"I trust God speaks through me..."

[BVS]

Moral grounds? Let's just say I'm against using medicine to give people false hope. And right now, embryonic stem-cell research is the scientific equivalent of Benny Hinn. Lot's of big promises, lot's of pleas for more money...but in the end, few results.

Wow, then we should stop. Fuck the cure for cancer or AIDS...



You obviously didn't major in science, it takes time.

 

[dazzlingamy]

I will never understand the way his mind works. Cells that will get flushed down the toilet, are not allowed to be given funding to actually do something proactive with them instead? Absolutely preposterous!

And calling it 'protecting innocent life' its a CELL not a SENTIENT being. Using bullshit drawings of a seven yr old to make an arguement is pathetic!

This whole thing makes me SEETE with anger

 

[najeena]

The idea that the President of the United States thinks that God speaks through him is as frightening as anything else he's done or said.

 

[Salome]

ah well, at least it accounts for one of the voices in his head


I do wonder what his true objection is though

 

[trevster2k]

OK, all not in favour of stem cell research, please sign off on any future cures which other scientists in other countries may possibly discover using stem cell research.

Since you don't believe it is ethically or morally correct to use embryonic stem cells, then using any treatment or cure from said research is also unethical or moral. So we better not catch you trying to seek treatment for Alzheimers in 2030 after they come up with a treatment.

 

[Angela Harlem]

these debates drive me fucking batty. it's going to be some fucktard dickwad like bush who stops me from ever getting 'cured'. i cannot imagine how someone with a fatal or much more serious illness feels.

 

[kimby]

OK, all not in favour of stem cell research, please sign off on any future cures which other scientists in other countries may possibly discover using stem cell research.

Since you don't believe it is ethically or morally correct to use embryonic stem cells, then using any treatment or cure from said research is also unethical or moral. So we better not catch you trying to seek treatment for Alzheimers in 2030 after they come up with a treatment.

This may be a dumb question--but what *are* other countries(governments, political and religious leaders, ethicsists, scientists, laypersons,etc.) attitudes toward embryonic stem cell research?

I mean, you always hear about American attitudes...

 

[trevster2k]

^I found this map so far

http://mbbnet.umn.edu/scmap.html

 

[nbcrusader]

these debates drive me fucking batty. it's going to be some fucktard dickwad like bush who stops me from ever getting 'cured'. i cannot imagine how someone with a fatal or much more serious illness feels.

No one is stopping you from getting cured. I am not aware of Australia's stance on this issue, but I suspect that there are not similar barriers to stem cell research. And there is no ban on stem cell research here.

Bush took a stance on this subject years ago (pre-election) and stood by his position.

 

[nathan1977]

Wow, then we should stop. Fuck the cure for cancer or AIDS...

No one's saying stop, BVS. What some are saying is that this is an inappropriate arena for the government to be stepping into.

Even the most optimistic scientists (as I was just hearing today on NPR) heavily qualify their promises of what stem cell research can actually lead to.

 

[BVS]

No one's saying stop, BVS. What some are saying is that this is an inappropriate arena for the government to be stepping into.

What do you mean by "stepping into"?

 

[Irvine511]

No one's saying stop, BVS. What some are saying is that this is an inappropriate arena for the government to be stepping into.

Even the most optimistic scientists (as I was just hearing today on NPR) heavily qualify their promises of what stem cell research can actually lead to.

i really don't get what you're getting at here.

it seems to me that if you have areas of great ethical concern, you'd want the money to come from the government due to the greater amount of regulation and oversight.

 

[nathan1977]

^
On a board where criticism and suspicion of the government runs far, wide, and deep (and often rightfully so), I'm surprised that we're suddenly trusting of their regulation and oversight.

 

[maycocksean]

^
On a board where criticism and suspicion of the government runs far, wide, and deep (and often rightfully so), I'm surprised that we're suddenly trusting of their regulation and oversight.

So you don't have any moral/ethical problems with stem cell research, you just don't trust the government to properly fund such research?

 

[Irvine511]

^
On a board where criticism and suspicion of the government runs far, wide, and deep (and often rightfully so), I'm surprised that we're suddenly trusting of their regulation and oversight.

i think you should go back and read anitram's earlier posts.

she probably understands this stuff better than anyone else on the board.

 

[nathan1977]

Yes I do, and no I don't.

 

[Irvine511]

so who do you trust to regulate?

or do we just make it all illegal?

 

[nathan1977]

There is a huge gap between the government funding science and declaring something illegal, Irvine. That's the height of a straw man debate.

