Fighting Back Against Mendacious Amendment 2
Here is an ad against Missouri's mendacious Amendment 2: a measure that is "too slick, too deceptive, too tricky."
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 9:03 AM
5 Comments
Secondhand Smoke: Your 24/7 Seminar on Bioethics and the Importance of Being Human
This WEB log considers issues involving assisted suicide/euthanasia, bioethics, human cloning, biotechnology, and the dangers of animal rights/liberation. My views expressed here, as in my books and other writings, reflect my understanding that the philosophy of human exceptionalism is the bedrock of universal human rights. Or, to put it another way: human life matters. (The opinions expressed here are my own and not necessarily those of any organization with which I am affiliated.)
Thursday, October 19, 2006
Previous Posts
- Ouch! Maligned by "Dignity in Dying"
- That "Tricky" Missouri Amendment 2
- Using Shameless Emotionalism to Gain Access to the...
- Oregon Department of Human Services Against Assist...
- SHAC Leader Shows Dominant Face of Animal Liberati...
- Secondhand Smoke and the Center for Bioethics and ...
- Lying to Missouri Voters About Cloning Works
- Scientists and Engineers for Politics
- German Mass Grave of Disabled Euthanasia Victims F...
- North Korea Kills Disabled Infants
Subscribe to
Posts [Atom]
5 Comments:
This ad is kind of a train wreck, as far as I'm concerned.
First, its big scare tactic is to say that Amendment 2 has too many words in it ... as if the viewers at home will recoil in horror: "2,000 words?! Bless my soul, that there amendament can't be nothin' but trouble."
Then its slogan accuses Amendment 2 of being "2 deceptive." As if a little bit of deceptiveness is okay, as long as you don't overdo it.
It's 2 bad the ad's approach is so terrible, because it would seem like the evidence is on its side. Even the appeals judge says the amendment's language is likely to mislead voters opposed to cloning. Why couldn't the ad have simply focused on that? 2 straightforward?
You'll have to ask the producers of the ad. I think the point of the length is that it is not just a simple change but a potentially huge modification of the constitution, with unknowable consequences.
I wouldn't call it a train wreck, but I am with you. My soundbite for Amendment 2 is: If you support human cloning, you should vote yes on Amendment 2. If you oppose human cloning, you should vote no. It really is that simple.
"Without mother nobody can be here on earth.." ,
It's a common sense.
Law based on common sense.
How can you say easily the law is mendacious.
Human is human not the animal dolly the sheep, snuppy the dog.
The legislation is mendacious because, among other things, it pretends to outlaw cloning when it actually legalizes it. It does this by redefining cloning away from a scientific definition to an advocacy or political definition. It as as if they redefined a stink bug and called it a butterfly. But it is still a stink bug.
The voters deserve truth. Amendment 2 gives them disrespect by trying to pull the wool over their eyes.
"How can you say easily the law is mendacious."
Want a list?
The amendment claims to "ban cloning" but only by trying to redefine "cloning" so as to exclude the research cloning it wants to enshrine into the Constitution.
The amendment assures us in the opening that women will not receive financial consideration for donating eggs and then attempts to redefine that, too.
The amendment even attempts to make itself permanent by stating that the amendment itself can't be amended. Whoever heard of such a thing?
Post a Comment
<< Home