet to fully understand the development of. ASCR and USCR are good paths to finding out more ESCR is the IDEAL course of research. If you want specific disorders to argue about I can give you two that fall into this category. Cystic Fibrosis and Lupus are both conditions that ASCR can provide some progress for, but ESCR is more promising in helping researchers understand and ultimately treat or cure these conditions. I submit the below to further substantiate my claims.

    You yourself quote the NIH as a credible resource. This article supports the concept that Embryonic Stem Cells hold substantial advantages over Adult cells in many instances. http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/scireport/chapter6.asp
    “In this regard, embryonic stem cell-derived hematopoietic stem cells may offer distinct advantages over cord blood and bone marrow hematopoietic stem cell lines in avoiding rejection of the transplant… Additionally, there is evidence that embryonic stem cells are considerably more receptive to genetic manipulation than are hematopoietic stem cells.”

    From: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/08/20010809-1.html Not exactly an office that has been supportive of ESCR
    “Although scientists believe that some adult stem cells from one tissue can develop into cells of another tissue, NO ADULT STEM CELL HAS BEEN SHOWN IN CULTURE TO BE PLURIPOTENT.”
    This pluripotent capability is NECESSARY for the study and treatment of many medical conditions.

    For any lurking liberals you may like this source better: http://usliberals.about.com/od/stemcellresearch/i/StemCell1.htm
    “Consensus among researchers has been that adult stem cells are limited in usefulness because they can be used to produce only a few of the 220 types of cells found in the human body.”
    It is fantastic that ASC’s are more flexible that initially believed, but they still fall woefully short of the capabilities of ESC’s.

    If you want to legislate your religion to the rest of us, then it is your right to vote that way, but don’t claim that you have a valid secular argument when you cannot refute the arguments laid at your feet.

  454. CF Daddy Says:

    I am going to ignore your commentary on the rights of Black people on the basis of it being so far from relevant to this discussion.

    I’m glad to see that you have conceded the point of public funding. Thank you for being reasonable.

    As I stated above, ONE specific condition is irrelevant until you can refute the argument that I presented above (which you didn’t even attempt by the way); but for the purpose of advancing the discussion I will provide you with 2 such conditions. I give you Lupus and Cystic Fibrosis. It is true that other forms of stem cell research can provide meaningful information in the study of these conditions, but ESCR is the most promising, fastest path to this. Consider these sources that affirm my position.

    From: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/08/20010809-1.html The White House is not exactly an office that has been supportive of ESCR, but even they will concede this point.
    “Although scientists believe that some adult stem cells from one tissue can develop into cells of another tissue, NO ADULT STEM CELL HAS BEEN SHOWN IN CULTURE TO BE PLURIPOTENT.”

    This pluripotent capability is NECESSARY for the study and treatment of many medical conditions.

    For any lurking liberals you may like this source better: http://usliberals.about.com/od/stemcellresearch/i/StemCell1.htm
    “Consensus among researchers has been that adult stem cells are limited in usefulness because they can be used to produce only a few of the 220 types of cells found in the human body.”

    It is fantastic that ASC’s are more flexible that initially believed, but they still fall woefully short of the capabilities of ESC’s.

    You yourself quote the NIH as a credible resource. This article supports the concept that Embryonic Stem Cells hold substantial advantages over Adult cells in many instances. http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/scireport/chapter6.asp
    Additionally, there is evidence that embryonic stem cells are considerably more receptive to genetic manipulation than are hematopoietic stem cells.”




  455. CF Daddy Says:


    You don’t even attempt to refute my argument. Specific conditions are irrelevant until you can negate one of my premises, but I will play along anyway. I give you lupus and cystic fibrosis. ASC’s can provide meaningful advancement, but ESCR is the most likely path to find treatment for both. If you want to read up check out these:




    If your vote is based upon your wanting to legislate your religion to the public then your vote should not change, but your are treading on a slippery slope.

    Thank you for conceding the public money issue. It would be terriffic if the liars that are spending money on commercials were as reasonable as you.

  456. CF Daddy Says:

    You don’t even attempt to refute my argument. Specific conditions are irrelevant until you can negate one of my premises, but I will play along anyway. I give you lupus and cystic fibrosis. ASC’s can provide meaningful advancement, but ESCR is the most likely path to find treatment for both. If you want to read up check out these:




    If your vote is based upon your wanting to legislate your religion to the public then your vote should not change, but your are treading on a slippery slope.

    Thank you for conceding the public money issue. It would be terriffic if the liars that are spending money on commercials were as reasonable as you.

  457. CF Daddy Says:

    You don’t even attempt to refute my argument. Specific conditions are irrelevant until you can negate one of my premises, but I will play along anyway. I give you lupus and cystic fibrosis. ASC’s can provide meaningful advancement, but ESCR is the most likely path to find treatment for both. If you want to read up check out these:


    If your vote is based upon your wanting to legislate your religion to the public then your vote should not change, but your are treading on a slippery slope.

    Thank you for conceding the public money issue. It would be terriffic if the liars that are spending money on commercials were as reasonable as you.

  458. CF Daddy Says:

    You didn’t even refute the argument that I presented. Specific cases are irrelevant until you do so.

  459. AC Says:

    Well said ink. I’m glad to see someone taking a stand for the innocent babies killed! Lets take one life to save another?? Does that make sense? For all of the women who have a miscarriage and vote yes on propolsal 2 I would expect to not see you cry or be upset when your baby dies inside you! I will totally agree about the fact of the extra embryos, whos going to put a limit on how many extra they can make. Are the clinics going to be paid for these embryos?? Heres a sad story for you guys….My dad had diabetes and died when I was 16, my mom died from a heart attack when I was 18. But I tell you I wouldn’t trade thier deaths for the lives of others!! Nor would I be for something like that!

    This part is for Alexandra…. Why should thousands of lives be used to save yours?? Why are you putting your life above thousands is my question to you?? Thats grave robbing!!!

    This part is for those who believe in God and are voting yes to proposal2….. You and your mom, your ancestors and every living thing will be knealing before him come judgement day and when it says thou shalt not kill in the bible (and you can mark his words,) it means thou shalt not kill! There is no reading between the lines, it’s plain and simple black and white!

  460. Victor Says:


    That depends on what definition of “person” is being used. And in this case: “a self-conscious or rational being. ” Thus, in this case, any biologist would agree that a cat is more self-conscious and rational than a 14-day old embryo. Which means it’s closer to a person.

    I don’t define human embryos as people. Because they clearly are not people.

  461. inkslwc Says:

    CF Daddy:

    1. Sorry that your comments weren’t going through. The spam blocker gets a little trigger-happy when somebody posts too many links in a comment, so sorry about that.