 

[Irvine511]

There is a huge gap between the government funding science and declaring something illegal, Irvine. That's the height of a straw man debate.

well, i'm trying to figure out what the issue is.

it seems to me that you have significant moral and ethical questions with the issue. if that's true, it seems to me that you'd want more governmental regulation because, as anitram has pointed out, it is far more comprehensive.

however, you seem to be uncomfortable with the federal funding of scientific research that you have significant moral and ethical questions with because you don't trust the government. so this begs several questions -- are there entities that you would trust more to regulate than the government? if so, which entities? how and why would they be more effective than the government?

 

[maycocksean]

I'm trying to follow your argument as well nathan.

The issue is federal funding for stem cell research. You oppose it for two reasons: one, you have ethical concerns with stem cell research and don't like the idea of the government funding the killing of innocent people. Two, you don't trust the government to properly dispense funds for stem cell research (though I'd like to you to elaborate how they might screw it up. . .give more money to the most inept researchers?)

And anyway, doesn't your first concern kind of make the second one a moot point? And if you oppose stem cell research on moral and ethical grounds why is it somehow "okay" for private companies to do so without government funding (or perhaps even oversight). If it's "wrong" wouldn't you have to argue that it SHOULD be illegal?

 

[INDY500]

You obviously didn't major in science...

A neutron goes into a bar and asks the bartender, "How much for a beer?"
The bartender replies, "For you, no charge."

Hope that's not over your head Herr Professor.

 

[BVS]

A neutron goes into a bar and asks the bartender, "How much for a beer?"
The bartender replies, "For you, no charge."

Hope that's not over your head Herr Professor.

It may not be LOL, but it's decent...

 

[nathan1977]

The issue is federal funding for stem cell research. You oppose it for two reasons: one, you have ethical concerns with stem cell research and don't like the idea of the government funding the killing of innocent people. Two, you don't trust the government to properly dispense funds for stem cell research (though I'd like to you to elaborate how they might screw it up. . .give more money to the most inept researchers?)

And anyway, doesn't your first concern kind of make the second one a moot point? And if you oppose stem cell research on moral and ethical grounds why is it somehow "okay" for private companies to do so without government funding (or perhaps even oversight). If it's "wrong" wouldn't you have to argue that it SHOULD be illegal?

My issue with government-funded stem cell research is that it sets a remarkably dangerous precedent that, if unchecked, could conceivably allow the government to begin to determine who lives and who dies, based on the fairly arbitrary measure of "medical research" -- and to do so with taxpayer dollars. Certainly, inviting governmental oversight guarantees* a certain degree of accountability, but this goes both ways. The federal government could be conceivably dragged into medical debates and forced to legislate on issues which would ordinarily be out of its bounds (and rightfully so). The abortion debate would be kids' play when/if the government is forced to decide whether someone is dead (or dead enough) so that their organs can be harvested for "crucial scientific research."

Stem cell research is legal. I may disagree with it, but it is what it is. But I'm certainly not going to agree to funding it, and I certainly don't think the federal government should.

*And yes, I do think the government would be incompetent in the supervision of the funds, the groups who would receive them, and the ethical issues underneath it.

 

[WildHoneyAlways]

My issue with government-funded stem cell research is that it sets a remarkably dangerous precedent that, if unchecked, could conceivably allow the government to begin to determine who lives and who dies, based on the fairly arbitrary measure of "medical research" -- and to do so with taxpayer dollars.

How could the government decide who lives and who dies?

And who is "who?" Embryos or those already born?

 

[nathan1977]

^
WildHoney, see my amended post.

 

[Irvine511]

while i can understand the objection -- as much as i might disagree -- to having federal dollers help fund research you might find morally objectionable (though i find our war in Iraq morally objectionable yet i still have to help pay for it), it seems to me that if your concerns are with the best oversight and regulations of the research then it is best done by the government due to the laws regarding the use of federal funds rather than leaving the research up to private fundings and diminished regulation and oversight.

 

[nathan1977]

Actually, my objection has less to do with my morality on the subject than with the broader ethical and legislative crises that can very conceivably come into play as a result of how it is addressed.

 

[WildHoneyAlways]

The abortion debate would be kids' play when/if the government is forced to decide whether someone is dead (or dead enough) so that their organs can be harvested for "crucial scientific research."

Aren't there already concerns over this in organ donation situations?

 

[nathan1977]

There are. That's why I brought it up. It's a situation that a decision to fund research like this could only aggravate.

 

[WildHoneyAlways]

There are. That's why I brought it up. It's a situation that a decision to fund research like this could only aggravate.

I don't see how. It's already difficult to donate your organs. ( at least in Illinois) The state doesn't have a say, the next of kin does, even though I have registered, signed the back of my driver's licence, etc. Why would this change because of stem cell research?