But once a human embryo is created, that human being has all the full unalienable rights to life, liberty and property that God gives every other human and that the Constitution protects. (In theory.)
It is murder to intentionally kill a one-year old child, despite the fact that the child cannot survive on its own, and is completely dependent on someone else. (Some have called such a child the legal equivalent of a "trespasser.") It is also murder to kill a one-week old child, and in terms of ethics (though not necessarily "the law"), it is murder to intentionally kill a child one week before scheduled delivery. It is the moral equivalent of murder to clone humans in order to harvest their body parts (leaving them dead). It is the moral equivalent of kidnapping to clone a human being for purposes of making that human being a slave or soldier for the New World Order.
We're moving in that direction, and a NO vote on Amendment 2 would delay that Orwellian prospect.
Amendment 2 requires human beings to be killed, so I'm voting against it.
I would vote against Amendment 2 if for no other reason than that it is immorally deceptive.
It starts off saying, "(1) No person may clone or attempt to clone a human being," but then defines "cloning" as
(2) “Clone or attempt to clone a human being” means to implant in a uterus or attempt to implant in a uterus anything other than the product of fertilization of an egg of a human female by a sperm of a human male for the purpose of initiating a pregnancy that could result in the creation of a human fetus, or the birth of a human being.
Nobody objects to implanting an existing embryo in a uterus for the purpose of initiating a pregnancy or live birth -- at least not that I know of. All the debate is over researchers who will not implant a cloned embryo in order to allow it to develop and be born alive, but instead want to kill the embryo in order to harvest stem cells.
Amendment 2 in effect mandates compulsory abortions by making live birth illegal, if the human being who would be born is a product of "somatic cell nuclear transfer" (SCNT), which is the creation of a human embryo without sperm in a lab, which this initiative makes legal.
It is "somatic cell nuclear transfer" -- otherwise known by everyone in the medical world except the authors of this ballot initiative as "cloning" -- that Amendment 2 makes impossible for Missouri legislators even to discourage.
(Actually, I have no reason to doubt that those responsible for this ballot initiaive know very well that they are promoting cloning. Many scientists who stand to gain research grants know that their plans are opposed by a majority of people. Biologists want to drop the word 'cloning' according to New Scientist)
After 40-odd years of stem cell research, both embryonic and adult, all the cures and medical insights are coming out of adult stem cell research, which doesn't require killing anyone, while embryonic stem cell research, which does require killing human beings, has not produced a single cure or promising insight.
If Amendment 2's backers successfully lobbied Jefferson City for a law to protect cloning, lawmakers would at least be able to change their minds in the future. But adding it to the Missouri Constitution would prevent any future state General Assembly, county commission, or city council from even "discouraging" human cloning.
Given the fact that millions of people object to killing human embryos, and given the fact that adult stem cell research is is light-years ahead of embryonic stem cell research in producing tangible results, why compel taxpayers to pursue morally offensive and scientifically infertile embryonic stem cell research?
Supporters of the Amendment stand to gain billions of dollars in tax-funded and private grants in an age where killing the youngest human beings is becoming politically correct, but not yet supported by a majority of Missouri voters. This is why supporters have invested $30 million into promoting a "yes" vote, and why they have used deliberately deceptive language to describe their true intentions. $30 million would buy a lot of stem cell research, but it will also buy much more for the research institute founded by the Stowers family, which has bankrolled 97% of the pro-Amendment advertising.
If the Amendment passes, it will create an avalanche of thoughtless trend-think in favor of cloning for embryonic stem-cell money.
DNAPolicy Publications & Resources Center Reports Cloning: A Policy Analysis
Lack of coherent cloning policies reflects polarized debate, limited understanding, study says, USA
Biologists want to drop the word 'cloning' - sex - 21 October 2006 - New Scientist
Somatic cell nuclear transfer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
stemcellresearch.org - Political Science
Yuval Levin on Cloning on National Review Online