    2. But blastocysts will develop them.

    3. Of course I have. I’ve pointed out time and time again that for every diseases scientists claim ESCs can cure, ASCs and UCSCs can do the same thing.

    4. I’m not denying that ESCs may be the easier way or scientifically better way. I’m pointing out that we should do the non-controversial way first, if possible. Then come back to me and plead your case for ESCs (which, I’ll still say no to on moral grounds, but at least then you’ve exhausted other possibilities).

    5. You say they’re limited in usefulness, but never show a specific instance where this limit restricts cures.

    Victor: Ask a professional biologist and he/she’ll disagree.

    ***I’m heading out to work on the campaign that I’m working on – so I won’t be here to OK any comments that get filtered by the spam filter. Don’t worry, I’ll approve all comments – I’ve only censored 1 person’s comments ever, and he was a person who was spamming racist comments. Again, CF Daddy, sorry that your comments got marked as spam. Try to limit links to 1 or 2 links per comment while I’m gone (so just do multiple comments)**

  462. KW Says:

    I don’t have time to read everyone’s comments, but I did read a few and I thought I would write something from a scientist’s point of view:

    There are many pre-embryos that are created and are no good, not extra that are still viable and usable, but no good to be implanted ever. This means that that they couldn’t become a life, even if everything was done to implement it. You still would say that these pre-embryos should be destroyed rather than researched? They contain perfectly good stem cells, but they can’t be used for IVF. I see no reason ethically why these messed up pre-embryos couldn’t be used for research. In my mind it is equivalent as if a baby was miscarried and the doctors requested the body to figure out what went wrong and try to prevent it in the future. If the parents say “OK”, the dead baby would be taken by the doctors. Why is it different with an unviable pre-embryo?

    Another thought – the reason nothing has been discovered yet is because there are very strict limits on what can be done with stem cells. I know that there are things that can be done with umbilical cord blood and with adult stem cells, but these are in very short supply and are hard to come by. Additionally, adult stem cells can only differentiate into a few cell types. They are not pluripotent, which limits their functionality.

    They have had breakthroughs that may not be published on the news and many labs that I know of have been able to push cells to differentiate into neurons and many other cell types. If you are saying they haven’t found any cures yet, you are right, but they were close. Very close to being in pre-clinical testing levels, even. But the cells that are approved quit dividing or differentiate in medium they aren’t supposed to differentiate in. It is now impossible to work with many of the cell lines – if we could just have the cells from just a few pre-embryos that would die anyway, we might have a chance.

    Another problem with current embryonic stem cell lines – all of the lines are mixed with mouse embryonic fibroblasts. This means that they can’t be used in clinical trials on humans – they are all contaminated. It is only recently in places like California that they have begun growing the cells without a mouse cell feeder layer.

    When I say we, I mean the lab I work in and the people I work with. I don’t work directly with the stem cells, but many of my friends do and I have attended many seminars on the topic. If you want more information, UofM has a website describing all of the stem cell research that they have done and addressing a lot of the ethical questions about it.


  463. madmaxx Says:

    so will this be paid for by tax dollars thats all i want to know

  464. Victor Says:


    No. This proposal has nothing to do with taxpayer dollars.

    KW: excellent thoughts!

  465. TINA Says:

    LEAVE RELIGION OUT OF IT. i don’t care (as many others don’t) about what you believe or why. just a no one cares what i believe or why. no one cares whether or not when YOU (or anyone else) believe life begins. as you’ve state a hundred times on here, that’s the battle here and it will NEVER be solved.

    I’m voting yes on prop 2. : )
    no one would even know what an embryo is without scientific research!!

  466. inkslwc Says:

    KW, if I’m understanding you right, the pre-embryos that can’t be used would be like an autopsy. I’m perfectly fine with this, since it’s not killing a life, as long as the parents give consent.

    madmaxx: This proposal doesn’t allocate any money toward ESCR, but states that have allowed it, have gone to publicly fund it (New Jersey, California, and one other one which I can’t remember right now). I’m not saying that it will lead to this, I’m just pointing out what’s happened in other states.

    TINA, but it’s a battle that the courts SHOULD decide.

  467. Landon Says:

    YES on 2

    YES on 2

    Don’t throw cures away! Give Michigan parents the choice that millions of other Americans have!!!

  468. Greg Says:

    I WILL BE VOTING NO! I have researched this topic. There have been no leads by using stem cell research. Why do we continue to kill these children. I am not a Republican. This has nothing to do with religion. So all of you people that are voting yes, why dont you research it and see exactly how these embryos are removed!

    NO ON 2

  469. Dragon Corvere Says:

    Landon: Sorry, this is wrong. Now, while I may be pro-life, that’s actually NOT why I think this proposal should be struck down. My problem actually is with the language used.

    “# Prohibit any person from selling or purchasing human embryos for stem cell research.
    # Prohibit state and local laws that prevent, restrict or discourage stem cell research, future therapies and cures.”

    So, while an individual cannot SELL these embryos, an institution (i.e., a non-human) CAN. That means that these IVF clinics could theoretically cash in by selling these extra embryos. And remember that research is done mostly by Universities, which get their research dollars from the Federal government in the form of grants. So, do you really want your tax dollars used to pay for research so that some IVF Clinic doctors can pocket the cash?!?

    Secondly, this proposal’s passage would prohibit ANY FUTURE restrictions on any such research. Um…that alone is completely unconstitutional!

    So, instead of voting yes for this proposal and having it struck down instantly in court, why not force the people to reword the proposal and state that “NO ENTITY can purchase or sell human embryos…” and completely strike out the prohibitions thereafter.

    BTW, Embryonic Stem Cells (ESCs) are identical to adult stem cells and to umbilical and placental stem cells. How can I say that? Because, by definition, medically speaking, a stem cell is a stem cell. They all carry the same DNA, the same ability to develop into any type of specific cell, and the same effective ability to grow.

    So…whether you look at this from a pro-life point of view or not, this proposal really is unnecessary and is poorly worded. Vote yes for it if you simply want to see more money wasted in court to have yet another proposal struck down, but hey…that’s your choice. Personally, I’d rather vote no and save my tax dollars to at least fix the Michigan roads.

    Lastly, why does Michigan need to approve such a measure anyway? California and several other States already allow this. So simply do the research there and be done with it. Why force this upon Michigan?

  470. inkslwc Says:

    Greg, I have to correct you: stem cell research is good. It’s embryonic stem cell research that you and I have problems with.

