Stem Cell Opponents To Air Celebrity Ad

To Rebut Ad Featuring Michael J. Fox, World Series Pitcher Speaks Out Against Missouri Amendment

(CBS/AP)  In an effort to shoot down a controversial measure that would legalize stem cell research in Missouri — and rebut an advertisement featuring Michael J. Fox that supports the law — opponents will respond with their own celebrity-filled ad that will air during Game 4 of the World Series Wednesday night.

The ad, sponsored by Missourians Against Human Cloning, is likely to draw attention after Fox's ad triggered a backlash — most notably from conservative radio commentator Rush Limbaugh, who has claimed Fox was "either off his medication or acting."

An added twist to the opponents' response is that St. Louis Cardinals pitcher Jeff Suppan appears in the ad and will be the starter Wednesday against the Detroit Tigers.

Suppan, a devout Catholic, says in the ad: "Amendment 2 claims it bans human cloning, but in the 2,000 words you don't read, it makes cloning a constitutional right. Don't be deceived."

The proposed amendment to the state constitution would protect embryonic stem cell research in Missouri. A referendum on Amendment 2 will be decided during congressional elections on Nov. 7. Referendums are often included in general elections as a practical matter.

Joining Suppan are celebrities such as NFL quarterback Kurt Warner, actors Jim Caviezel and Patricia Heaton, and, baseball player Mike Sweeney. Caviezel played the role of Jesus in the film, "The Passion of the Christ."

The minute-long advertisement was completed and made available on the Internet on Tuesday afternoon. It will air across Missouri in the weeks leading up to the Nov. 7 election, reports the St. Louis News-Dispatch.

Missourians Against Human Cloning spokeswoman Cathy Ruse said the ad was already in the works, "but we sped up production after the Michael J. Fox ad came out.

"That ad claims opponents want to criminalize research and prevent the expansion of stem cell research. Those claims are just false and misleading," Ruse said. "Our gripe with Amendment 2 is it creates a right to do human cloning and it creates the right to human egg trafficking for cloning research."

Each of the celebrities warns against the measure, with Warner saying, "Beware of loopholes" and Heaton adding that the law will encourage women to sell their eggs to fertility clinics. "Low income women will be seduced by big checks," Heaton says.

Connie Farrow, a spokeswoman for Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures, a supporter of the amendment, called the opponents' ad "a pathetic attempt to distort the facts and mislead voters."

"To believe the claims made in their ad you'd have to believe that over 100 nonprofit patient and medical organizations, including the Missouri State Medical Association, the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation and the Muscular Dystrophy Association, just to name a few, are conspiring to mislead voters," Farrow said. "And that defies commonsense."

Fox, who suffers from Parkinson's disease, displays the tics and twitches typically associated with the disease throughout the advertisement, which backs Missouri Democrat Claire McCaskill, who is running for Senate and supports Amendment 2.

Fox was diagnosed with Parkinson's in 1991 and revealed his condition publicly in 1998. In 2000, he quit full-time acting because of his symptoms and founded the Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research, which has raised millions of dollars.

Parkinson's disease is a chronic, progressive disorder of the central nervous system that leaves patients increasingly unable to control their movements.

McCaskill is trying to unseat Republican incumbent James Talent, who opposes Amendment 2.

[zimmcomm]

It was NCDaveNC who gave you a biblical response, not me. I am not interested in arguing religion. My arguments regarding Amendment 2 are based solely on the deceitful wording and the intention of the biotechnology industry to make human cloning for scientific research a constitutional right in the state of Missouri. I have a problem with that.

If you take a human egg and replace its nucleus with a human cell containing the full compliment of human genetic material - you create a human being. I ask you - if it's not human, what is it? What other criteria is there to determine what is human and what is some other species besides genetic makeup?

[speaksforgod]

Hey pakaal...
I agree with NCDaveNC. God loves you unconditionally. So does Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.

[pakaal]

cindyzimmer, your reference is to God's relationship to one person (Jeremiah), not an answer to my question about where in the Bible it says that a human soul enters the womb at conception. But that's OK, I can see how you can believe that because Jeremiah says that's what God said to him, it must be true for all people. Interesting reference, though, thank you. I was hoping you would point me to some spot that actually said something about abortion being wrong, since abortion has been practiced for millenia and I'm sure they did it in Biblical time as well. I would have assumed there would be a reference somewhere to the sanctity of life in the mother's body or something....

As to your questions before that, my definition of "human" doesn't include single cells, no. Or even multiple clumps of cells. Obviously a true definition of "human" would first require other specifications - moral? physical? You're making a link between thinking, judging, rational creature human and living organism human. Terry Schiavo, at the end of her life, was human - physically. Mentally, she was not.

