I'm not sure why opponents to Missouri Amendment 2 are framing the debate as a matter of "cloning". The very first provision of the proposed amendment is "(1) No person may clone or attempt to clone a human being." The amendment isn't about cloning, and even if it was, is that really an enormous moral dilemma?
The real problem with the "Stem Cell Initiative" is that it is focused on embryonic stem cell research in which a human being is killed so their cells can be harvested. Isn't there a strong enough pro-life constituancy in Missouri that the issue could be contested based on its similarity to abortion? All the "No Cloning" signs make the opponents of Amendment 2 look like idiots.
Furthermore, there needs to be a serious effort to educate the public about the different types of stem cell research. This essay on "The Case for Adult Stem Cell Research" is a good place to start.
The question of stem cells is currently the dominant subject in the debate over biotechnology and human genetics: Should we use embryonic stem cells or adult stem cells for future medical therapies? Embryonic stem cells are taken from a developing embryo at the blastocyst stage, destroying the embryo, a developing human life. Adult stem cells, on the other hand, are found in all tissues of the growing human being and, according to latest reports, also have the potential to transform themselves into practically all other cell types, or revert to being stem cells with greater reproductive capacity. Embryonic stem cells have not yet been used for even one therapy, while adult stem cells have already been successfully used in numerous patients, including for cardiac infarction (death of some of the heart tissue).
Read the rest to educate yourself, and vote no on Missouri Amendment 2 despite the foolishness surrounding the debate.