  471. Lori Says:

    bottom line is this…#1 its coming out of your tax dollars….#2 even if they find a cure for an ailment it will never be introduced to the public, there is more money in no cure than there is in “the cure”…it will only be available to the wealthy if there is a cure found for any particular ailment, do you really think there is no cure for cancer? To introduce a cure for cancer would create a huge financial loss to the medical field, cancer treatment is big business…wise up America!

  472. CF Daddy Says:

    Greg… Removed from where? Perhaps you are misreading the proposal, because the embryos aren’t “removed” from anywhere but the petri dish they are created in. It is important that everyone knows this is not an abortion issue at all. It has to do with embryos that are created for invetro fertilization that are “extras” and will not be used in any other way. The two alternative uses for these lab created embryos are adoption and disposal. Of 400000 “frozen” embryos just over 200 have been adopted, and many more have been destroyed (I have to credit that stat to a poster earlier in this thread).

    Ink… a few points. A no vote on 2 prohibits research on non-viable embryos as by definition they are still embryonic stem cells. So while you may be ok with this limited form of ESCR you are about to vote against it. An additional fun fact is that if you maintain your contention that “life” begins at conception you need to concede that you are also against invetro fertilization because the practice in many cases involves implanting multiple embryos with the hope that one will successfully be carried to term. Does this then mean that the unsuccessful implantees (embryos) are victims of this brutal practice of “family manufacturing”? Or is it ok to sacrifice a few embryos for a purpose as long as it is one that your religion approves of?

    Also, with regard to your earlier comments, only you saw the sources that I tried to post and I haven’t the energy to re-post all of that at this point, but I will say that you failed to even make an attempt at refuting the argument that I made that brings you to the conclusion that ESCR is the best avenue of research for many conditions. You may also have read my sources that included in the types of conditions on the list are Cystic Fibrosis, Lupus, Huntingtons and many more. That is not to say that ASC’s cannot be of use in studying these diseases, it is just to say that ESC’s hold pronounced advantages that make them a better research subject.

    An additional question for you would be what about embryonic stem cells that have already been isolated? Once a sustaining population of ESC’s has been established theoretically there would hardly ever be a need to destroy another embryo as the unique feature of the stem cell is that it will continue to divide thus replenishing the research subjects. In this case the embryo in question is already lost. In your view should we refuse to research on the cells based upon a moral standard, or should we make sure that the life was not lost in vain by aggressively pursuing the greatest good that we possibly can from the resultant research?

  473. CF Daddy Says:

    And by the way INK,

    As posted before… try to refute it with logic rather than counter-examples, because you are attempting to equivocate and redefine your position to a level of unfalsifiable doctrine:

    1)Medical conditions exist that affect more than one organ/bodily system at a time

    2)Adult Stem cells have not been discovered for every organ of the body and therefore may not exist for every organ of the body (infact very few of the 220 bodily tissues have viable stem cell lines available through ASC’s)

    3)Embryonic stem cells certainly are responsible for generating the organs for which ASC’s have not been discovered or do not exist

    It follows from these three premises that if you wish to research treatments and cures for multi-systemic disorders then the embryonic stem cell is the only avenue currently available to seek such treatments through stem cell technologies.

  474. CF Daddy Says:

    Dragon Corvere your concerns are well founded and I respect the thought you put into it, but the definition of a “legal person” as the word person is used in ballot proposals is inclusive of corporate entities.

    Lori, read the proposal, then read my lips, “No New Taxes.” and your second point is just defeatist in general. Beyond that even if there is a vast corporate conspiracy to hide the cures discovered in the course of medical research, having the treatments that the money-grubbing bastards do bring to market improves the quality of life for suffering patients and therefore are a good thing.

  475. inkslwc Says:

    CF Daddy: I realize that it still outlaws that, and I’ll vote against any ESCR bill until it said only research on those specific embryos.

    I’ve also clearly said before that only 1 embryo should be implanted at a time, but I’m not against IVF overall.

    The links did go through – I marked them as not spam immediately after I saw them, and I did address them here:

    2. But blastocysts will develop them.

    3. Of course I have. I’ve pointed out time and time again that for every diseases scientists claim ESCs can cure, ASCs and UCSCs can do the same thing.

    4. I’m not denying that ESCs may be the easier way or scientifically better way. I’m pointing out that we should do the non-controversial way first, if possible. Then come back to me and plead your case for ESCs (which, I’ll still say no to on moral grounds, but at least then you’ve exhausted other possibilities).

    5. You say they’re limited in usefulness, but never show a specific instance where this limit restricts cures.

    I don’t understand the last question of your first comment.

    As for your second comment:

    There is still no disease that researchers say ESCs could cure that ASCs/UCSCs can’t. I’m not arguing that ESCs may be easier to use. I’m just saying I’d rather us use ASCs/UCSCs.

    Scientists need to have a goal in mind for this, and they don’t. Research just for research’s sake will get us nowhere.

    Sure, there may not be ASCs for every organ, but scientists shaven’t had this stop them from finding a cure that ESCs might be able to find. That’s just dealing with hypotheticals.

  476. Lori Says:

    wow nothing like “intellects” beating a dead horse…..

  477. Lori Says:

    oookay from someone that calls himself “Daddy” makes one wonder…..and where is the money comming from brain surgeon…grants…where do grants come from? ahhhh let me see taxes?

  478. Lori Says:

    or so obama says….about the funding, if u recall it was part of a question in the last debate!

  479. Lori Says:

    but then a misinformed politician isn’t news

  480. Lori Says:

    had to research this a bit to find the simple words “federal funding” but low and behold…I refer you to this paragraph…
    Have human embryonic stem cells been used successfully to treat any human diseases yet?
    Scientists have only been able to do experiments with human embryonic stem cells (hESC) since 1998, when a group led by Dr. James Thomson at the University of Wisconsin developed a technique to isolate and grow the cells. Moreover, federal funds to support hESC research have only been available since August 9, 2001, when President Bush announced his decision on federal funding for hESC research. Because many academic researchers rely on federal funds to support their laboratories, they are just beginning to learn how to grow and use the cells. Thus, although hESC are thought to offer potential cures and therapies for many devastating diseases, research using them is still in its early stages.

  481. William Says:

    Pretty Unbeleiveable. I haven’t no person answer me on right do they have to experiment on unborn human life for their own selfish gain?

    Who died and made you God of this planet and universe? What gives you the right to experiment on unborn human life for your own selfish gain? Ok now name me one human embryo that gave full consent to this kind of Butchering?

    I wish I had Prop 2 supporter answer these question. It loooks like I won’t get a response.