"And if it's a newborn or a five-year-old - which do you choose?"

Gee, you keep asking me which life to spare. Makes me think I'm God or something. I don't know which I'd choose. I still wouldn't choose a blasocyst over a newborn though, because one's human, the other is not.

[zimmcomm]

I have watched my 24-year-old daughter deal with her disability with pride and awe. She is a beautiful example of overcoming adversity with grace. She never feels sorry for herself and doesn't like other people to feel pity for her.

The good news is that adult stem cells hold the greatest promise for spinal cord injury victims. A doctor in Portugal (where embryonic stem cell research is illegal) has used olfactory tissue from patients to improve their conditions. You can read a good summary of Dr. Lima's clinical trials here http://www.healingtherapies.info/OlfactoryTissue2.htm. This therapy is also supposed to be done in Michigan - where embryonic stem cell research is also illegal.

Here's the bad news. Concentration on the desire to use embryos, whether manufactured or leftovers, is stifling this more promising research, which has the potential of curing people with stem cells from their own bodies. What is more disturbing is that embryonic stem cell research on the animal testing level has been a disaster, often resulting in tumors. This research should be proven successful on animals before anyone even thinks of moving on to humans.

[sashay03-2009]

cindyzimmer,

My "wheelchair bound" son is 25. I've watched him deal with this disability for the past 7 years and I find it very difficult to watch. He was a great athlete before his spinal cord injury and had a wonderful career planned as a physical therapist helping people. Obviously this dream went out the window. I get to tend to his bedsores and dress him everyday before my 8 hour shift starts. I haven't asked him his opinion on this subject but I know for a fact he would rather be on the baseball or football field rather than sitting in his wheelchair. I think everyone should try sitting in a wheelchair for a week and see how difficult it is trying to get around; especially on public transportation. I know it would drive me insane from the frustration in no time.

[malk_69]

Some are even willing to believe that the spirit exists long before conception, and that a spirit chooses its human life.

What is true? What is not true? Who knows?

But I feel that when you start messing with the unknown, it can sometimes come back to bite you in the ***.

[lde47]

To: pakaal who asks, "Could someone tell me where in the Bible it says a human soul enters the womb at conception?"
pakaal, Please look in your Bible at Jeremiah 1:5, "Now the word of the Lord came to me saying, Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations."
If anyone has doubts about the begining of life, I suggest that you forget about asking what the Democrats, Republicans, Christians, Muslims, Atheists or anyone else says or thinks. Just very simply and sincerely pray, read your Bible and ask God to show you. You won't need anyones opinion if you go to the Source. God loves you and me regardless of what we think about various issues. For one, I am glad that public and personal opinions don't affect what God thinks about me. Arguing political and religious opinions is a waste of time because the final authority is certainly NOT what I or anyone else "thinks". Only God's Word matters in the end. God loves you pakaal, unconditionally.
NCDaveNC

[zimmcomm]

If it's not human, what is it? If it's not human, why do researchers need it? If it's not a life, why does it grow and divide?
And if it's a newborn or a five-year-old - which do you choose?
The growth difference between a newborn and a five-year-old is greater than the difference between a blastocyst and a newborn. Is the newborn less human?

[pakaal]

As for your hypothetical question, which would you choose, the embryo or the 5 year old, that's an excellent question.

I may be wrong but I'm going to say that the vast majority of people, myself included, will choose the 5 year old over the embryo because one is an actual living, breathing human, while the other is only the possibility or potential to become such.

[pakaal]

"As soon as the cells start to divide, you have a complete genetic replica of the human who supplied the somatic cell - a clone. What you do with it at that point doesn't change the fact that it is a human life."

Thank you cintyzimmer, for finally clearing this up. I didn't know this was a religious debate. While I respect the beliefs of all religions, I have to disagree with your opinion that a cell can be defined as a human.

[zimmcomm]

As soon as the cells start to divide, you have a complete genetic replica of the human who supplied the somatic cell - a clone. What you do with it at that point doesn't change the fact that it is a human life. If left to do what it does naturally, that blastocyst will develop through the stages of zygote, embryo, fetus, and then baby - which then goes through the growth stages of toddler, teenager, adult, etc.

It's like the hypothetical situation that has been proposed - if there is an embryo in one room and a five year old in another and you can only save one from a fire, which would it be?

Okay - what if it's a newborn and a five year old? Or a teenager and a five-year-old? An senior citizen or a young cancer patient?

