I still think Vote NO on Prop. 71 Stem Cell Research

[Guest guest]

Hi Steve,

 

Again, I have read the text. Everytime the words stem cell is metioned, the word "human" is not in front. The only time the word "human" was ever mentioned was when they kept saying human clones will not be produced. Like you, I thought the whole proposition was about human stem cells, but this is a smokescreen that would result in lot of stem cell research on animals.

 

To further illustrate, the following search results came up that may show you that stem cell research DOES mean stem cell research on animals (non-humans) as well. Again, animals are not precluded unless they specifically say "human stell cells".

 

 

 

Policies: US Federal and State Policies: State Policies: California Stem Cell Initiative: Assessment of the ...

.... According to California's Legislative Analyst, Proposition 71 would result in a "tate cost of about $6 ... also be used to create animals with permanent new genetic properties in ...www.genetics-and-society.org/ policies/us/71assessment.html - 49k - Cached - More from

this site

Christopher Reeve appears in California stem cell ad

.... A television commercial supporting California's Proposition 71 starring the paralyzed actor who died ... have already cured paralysis in animals,'' Reeve said, referring to work with ...siliconvalley.com/mld/ siliconvalley/9988620.htm?.../printstory.jsp - 6k - Cached - More from this site

There is definitely no proof that they are referring to only human stell cells in this proposition. And why should they limit themselves when it comes to obtaining grants and increasing research jobs in California, which is clearly the hidden goal of this proposition. We all know what sorts of crooks "researchers" can be.

Regards,

Michelle

[Guest guest]

On 10/27/04, No Vivisection <noanimalexperiment wrote:

 

> Again, I have read the text. Everytime the words stem cell is

> metioned, the word " human " is not in front.

 

the law talks about human stem cells within the second paragrgaph.

 

the rest of the law talks about human donors for stem cells, human

subjects, and so on. i seriously doubt that any effort is being made

to try and " trick " the animal rights community. in fact, i seriously

doubt they care at all what we think.

 

> ... According to California's Legislative Analyst, Proposition 71 would result

in a " tate cost of about $6 ... also be used to create animals with permanent

new genetic properties in ...

> www.genetics-and-society.org/ policies/us/71assessment.html - 49k - Cached -

More from this site

you quoted the blurb of a google search, which is displayed out of

context. the blurb comes from a footnote that isn't about prop

71. it's from a paper written in 2000 about the risks of stem cell

research, and is quoted as self-criticism of prop 71, to warn that the

research could encourage the next wave of human eugenics. most people

believe that human eugenics is morally repugnant (that idea lost favor

along with the nazis), so the warning is there as informed consent for

voters.

> Christopher Reeve appears in California stem cell ad

> ... A television commercial supporting California's Proposition 71 starring

the paralyzed actor who died ... have already cured paralysis in animals,''

Reeve said, referring to work with ...

> siliconvalley.com/mld/ siliconvalley/9988620.htm?.../printstory.jsp - 6k -

Cached - More from this site

yes, of course they've done it in animals. research on human stem

cells has been illegal or unfunded. prop 71 would change that.

> There is definitely no proof that they are referring to only human

> stell cells in this proposition. And why should they limit themselves

> when it comes to obtaining grants and increasing research jobs in

> California, which is clearly the hidden goal of this proposition. We

> all know what sorts of crooks " researchers " can be.

i don't believe it's wise to withhold support for prop 71 simply

because the law didn't include animal rights friendly language. as we

all know, animal rights is at the very bottom of the political agenda

for every politician (except maybe dennis kucinich). after talking to

some vegetarians in the field of medicine and friends who are studying

medicine at university, the cost/benefit of this technology seems to come

out in favor of helping the animals.

this law is clearly about human stem cell research. will there be some

animal research? possibly. but there's going to be animal research

either way. why not support a technology that has a strong potential

to reduce the scientific " need " for animal research in the long run?

it's certainly more effective than burning down labs and being

harassed by the FBI.

to me, this seems like a no-brainer.

i report, you decide.

--

steve simitzis : /sim' - i - jees/

pala : saturn5 productions

www.steve.org : 415.282.9979

hath the daemon spawn no fire?

[Guest guest]

Christopher Reeves did a commercial for Prop 71 and mentioned that it had

already been effective on animals.

I'm on the Paw PAC Board and we did not take a position on Prop 71 because

of the uncertainty of its effects on animals.

Virginia Handley

 

-

" Steve Simitzis " <steve

" No Vivisection " <noanimalexperiment

Cc:

Wednesday, October 27, 2004 3:34 PM

Re: I still think Vote NO on Prop. 71 Stem Cell Research

 

 

>

> On 10/27/04, No Vivisection <noanimalexperiment wrote:

>

> > Again, I have read the text. Everytime the words stem cell is

> > metioned, the word " human " is not in front.

>

> the law talks about human stem cells within the second paragrgaph.

>

> the rest of the law talks about human donors for stem cells, human

> subjects, and so on. i seriously doubt that any effort is being made

> to try and " trick " the animal rights community. in fact, i seriously

> doubt they care at all what we think.

>

> > ... According to California's Legislative Analyst, Proposition 71 would

result in a " tate cost of about $6 ... also be used to create animals

with permanent new genetic properties in ...

> > www.genetics-and-society.org/ policies/us/71assessment.html - 49k -

Cached - More from this site

>

> you quoted the blurb of a google search, which is displayed out of

> context. the blurb comes from a footnote that isn't about prop

> 71. it's from a paper written in 2000 about the risks of stem cell

> research, and is quoted as self-criticism of prop 71, to warn that the

> research could encourage the next wave of human eugenics. most people

> believe that human eugenics is morally repugnant (that idea lost favor

> along with the nazis), so the warning is there as informed consent for

> voters.

>

> > Christopher Reeve appears in California stem cell ad

> > ... A television commercial supporting California's Proposition 71

starring the paralyzed actor who died ... have already cured paralysis in

animals,'' Reeve said, referring to work with ...

> > siliconvalley.com/mld/ siliconvalley/9988620.htm?.../printstory.jsp -

6k - Cached - More from this site

>

> yes, of course they've done it in animals. research on human stem

> cells has been illegal or unfunded. prop 71 would change that.

>

> > There is definitely no proof that they are referring to only human

> > stell cells in this proposition. And why should they limit themselves

> > when it comes to obtaining grants and increasing research jobs in

> > California, which is clearly the hidden goal of this proposition. We

> > all know what sorts of crooks " researchers " can be.

>

> i don't believe it's wise to withhold support for prop 71 simply

> because the law didn't include animal rights friendly language. as we

> all know, animal rights is at the very bottom of the political agenda

> for every politician (except maybe dennis kucinich). after talking to

> some vegetarians in the field of medicine and friends who are studying

> medicine at university, the cost/benefit of this technology seems to come

> out in favor of helping the animals.

>

> this law is clearly about human stem cell research. will there be some

> animal research? possibly. but there's going to be animal research

> either way. why not support a technology that has a strong potential

> to reduce the scientific " need " for animal research in the long run?

> it's certainly more effective than burning down labs and being

> harassed by the FBI.

>

> to me, this seems like a no-brainer.

>

> i report, you decide.

>

> --

>

> steve simitzis : /sim' - i - jees/

> pala : saturn5 productions

> www.steve.org : 415.282.9979

> hath the daemon spawn no fire?

>

>

>

>

> BAY AREA VEGETARIANS (BAV) is a community group for veggies to network

> & find support.

>

> Event Calendar, Charter, FAQ and More!

> http://www.bayareaveg.org/

>

> Bookmark this page! Don't miss local events!

> http://www.bayareaveg.org/events.php

>