  482. Someone Who loves Jesus Says:

    This is not a selfish gain. This is how we learn and help treat the futures uncurable diseases. Scientists have found many ways to help the human race, and YOU are right, we are NOT God, so we do what we feel is necessary to make a difference for the good. Whether it is right or wrong, this is the debate of our whole lives, who is right, who is wrong. This is why we vote, and hopefully everyone who does is educated enought with a strong understanding of what they are voting for.

    One thing that I can give in my opinion as an answer to William is you just need to pray about it and ask God to have his decision be the answer today, and what does he want us to do. Have Faith, Believe that what happens is supposed to whether we understand it in the beginning or not, just Trust in the Lord.

  483. Pentecostal Pro-Choicer Says:

    I will be voting no on this proposal, not because I agree with inkslwc or for religious reasons, but because I dont know where the funding will come from in an already financially devistated state.

    Michigan taxpayers cannot afford more taxes! Particularly with all of the layoffs and home foreclosures, etc that have happened in the past year. How will this proposal bring new jobs to Michigan for anyone other than research scientists?

    As for the religious aspect of this proposal, it shouldnt even come into play. There is SUPPOSED to be a separation of church & state for a reason. Republicans continue to push their religious agenda in matters concerning running our country.

    As for there being no benefit from using ESCs vs ASC, that is untrue. ESCs can be coaxed into becoming any type of cell, where as ASCs have a designation. Even you acknowledged that in an earlier post!

    Your views on IVF are ridiculous. As a woman who has suffered 4 naturally conceived miscarriages before having a child, I understand the longing to have a child of my own. Using your suggestion of one at a time creation, it would knock out the opportunity for IVF for all but the rich. Doesnt seem fair, does it? To prevent a woman from having a child simply because the process is too expensive to undergo again & again if the embryos dont properly develop. Currently IVF is tens of thousands of dollars to undergo, and putting your eggs all in one basket (pun intended) is ludicrous and a waste of resources.

    Your Roe v Wade stance is also deplorable! I hope it never gets overturned! As a man, you will never, EVER be faced with that difficult decision, so your views are totally based on your theoretical opinions of how a womans life should be lived.

    Abortion has been around since the dawn of time. Cavewomen would abandon newborns born in winter as they would deplete resources, the Romans ate herbs & used sharpened instruments, in more recent times women had to go underground and risk coathanger, back alley abortions.

    Because of Roe v Wade women can safely undergo a procedure without risking her life, or be forced to carry a child unwillingly. You spout off about how women who have aborted are more likely to abuse the subsequent children they choose to have. IF, and that is a big if, this is true, then wouldnt the aborted be saved from that demise? I would like to see statistics on this. I personally know so many women who have had abortions who, when they CHOSE to become mothers, were great at it! I also know women who didnt ‘believe’ in the right to choose & were physically, emotionally and mentally abusive to the children they felt forced to have.

    It seems you have a lot of views on how other people should live their lives while yours has been going as planned. You were able to conceive children on your own, as a man, you dont have to risk unwanted pregnancy, and (unless I’m wrong as I havent read every single post), dont suffer any life threatening illness that could be cured using research from ESC.

  484. CF Daddy Says:

    There is still no disease that researchers say ESCs could cure that ASCs/UCSCs can’t. I’m not arguing that ESCs may be easier to use. I’m just saying I’d rather us use ASCs/UCSCs.[/quote]

    Inaccurate and misleading. First of all don’t make the generalization that all researchers fall into the subset that support your position. The medical research community would not be lobbying to get this passed into law if that were the case.

    For the roughly 200 types of human tissue that stem cells have not been discovered for this is the ONLY avenue to research for stem cell cures via.

    As for clarification of the last question I asked above ESC’s have already been isolated from embryos by researchers in other countries. Therefore supplied with a “starter culture” of stem cells researchers could do their job without harming any additional embryos. Should this research be stopped on moral grounds, or should they continue it because what is done is done and that embryo is already lost.

    As for William… “own selfish gain” is a bit of a stretch when the topic is finding cures and treatments for debilitating and terminal diseases. One does not need to be God to engage in science. On the question of consent, clearly children are not capable of responsibly consenting to anything which is why their PARENTS get asked all of the tough questions. In this case the parents are consenting to what you call butchering and what I call medical research. Surely you’ve gotten responses like this before. We have a fundamental disagreement about if an embryo has human life or not. I submit that the creation of an embryo in nature does not necessarily mean that a baby will be born and therefore there are other conditions that must be met for the embryo to actually become “human life”. One can be a pro-lifer and still support this proposal so long as they reject the idea that life begins at conception.

  485. inkslwc Says:

    Pentecostal…, my views aren’t based on my view of a woman’s life and how it should be lived, it’s based on my belief that embryos are humans, guaranteed the right to life through the 14th Amendment.

    One other quick correction, I don’t have children. It doesns’t matter, but I just wanted to correct that in case it does matter in some later discussion.

    CF Daddy: On an administrative note, you can quote stuff by using “” ” (but when you do it, uses “o,” not “0”).

    You still haven’t named one.

    I’m still not 100% following your question, but I think you’re asking 1 of 2 things: if you’re saying that those embryos are still alive, then yes, it should be stopped based on grounds that those embryos are lives. Now, if the country doesn’t have a constitutional guarantee to life, I’d be opposed to it, but it would be legal in my opinion.

    If you’re saying they’re not living (because you said, they’re “already lost”), then I have no problem experimenting on them, because it’s essentially an autopsy. Of course, this would have to be with parental consent.

    **I won’t be checking for comments for the rest of the day. I have a county commission campaign to run, and don’t have time to do anything other than that. I will be back either late tonight or early tomorrow though.**

  486. Someone Says:

    Just wanted to ask William, do you stand up for the rights of animals that are tested without consent? If you feel this way about the Human Embryo, you should feel this way about animals, but more so, animals have Very little rights and are tested all the time as embryos, young, middle aged, old, people don’t care, but they do it for research. I know, I know, we are talking about humans, but aren’t they both life? They both have a brain stem, and other vital functions including cells like humans.

  487. Jill Says:

    suck on my harry ba.lls i hate all black people in the world


    McCain 08

  488. Jill Says:

    Hi Charlie =)

  489. john Says:

    I think this is just out right ignorant and i am totally shocked at how many people call them selves Christians but be hind the door your willing to to go against something you believe for your own selfish needs.. with the polls on this page i can see we have alot of devils in disguise i thought for sure that the no vote would have been alot higher ((((( I JUST REALLY HOPE THIS DONT PASS!!!!!!!!!)))))