Stages of life or location do not determine humanity - only the genetic makeup does. That is present from the cell-division stage of SCNT - a genetic replica of the original somatic cell. Whether you harvest the cells or let it grow in a uterus, or maybe an artificial womb someday - they are human from the very start. Otherwise, what use are they to researchers?

[pakaal]

In the SCNT process, the nucleus of an egg is taken out and replaced with another nucleus (from a somatic cell; that is a cell other than an egg or sperm), then the cells are allowed to divide. This creates the stem cells that are used in treatment.

To make a human clone you need to skip the step of harvesting the stem cells for research and instead take the following step: the egg with the replaced nucleus is inserted in a womb and the fetus is brought to term.

[pakaal]

I have to disagree with you cindyzimmer. First of all, SCNT is used in therapeutic cloning and stem cell research as well as in reproductive cloning (of any animal including humans). It is only the first step - as I said. The next steps taken in the SCNT process define the results, whether it is therapeutic cloning, stem cells or reproductive cloning.

The discussion is about using the process to create stem cells, not about reproductive cloning (to "make human clones"). Since Amendment 2 (link in the article above) specifically says "No person may clone or attempt to clone a human being", and since the Amendment is specifically for allowing research into stem cell research, the argument that this is about Human Cloning doesn't apply.

[bluestardad]

STEP BACK FROM FEAR!
We in America need to pull back from this Frenzy of Fear that has spellbound us since September 11, 2001. I am not saying to let down our guard or not be prudent with our Law enforcement, Intelligence agencies or Military as their constant job is to protect the American people and they do it well. Rationally speaking it is more likely that a person will be killed in a car accident on the way to get milk than killed by a Terrorist in America. Hispanics coming across our border for work are not the terrorist or the enemy. Unfair trade practices initiated by our government are the cause of our jobs leaving and the demise of the Middle Class in America not some Terrorist plot. Political Parties have been using fear in an attempt to maintain power in this country. Americans do the math you are more likely to do yourself bodily harm than to be harmed by a Terrorist. America is a Land of Opportunity and hopes where people live in Freedom. America is not a land were people will be governed by Fear.

Michael C. Boetjer
Captain U. S. Army
Double Blue Star Father

[zimmcomm]

pakaal,
SCNT is human cloning. That is the bottom line of what is most wrong about this amendment. SCNT is DEFINED by the scientific community as CLONING. It is not a "first step". It is what it is - making a genetic copy of an organism, in this case, a human being.
The amendment makes its own definition of cloning - it's not a human clone unless you implant or attempt to implant it into a human uterus.
As far as an analysis being just what one side thinks the amendment is - again, it is what it is. The amendment specifically grants constitutional protection to the scientific community to manufacture human life for the purpose of research. And the biotech industry ALONE is spending millions of dollars to make that happen.

[pakaal]

By the way VoteNoOn2, your link to "analysis" was actually a link to partisan and biased commentary on what one side THINKS the amendment is - not helpful. Posting a link that only supports one side of an issue is a little confusing - unless of course it's your intention to mislead, in which case it's outright deception.

[pakaal]

Some religions say a child only becomes a human at the time of birth, but Christians argue it begins at that magic moment when sperm and egg meet. Could someone tell me where in the Bible it says "a human soul enters the womb at conception"?

[pakaal]

VoteNoOn2, as far as SCNT goes, yes, it CAN be used as a first step in human cloning but it is currently used in therapeutic cloning and in embryonic stem cell research. That much is true.

Fortunately, Amendment 2 specifically takes human cloning completely off the table, by saying in Section One - specifically - "No person may clone or attempt to clone a human being."

If you want to pose a "slippery slope" argument against the amendment, that's fine, you can argue that future amendments could open the door for human cloning. But as the amendment currently stands, the ONLY use provided by law for SCNT would be for stem cell research, and cloning humans is specifically forbidden.

[pepinella]

The United States alone has already destroyed over forty-eight million human beings since 1973, under the guise of "women's right to choose". Now we want to create a lucrative opportunity for women to earn money by using their bodies and the lives of their unborn children through embryonic harvesting. As a woman I am ashamed of what we have done in the name of "equality, right-to-choose, and sexual freedom." God help us all.

[zimmcomm]

sashay03,
I have a 24 year old daughter who is wheelchair bound with a spinal cord injury and she is completely against using human embryos for research. One reason is that adult stem cells show much more promise without the ethical and moral concerns. Embryonic stem cell research shows less promise and is more costly. Why not spend research dollars on something that has more chance of showing results sooner? Right now all this research is legal in Missouri but not being done because the research companies are holding it hostage until they get guarentees that no laws or regulations will be passed to "prevent, restrict, obstruct, or discourage any stem cell research or stem cell therapies" (again, right out of the amendment wording).