What basis is the right arguing that Amendment 2 will allow human...

[Fountain79]

cloning? I've heard this argument from talk shows and today at a booth at the Hispanic Festival. From what are they basing their argument on?

[noahmijo]

1. Haven't you heard of the human cloning fad going around?

I heard some tool from the republican tent back in college once claim that Kerry would allow widespread human cloning. I never realized that weird twisted doctors are cloning people left and right.

Sort of like the abortion on demand myth but gets bigger laughs.

"The fuckin mayor of New York that's the guy LEAST likely to get cloned!" -Tony Soprano

[nickinSTL]

2. there's a repugnant billboard in the St. Louis area

near I-70 and McKelvey.

Says that Amendment 2 would make Missouri the cloning capital of the world.

What are they basing their arguments on? FEAR, of course. Fear, ignorance and misinformation. Like most rw bs.

All Amendment 2 does is prevents legislators from banning any cloning procedures that are legal in the US.

So, of COURSE we'll be the cloning capital of the WORLD :banghead:

[galloglas]

3. Based on "Dolly the Sheep" experiment.

that was the sheep that was cloned in England, using Somatic Cell Transfer. The same process by which we (or, rather, the Stowers Institute) would produce the stem cells we need.

But, Dolly was grown just to see what would happen; if it could be done. Just basic science. But they let it grow up.

Dolly was a cute lamb but was, genetically, a mess. It essentially "died of old age" at about 3 or 4 years. If someone really wanted to clone people, they would use different methods.



Here the Frame you want to use to argue stem cells.

They opponents of stem cell research base their arguments on the assumption that a "blastocyst", a clump of protohumanoid tissue, is a "Real Live Human Being".

It's not true.

Humans cannot be born without the implantation of real "embryos" (the bunches of frozen blastocysts the fertility clinics create for barren adults, using female eggs and male sperm, swished together in a Petri dish and thus fertilized).

Because of the cost involved (average of $ 30 grand, say), the clinics will make dozens, up to hundreds, of these fertilized blastocysts, which can become human if implanted in the female.


Here is the kicker. The argument you need to use.

The logical progression of the thought that even our Democratic candidates won't use.


If those "Baby Blastocysts", laying in Petri dishes all over the world, are really human beings, then ask your debate opponent these questions.

1) Is killing a human being murder? (They will, of course, agree)

2) Is contributing to the death of a human, contributing to homicide? (you
would get agreement again)

3) If it is murder, who is responsible for the deaths of those hundreds of
thousands of "people" that are thrown away in Petri dishes each year?
(you'll get no answer here).

4) Why do they get thrown away? (maybe, "because they are not needed. The woman
has already had her kids though this process").

Your argument then becomes this.

"If destroying fertilized eggs (which will never be used) for fetal stem research is murder, then so is the destruction of those eggs simply because the "parents" will not pay for them to be frozen forever."

"So, my verbal opponent, we must make a choice."

"Do we prevent the hopeful to-be-parents from having more than one egg used at a time (making the process prohibitively expensive)or do we prosecute the would-be parents, and the fertility clinics which facilitate the process, for murder when the "extra embryos" are tossed?"


"It's up to you, Mr./Ms. Verbal Opponent. If it is murder, then the guilty parties should be tried and imprisoned, don't you think?"

"If you won't agree to that, then are you saying that death in a trash bin is a better end for that "human life" you are worried about, than using its stem cells to help "born" humans live a decent, healthy life?"


Let me know if that doesn't work, OK? I'd like to hear back.