  490. charlie Says:

    hey jill

  491. john Says:


  492. question Says:

    inkslwc ~ As someone who has gone through IVF I am going to just guess that you have never been through it yourself. It costs soooo much money to do a retreival. If we only did one embryo at a time, it would cost 15,000.00 a try instead 6,000.00 if you have frozen embryos. Until you have gone through what some of us have gone through, you will never understand. So as a woman who is still going through IVF and has many friends that are going through IVF and has family that has Spina Bifida I will be voting yes. I have ahs numerous attempts at IVF where the embryos didn’t thaw well and they were just discarded anyways. To think that this could possibly give my cousin a chance to walk someday makes me smile.

  493. john Says:

    THE DEFINITION OF EMBRYO IS AN ORGANISM IN ITS EARLY FORM…. HOWS THAT NOT LIFE A ORGANISM IF NOT???? WHY IS THIS THE DEFINITION OF IT (((( An organized being; a living body, either vegetable or animal, composed of different organs or parts with functions which are separate, but mutually dependent, and essential to the life of the individual.

    Note: Some of the lower forms of life are so simple in structure as to be without organs, but are still called organisms, since they have different parts analogous in functions to the organs of higher plants and animals.)))))

  494. john Says:


  495. question Says:

    John ~ What do you think that they should do then with the embryos that are bad and they can’t use? Just throw them out? I know that my cousin has a very very special roll…but when if the almighty god gave us these extra embryos for a reason? (to help people I think this really just affects those of us who have embryos in storage. It is up to us as to what to do with them. If they are not going to be able to grow inside of me to make me a mother and they are going to just die off anyways inside of me..well why shouldn’t I be able to use them to help others? Not trying to be a jerk…just like to get your input on this….

  496. JAH2112 Says:

    I am voting No on Prop 2. Life begins at conception. Who are we to play God?

  497. Ashley Says:

    Well, I know everyone has their opinion and is entitled to it. Most times I dont have a strong opinion on many topics. I suppose if I was anything, I’d fall into a more democratic side of things.
    My view on stem cell research as far as I’m concerned is that its somewhat unneccassary. In my opinion, any “cures” that should be found should be for debilitating illness that decrease quality of life without shortening life expectancy. I dont believe in finding cures for “terminal” diseases and illnesses because I believe that humans need natural enemies. Lets face it, we are the prime species on this planet with our only natural enemies being diseases and microscopic bacteria and viruses and well, each other. Yes its hard to watch a loved one suffer and die from something we could one day have a cure for. I have experienced it. I’m a nurse and I see people suffering everyday. My Grandpa suffered for 3 months before dying of “terminal” Stage 4 lung cancer. My best friend’s mom has MS. However, if we find a way to keep us from being vulnerable to our natural enemies, how will we survive over population? It will get to that point if it hasnt already…

    Honestly to sum it up… I could care less whether this passes or fails. Which is why I’m probably not voting on the proposal. I’m honestly to indifferent on the subject.

  498. jabathe hut Says:

    both my parents died of lung cancer , my dad just 2+ weeks ago, my mom 2 1/2 yrs ago. i still do not want to kill embryos for research. sorry for the pain everyone deals with in one way or another, but i believe it is immoral.

  499. me Says:

    I guess your outcome on the voting poll on this website tells how people really feel. I am voting yes and it looks like the majority of the people agree with me. You said that “As of now, my prediction is that this proposal will fail with voters voting somewhere around 43-57%. Well I guess your prediction was not right. 63% are going to say “Yes” and 35% are going to say “no”.
    You do have alot of good points in all of your comments, but I believe that helping people vs. using a embryo that will die anyways is the main factor here. And that is how people are looking at is as.
    Reading most of the comments actually made my answer all the more secure that it will be yes….thank you for all of the information!

  500. inkslwc Says:

    First, sorry that I didn’t censor the racist spam comments earlier. Apparenlty certain people don’t have enough maturity to not have comments watched like a hawk.

    question, you can retrieve multiple eggs, and then keep them in storage. Then fertilize them with an individual sperm later, if necessary.

    me, a recent poll in the Detroit Free Press had it at 51%. I was at a forum where a pollster (whose company I don’t remember) had it failing at 45%. It’s higher than I thought, but internet polls aren’t reliable. I’m not saying there’s support, but polls on my blog shouldn’t be viewed as scientific polls for the whole state or nation, otherwise McCain wins 51% to 38%.

  501. Ashley Says:

    Well, after some thought.. I’ve decided I am changing my vote from yes to no… and not because of my opinion on whether its ethical to use stem cells for research or not… but because I dont want my taxes to go up. I believe this should be funded by the people who believe in it and would like to benefit from it, as in a charity form. So take one yes vote away from this online poll…

  502. inkslwc Says:

    Ashley, I’d say that’s a good move. There are people here that say, “well Prop 2 won’t raise your taxes,” and that’s true, but it’ll lead to it. It has in quite a few other states. Look at it this way (an analogy that perhaps my liberal friends will understand): If you don’t want Sarah Palin to be your President, don’t vote for John McCain. Are you electing her as President? No, but what if Senator McCain (God forbid) does die in office? Then she’s your President. When it comes to politics, you can’t just vote on the surface of things – you have to dig down and see where things will lead because of your vote.

  503. Sonya Says:

    Well, I didn’t have time to read all the comments, but today I’m going to be voting No on Prop 2.

    I feel that this is like killing a baby for a person’s own selfish needs. These people need help, yes… but at the expense of another human being? i don’t think so.

  504. Thomas Says:

    I, as Ashley did as well, changed my vote from a “YES” to a “NO”. After reading several blogs, posts, and articles I came to the conclusion that the real problem at hand is the misconception of the whole Proposal and because of this misconception the proposal receive its result.

    It appears to me that some people believe that Proposal 2 will stop stem cell research as a whole or embryonic stem cell research. I realize not everyone believes this, as made evident by the numerous well stated arguments for both sides; however, it is apparent to me that the average voter is being misled (and for this I blame the media). Some people believe that if you vote NO on this Proposal, you are denying researchers the chance to find these life saving cures (which couldn’t be more from the truth). On the flip side, I believe that many people are only opposed to this proposal on the sheer basis that it would increase taxes (which I believe may be the WORST argument to vote NO on Proposal 2).

    Proposal 2 will not put a stop to embryonic stem cell research, it will just inhibit it. Although I too believe ESCR to be morally wrong (personal belief… I respect those of you who have a differing opinion), I believe that this proposal is giving too much leniency to fertility clinics and those who are in possession of the embryos to pretty much do as they please as well as putting this research above the law.

