"I trust God speaks through me..." - Page 6 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-20-2006, 02:55 PM   #76
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,428
Local Time: 06:54 PM
Yes I do, and no I don't.
__________________

__________________
nathan1977 is offline  
Old 07-20-2006, 03:02 PM   #77
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 01:54 PM
so who do you trust to regulate?

or do we just make it all illegal?
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 07-20-2006, 03:05 PM   #78
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,428
Local Time: 06:54 PM
There is a huge gap between the government funding science and declaring something illegal, Irvine. That's the height of a straw man debate.
__________________
nathan1977 is offline  
Old 07-20-2006, 03:12 PM   #79
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 01:54 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 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.


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?
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 07-20-2006, 03:21 PM   #80
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 01:54 PM
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?
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 07-20-2006, 03:54 PM   #81
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 12:54 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar

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.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 07-20-2006, 03:59 PM   #82
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,647
Local Time: 12:54 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500


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...
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 07-20-2006, 04:31 PM   #83
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,428
Local Time: 06:54 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by maycocksean


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.
__________________
nathan1977 is offline  
Old 07-20-2006, 04:34 PM   #84
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
WildHoneyAlways's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: In a glass case of emotion
Posts: 8,158
Local Time: 12:54 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nathan1977


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?
__________________
WildHoneyAlways is offline  
Old 07-20-2006, 04:35 PM   #85
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,428
Local Time: 06:54 PM
^
WildHoney, see my amended post.
__________________
nathan1977 is offline  
Old 07-20-2006, 05:03 PM   #86
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 01:54 PM
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.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 07-20-2006, 05:06 PM   #87
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,428
Local Time: 06:54 PM
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.
__________________
nathan1977 is offline  
Old 07-20-2006, 05:09 PM   #88
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
WildHoneyAlways's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: In a glass case of emotion
Posts: 8,158
Local Time: 12:54 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nathan1977


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?
__________________
WildHoneyAlways is offline  
Old 07-20-2006, 05:10 PM   #89
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,428
Local Time: 06:54 PM
There are. That's why I brought it up. It's a situation that a decision to fund research like this could only aggravate.
__________________
nathan1977 is offline  
Old 07-20-2006, 05:13 PM   #90
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
WildHoneyAlways's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: In a glass case of emotion
Posts: 8,158
Local Time: 12:54 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 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.
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?
__________________

__________________
WildHoneyAlways is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:54 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com