When the voting process is practiced every two or four years, typically American democracy uses Congressional officials to worry about legislative duties directly on state or national levels. Sometimes, however, the state will require the particular advice of the general public on legal matters in the form of proposals.

I’m sure everyone in the state of Michigan has seen the ads concerning Proposal 2, the decision to allow stem cell research within the state of Michigan for the purposes of discovering cures for various diseases, disorders and organ replacement procedures ranging from diabetes, cancer, paralysis, Alzheimer’s, heart transplantation, kidney failure, Tay Sachs disease, amputations – the list for all the various medical situations with stem cell research is as boundless as the idea and possible consequences are for and against such a radical and complicated endeavor.

While I certainly understand that this issue on stem cell research is rooted within the argument on the Roe V. Wade decision on women’s rights vs. right to life, the ads against Proposal 2 have taken the stance of not the regular anti-abortion position so much as the issue of whether the state of Michigan should or should not use tax dollars to fund the stem cell program.

Opponents have cited other states like California, New York and New Jersey with programs already in place that tax dollars are being used when such programs were originally stating that tax dollars would not be used. The range of money for each state depends on its given population size, to as much as a few billion dollars in California itself.

The other side states that state funding is not the issue since private medical firms and research groups are the entities in charge of procedures, looking only for legal permission to access existing maternity clinics that would otherwise discard excess embryos.

The battle over this idea of harnessing human life for the uses of saving other human lives is a battle that can waged for however long someone wishes to stand up and list the reasons for or against the practice, citing both moral and practical aspects until the cows come home.

What seems to be the framework behind this proposed legislation now is whether there’s money available for it or not, or even whether there needs to be money behind it or not.

Obviously, the demand for fixing the current problem with health care is driving this issue, taking command over the religious grounds since as a majority we have veered from extreme ideology for or against it and simply gotten down to whether it gets down to brass tax or not, although it still has a peripheral role to play when making the key decision.

I personally find it necessary for us to use what otherwise is destroyed, because why should something as important as human life be put to waste? I don’t find human suffering all that meaningless, whether it costs money to fix or not.

E-mail the author: David Peterson