    This may be jumping to conclusions; however, I believe that if this is passed, more and more people will be encouraged to have abortions in order to receive these “precious” cells (hence an even more slippery slope). Not only do I believe more abortions will occur, I also believe this (despite the provision) will create an enormous “black market” for embryonic stem cells as people will be able to benefit from these cells and thus leading to more abortions. Sure it may be against the law to purchase or sell these cells, but who is to say some small fertility clinic will not gladly “donate” these cells someplace in return for some sort of “gift” and hence encourage abortion. I know this is all hypothetical, but this is a VERY reasonable scenario. This reason is just what I believe to happen and is NOT the main reason as to why I voted NO on Proposal 2.

    Basically, what I am saying is that I believe this is Proposal IS going too far! The main reason why I voted no on 2 is that I believe we have very viable alternatives in ESCR and in case where they need ESCR (which I have not found there to be one, other than its “easier”), they can still do it! The real question at hand is whether you think researchers have the tools and means available to find these cures, which in my opinion they most definitely do! They are just asking for too much free reign in this loaded Proposal. This proposal goes too far, which is why I voted NO on Proposal 2.

  505. Sonya Says:

    Id also like to see someone get pregnant and hold the baby then tell me it doesnt have a soul or personality before birth.

  506. Sonya Says:

    by hold i meant held in their belly.

  507. inkslwc Says:

    Thomas, scientissts aren’t getting ESCs from aborted fetuses. I just wanted to correct that.

  508. Thomas Says:

    Sorry for the poorly constructed idea (I see the multiple errors in my first sentance of paragraph 4, my apologies)… My intended link between ESC and the increase in abortions hinged on the idea that it was socially acceptable to produce these embryos through IVF and then kill them, hence abortion is the also accpetable due to the same process of producing an embryo which is then destroyed (hence the jumping to conclusions part… it may be a big jump, it is just what i believe!)

  509. inkslwc Says:

    Gotcha now.

  510. grace Says:

    Well i didnt read ever ones comments but i can give you a different view, I work in animal research and that is just as much of a touchy subject as stem cell research. What people need to realize is that stem cell research can and will replace a number of animals in the testing process and will give more reliable results for some test. As for the “extra Embryos” these may be needed by the mother if any one has gone through the process they can tell you it is not as easy as fertilizing one egg and putting it up their. It dosnt work that way. Sometimes many implantations must be done and some times the first set of eggs takes. And still their are times when the mother comes back multiple times to gain more children. So the statement that these embryos are extra is false. Then you also have to take in the fact that these eggs are donated by the person and if they are willing to help and give some part of them selves that may in the future help millions then more power to them. In my view donating embryos is no different the donating a lung or kidney.

  511. CF Daddy Says:

    Well, all the votes are in. I want to thank INKSLWC for creating this blog that I stumbled upon. We may never agree on this issue, but at lease we get the opportunity to express our views in an intelligent fashion and hopefully bring information to others who are seeking knowledge on the topic.

    And since I am a last word freak, technically I named 3 such conditions in my earlier posts to which you never had a rebuttal (Cystic Fibrosis, Lupus and Huntingtons). There are developmental aspects to all three of these conditions that cannot be researched through the use of ASC’s.

  512. Ken Smythe Says:

    Yes, thank you so much INK.

  513. inkslwc Says:

    CF Daddy, sorry – I didn’t even see that post.

    According to NIH, adult stem cells do work for lupus (http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/scireport/chapter6.asp).

    As for Huntington’s, one of the people who commented above left this link (but I’m not sure as to the credibility of the website, so I’m not saying I’m 100% sure about this): http://www.stemcellschina.com/content/view/680/399/lang,en/.

    And as for cystic fibrosis, I haven’t found much about how either method of stem cell treatment would help it, so I really can’t address this one.

  514. Shai Hulud Says:

    My dear mom died of advanced Parkinson’s. It works effeciently and slowly at creating a shell of a human being, often manifesting in latter stages as advanced Alzheimers. It’s horrible, painful..and, due to the lunatic fringe, of which the ranting azzclown (and BELIEVE ME, you ENGLER-ITE SHITEHEEL,U R a LF’r…and.subsequently..a.BIGGER..MF’r..all,.the.way).is..absolutely a “member”…just doesn’t have a CLUE as to what the FLOCK they’re talking about.

    While u worry about actually WIPING out research,etc,..and..semantics..I.cannot..stress.to.u..how.BADLY..you..need.schoolin’..of.the.most.EXTREME..kind. This hideous disease affects everyone.and.you’re.ranting.about..NOT..creating.more,etc.

    I..would.like.to..meet.you.in.person..anytime..anywhere.and.believe.me..you will.not..like.it.


    Between people like u…whom..I suspect will have HUGE issues to deal with on your

  515. Michigan Votes to Allow Stem Cell Testing | Legal Geekery Says:

    […] as the amendment itself is practically begging federal law to come in and apply those regulations.3 It can hardly be seriously argued that the federal government is not in a better position to […]

  516. lk25 Says:

    Shia Hulud its unfortunate that your mom died of this horrible disease. I know what you went through. My mother was diagnosed this year with pancreatic cancer at the age of 47. This type of cancer is one of the top killers. Treatment is very limited and the survival rate of 1 year is about 5%. So i know what your family must have gone through. Saying that, I wanted you to know i DO NOT support proposal 2. I am hearbroken that this was passed. Why are we voting for a proposal that hasn’t shown science any results. Why wouldn’t we put this money into researching adult cells and cord cells which HAVE been successful? Imagine the possibilies and cures we can come up with if these programs were funded. And what about the families that can’t afford more taxes? Last time i checked that was mostly everyone in MI regardless of what industry you worked in. How can we ask families that are losing their homes and barely scraping by to fund something like this? There is a lot that is ethically wrong with this regardless of your religion or beliefs. I don’t think that anyone who opposes this proposal is heartless and definitely NOT GODDLESS – believing in this proposal and in testing on human embryos, which has the possibility of one day being just like you and me IS GODLESS. So I just want everyone to know that I know what its like to have a sick loved one and I know that you want to try all in your power to try and save them, but this is not the way.

  517. lk25 Says:

    I would like to also note that my mother is a diabetic along with many other family members and i still believe this is not an answer.

  518. hey whats up Says:

    hey everybody

  519. tiffany rodriguez Says:

    obama is going to win because of accorn….thats unfair.

  520. JD Says:

    Proposal 1 is very viable in many awys as many of you have stated. But Proposal 2 has made no way in that it could help cure any diseases. There has ben ZERO scientific outbreaks in the research, and ontop of that it is going to feed the abortion clinics to keep them up and striving by selling these for an insane amount of money just beacuse some teenager got knocked up and didnt want to pay the consequences. Your killing a person who could grow up to be the most sucessful person in the world. Why would anyone want to take that away? It is outrageous that people think it is fundamentally right to destroy humans and redirect the path of NATURAL birth. If you screw with the way things are naturally supposed to work, there are going to be problems. THIS IS FEEDING ABORTION!!!! STOP IT NOW!

  521. Victor Says:


    You’r reasoning is a little off. Why should we support a science that hasn’t shown any results? If we followed this logic, adult stem cells would never have been researched, and for that, practically every other science would not exist.

  522. Victor Says:

    JD: How can there be no outbreaks or advancements if the science isn’t given the time? But, there have been advancements.

    It’s not a person.

  523. Matt Says:

    “Why should we accept you definition of life, but refuse to accept definitions that exclude blacks or Jews?” WTF are you talking about? What about the people that have miscarriages? Are they murderers because they keep trying even though they know they can’t have kids? What about the thought of having kids? I think that’s where life starts. Every time you think about having a kid and don’t do it you are guilty of murder because God had a soul ready to go that needs to be thrown away. You can’t say I’m not wrong because you can’t see souls. Maybe there are little souls in my testicles right now constantly being murdered every time I sit in a hot tub. Oh the humanity won’t somebody please think of all these dieing imaginary babies.

    tiffany rodriguez: “Obama is going to win because of accorn….thats unfair.”

    You are a dumb ass. Where were you during the last two elections? Vote fraud is something you will just have to get used to. Diebold machines are going in with no paper trail. I don’t know much about acorn, and I’m sure you don’t know much more then what talk radio told you, but there are pictures online of McCain with them. McCain must be working with them too. It’s all a fraud. Both candidates are controlled and it doesn’t matter who wins.

  524. inkslwc Says:

    Shai, Parkinson’s can be cured by ADULT stem cells. Also, I affiliate with a party. I’ve worked for the Republican Party as an intern. And I’ve disagreed with Falwell on many issues. Don’t attack me as a person, stick to the arguments.
    And don’t threaten me. If you meet me in person and you try something, it’ll end with a court case.

    Victor, because we can use ASCs and UCSCs. We don’t need ESCs.

    Matt, miscarriages aren’t accidents. And having a miscarriage doesn’t mean that you can’t have kids. Even if you kill somebody in a car ACCIDENT, you’re not a murderer. Accidents are accidents. Let’s stay away from the sraw man arguments here.

    And no, thinking about having a kid doesn’t mean God has a soul in some waiting line.

    And sperm isn’t a human life. That’s a basic flaw in your knowledge of biology.

  525. tiffany rodriguez Says:

    thats hilarious!

  526. William Says:

    Someone posted: Just wanted to ask William, do you stand up for the rights of animals that are tested without consent? If you feel this way about the Human Embryo, you should feel this way about animals, but more so, animals have Very little rights and are tested all the time as embryos

    I do stand up for anyone who are being tested without consent wether animal or human. God has given us humans dominion over animal to be good stewerds over to look out for their well being and we abused the task in the name of science. I guess thats why I gotten such low grades in science class in High School because I refused to disect frogs.

  527. Megan Says:

    i cant even read the rest of this shit but its fucking disgusting that anybody has a right to give up a life for stem research. i read most of this bullshit. who cares about extensive circumstances….its a less than 3 % chance u FUCKS!!!! its fucking disgusting. all u whores who got pregnant and got an abortion…all my best friends FUCK U.its grosss and im puking in my mouth right now about all u sick bastards stop having sex u fucking sluts!!!!!

  528. MG Says:

    BTW stem cells can be taken off human skin not embryos dumb asses

  529. CF Daddy Says:


    Research for the treatment of Lupus and Huntington’s would both benefit from the ability to study the ESC’s. Just because some treatments can be made from ASC’s doesn’t mean that it is the best solution. But I don’t need to pursue this discussion anyway, because I have the example of Cystic Fibrosis.

    I posted a link above to a UK research project that is working on cystic fibrosis (with ESC’s). Given this information, I hope you are ready to concede the point that ESC’s can provide research and treatment that ASC’s cannot. You still have the right to object on your moral grounds based on the theory of life beginning at conception, but I think I have already illuminated abovr why I think that is a poor position to defend.

    Thank you again for the chance to talk this through intelligently for the benefit of other voters.

    It is interesting to me that immediately after the elections the mean IQ of posters appears to have taken a serious dive. I wonder why these people just come on to flame (often with inaccurate depictions of the Proposal) after the Proposal has passed instead of educating themselves and knowing what they are voting for BEFORE they vote.

  530. inkslwc Says:

    CF Daddy, which link was the one for Cystic Fibrosis? There’s a lot of links on here ad I really have no clue where to start looking.

  531. ayun Says:

    I have to again thank you for the discussion on this site. I voted Yes on this Proposal, but from this discussion, I think that I would be able to argue either side of the issue. I appreciate all of the unemotional posts and the people who were thoughtful enough to reference sources.

  532. mike Says:

    i think that this proposal wasnt something that should have been on the ballet but because it was i voted yes. i think that for those of you people that voted no should have rethought your decision because this isnt something bad, it just using what would have been trashed for research. why would you waste something that might be helpful for someone else…..

  533. Deanna Says:

    When extra embroyos that would have been discarded anyway, has the cure for all of lives diseases (such as cancer etc.), please take note that I don’t believe you should get a cure. All of your whinning “They are humannnnsss…” will be your peoples ruin.

  534. inkslwc Says:

    I’ve already said I’d be willing to refuse a cure from ESCs. I’ll just get mine from ASCs or UCSCs.

  535. danman19f Says:

    The only reason that umbilical and adult stem cells have yielded more results is that it’s legal to study them. Embryonic stem cells are capable of producing a vastly wider spectrum of tissue types. This is the fundamental reason why the research is viable.

  536. inkslwc Says:

    ESCR is legal in other countries, but they haven’t come up with anything either.

  537. danman19f Says:

    This may be true (and actually if you could give me a list of countries where it’s legal I would appreciate it). However, Adult stem cells are much more difficult to turn into different tissue types. Embryonic stem cells are what is called pluripotent and are capable of producing any tissue type. Adult stem cells don’t have this ability. However, there is some research to suggest that adult stem cell plasticity may be achievable increasing the number of tissue types, but this is still debated. Now, in order for any stem cell therapy to be viable, large numbers of cells are necessary. Adult stem cells have not yet been successfully divided in these numbers while embryonic stem cells are easily manipulated in this way. I am unclear as to whether umbilical stem cells have or not. I am also curious as to why you consider a few cells a human life. Embryos are used while in the morula or blastocyst stages. At this time there is no activity beyond cell division. It is no more a human than a few cells on my big toe.

  538. Tony Sidaway Says:

    inklslwc, as I believed I’ve pointed out, the first embryonic stem cells were isolated only ten years ago. To lament that no treatments are available yet is premature. Non-embryonic stem cell research, by contrast, goes back decades.

    Here is an example of a system recently developed for studying long term cardiac cell behavior in culture. A month or two I also highlighted a paper describing a proven process for the production of type O blood on an industrial scale. These are technologies that didn’t exist before embryonic stem cells and that depend on embryonic stem cells.

  539. inkslwc Says:

    In its first 10 years, ASCs were more successful.

    As for the cardiac cells and blood substitute: we need to try first with ASCs and UCSCs.

  540. Unclever title Says:

    I haven’t read all of this but from what I have read it seems that people keep repeating the same arguments, whether or not they’ve been refuted properly or not.

    I know it’s probably futile to make this plea as this is the internet and all but to those who haven’t read up on the issue, read! Learn about what you’re being asked to vote on! Be informed! Don’t make gut decisions based on a moments observation of the data but do some actual searching. Google is very good for this.

    I know many of you who have posted are very knowledgeable on the subject, heck I learned a whole lot just from reading what I did and I knew a decent amount to begin with.

    From a moral standpoint I am against ESCR in conditions where the embryo dies. If I were to be assured that certain ESCR would not kill an embryo and “damage” (not sure what that would specifically mean) were to be minimized and within acceptable boundries then I’d be all for it. Obviously I don’t know where this line would be so if there were to be some proposal to that effect in the US I’d look into it to see what’s going on.

    I believe human life begins at conception, which includes “personhood,” not that the government cares what a person is when it defines murder.
    (Something essentially like: The killing of another human being.)
    An embryo has a complete genetic code with 46 chromosomes, that’s human.

    I also firmly believe in the soul. I don’t pretend to know precisely what the soul is or where it is located or if you could even assign it something as tangible as a location. But I do know that there is something intrinsic in every human being that differentiates us from animals or from a tree or a boulder. That much is obvious. Call it intelligence or something else if you wish but regardless it’s enough that life, particularly human life, should be valued and I’d rather not try to value one person’s life over another’s. I know it’s practically impossible for an individual to do but the government should not. A government has to be better than people.

    Phew: Okay, not done yet here.

    From a practical perspective, it’s always a good idea to invest in something you get returns from. The bigger and more frequent the returns are the better. So why not just go for ASCR which has far fewer (if any) moral qualms about it and it’s given better returns in less time not to mention there is no chance of rejection when using a patient’s own stem cells.

    Now, admittedly, I know nothing about this specific instance but just from what I do know about biology in general (not too much) it seems to me that producing O negative blood on an industrial scale isn’t really necessary, I’m thinking in numbers like producing nails for instance, considering blood doesn’t have nearly the same shelf life as nails do.
    I don’t think the destruction of human embryos is warranted by the inconvenience of donating blood. Granted that’s a bit unfair.

    But to be more fair I also fail to see why the proper ASCs can’t be used for the production of O negative blood (granted it probably won’t be quite the same numbers as it’s currently my understanding ASCs don’t divide as quickly) but they should work beautifully considering it’s what they ALREADY DO IN PEOPLE.

    Also already having read earlier in this thread that ESCs are similar to cancerous cells in how quickly they divide one could simply think why not apply this backwards?

    With the appropriate methods one could take the proper type of ASC and (once removed of course) make them cancerous and thus you have many ASCs for the production of blood.

    Now, as I’ve made abundantly clear, I’m no biologist so I don’t know what I’m really saying here. But I’m working under the assumption that blood cells that are already traveling through your veins are no longer dividing can thus be used safely, also I have no idea if these cancerous ASCs will even produce blood anymore but even without being cancerous I, in my admitted ignorance, don’t see why ASCs won’t work.

    That post… was LOOOONG.

  541. Tony Sidaway Says:

    “Unclever title”, you do realise that the “embryo” you’re talking about is a blastocyst, right. That is, literally an unidifferentiated ball of 70-100 cells. To describe that as a person is to demonstrate the most profound and incorrigiblle ignorance.

  542. rendev Says:


    WOW! I am glad I found this website!
    Fantastic work! Good Job!

  543. Jacob Taylor Says:

    EVERY ONE WHO POSTED ON THIS ARE IDIOT….. making me inturn a IDIOT….. but you cares…. i fell on to this page…… if u posted on this more then twise u need to go end you life now because u will never amount to anything!!!!

  544. asid boric vaginal yeast infection Says:

    such a long comment to reads.. ;p

  545. Gardner Recall Says:

    The citizens of Gardner, KS are currently working to recall two members of their City Council. The recall is tied up in the courts at the moment, but it should go to a vote in March of 2010.

  546. Andra Soult Says:

    Male potency depends on sperm quality and amount, that can be suffering from a selection of things. While you’ll not be able to manage all the aspects that may improve your fertility, there are steps can be able take to maximise your fertility and create positive your sperm are prime performers.

  547. Jack Mehoff Says:

    i enjoy vanilla pudding ALOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  548. Hue jazz Says:

    Screw you Jack! Chocolate is the shiznit!!!!!!

  549. Hue Ja-boner Says:

    i like to chew on wet feet

  550. online dating Says:

    I have to again convey you for the discourse on this parcel. I voted Yes on this Proposal, but from this discourse, I expect that I would be competent to present either support of the proceeds. I apprize all of the passionless posts and the group who were reflective sufficiency to compose sources._______

  551. stem cell forum Says:

    stem cell discussion…

    […]Michigan Ballot for 2008: Proposal 2: Stem Cell Research « Republican Ranting[…]…

  552. baobao897 Says:

    I found that airbags are not virtually as comfy as they look.

  553. how to remove google redirect virus Says:

    how to remove google redirect virus…

    […]Michigan Ballot for 2008: Proposal 2: Stem Cell Research « Republican Ranting[…]…


    I need good research study

  555. bridge forward via duct Says:

    If some one needs expert view regarding blogging and site-building then i suggest him/her
    to visit this web site, Keep up the nice work.

  556. healthy oils Says:

    When further processed, it can also be used to produce petroleum lubricants.
    The product is a wax inside the seed pod that is melted down and added with water to get the liquid you
    put on your skin. This will help flush out the toxins which naturally build up in our bodies and
    will also help to regularize any weight problems, you may have.

  557. naturalistic intelligence Says:

    My spouse and I stumbled over here coming
    from a different web page and thought I might
    check things out. I like what I see so now i am following you.
    Look forward to finding out about your web page yet again.

  558. Click Here Says:

    I do not have any idea generate an income found themselves in this article, on the other hand imagined this particular create was very good. I am not sure who seem to that you are on the other hand unquestionably you will your renowned writer if you’re not currently. Regards!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: