"I trust God speaks through me..." - Page 7 - 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, 05:17 PM   #91
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 03:47 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 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.


which seems to me to be a great reason to have the government step in so it can regulate as it would do so more thoroughly with federal funds than private funds.

or am i still missing something?

also, as a more broader question, why are some issues considered enough of a moral quandry as to have legitimate grounds to protest the using of federal funds (condoms in Africa to family planning programs) where as other issues (illegal wars in the Middle East) are not?
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-20-2006, 05:28 PM   #92
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 02:47 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




or am i still missing something?

I am. I'm still not following Nathan's line of thinking here...
__________________

__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 07-20-2006, 05:30 PM   #93
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,430
Local Time: 08:47 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511

which seems to me to be a great reason to have the government step in so it can regulate as it would do so more thoroughly with federal funds than private funds.
Or open the doors precisely to the situations I discussed.

Your second question -- while intriguing -- is probably best reserved for another thread. Any answer(s) could conceivably hijack this one.
__________________
nathan1977 is offline  
Old 07-20-2006, 05:38 PM   #94
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,430
Local Time: 08:47 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


I am. I'm still not following Nathan's line of thinking here...
You seem to assume I'm looking at this from a moral perspective. I'm not. I'm looking at this issue from a political and ethical one.

Once you introduce federal money into any situation, you open the door to special-interests, to politicking, to corruption -- all of which the federal government either cannot or will not regulate.
__________________
nathan1977 is offline  
Old 07-20-2006, 05:38 PM   #95
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: 03:47 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




which seems to me to be a great reason to have the government step in so it can regulate as it would do so more thoroughly with federal funds than private funds.

or am i still missing something?

also, as a more broader question, why are some issues considered enough of a moral quandry as to have legitimate grounds to protest the using of federal funds (condoms in Africa to family planning programs) where as other issues (illegal wars in the Middle East) are not?
Irvine, I think what you're missing is the assumption of the government being able to regulate stem cell research "more thoroughly". I don't think nathan agrees with your assumption that the government will do a better job. On the contrary he assumes the opposite, that the gov will do worse.

The broader question won't work because again you and nathan probably don't share the same set of assumptions, i.e. he probably does not see the war in the middle east as illegal so he would have no reason to protest it. You've got to come up with a comparision where nathan would have a problem with both issues.

So nathan, would I be correct in saying that you believe stem cell research is morally wrong enough that you don't want tax dollars funding it, but not wrong enough that you'd like to see all stem cell research banned outright (private research included)?
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 07-20-2006, 05:40 PM   #96
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
WildHoneyAlways's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: In a glass case of emotion
Posts: 8,158
Local Time: 02:47 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nathan1977


Or open the doors precisely to the situations I discussed.
Organ harvesting?
__________________
WildHoneyAlways is offline  
Old 07-20-2006, 05:50 PM   #97
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 03:47 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by maycocksean
[B]Irvine, I think what you're missing is the assumption of the government being able to regulate stem cell research "more thoroughly". I don't think nathan agrees with your assumption that the government will do a better job. On the contrary he assumes the opposite, that the gov will do worse.
so more government regulation will actually be worse than less government regulation? it doesn't make logical sense to me.

i also think we're working under the false assumption that the research will happen anyway and that people who disagree with the morality of it just shouldn't have to pay for it. the federal goverment is, by far, the major funder of basic science research. basic science (lab bench) research is too risky and not immediately profitable enough for the private sector.


Quote:
The broader question won't work because again you and nathan probably don't share the same set of assumptions, i.e. he probably does not see the war in the middle east as illegal so he would have no reason to protest it. You've got to come up with a comparision where nathan would have a problem with both issues.

no, i'm drawing a parallel -- Nathan could feel that Iraq is immoral, and that doesn't change the question: if we are free to protest the federal funding of some issues that we find immoral (birth control, abortion, stem cell research) why are we not free to protest others (illegal wars)?

i totally want my money back when it comes to Iraq.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-20-2006, 05:55 PM   #98
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,430
Local Time: 08:47 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511

no, i'm drawing a parallel -- Nathan could feel that Iraq is immoral, and that doesn't change the question: if we are free to protest the federal funding of some issues that we find immoral (birth control, abortion, stem cell research) why are we not free to protest others (illegal wars)?
It would be dangerous to make assumptions about my stance on the war in the Middle East.

In any event, the question you're raising is a bit of a non sequitor. The whole point of representative government is that we can protest however we'd like -- you're free to protest against issues that are important to you, and the same holds true for me.
__________________
nathan1977 is offline  
Old 07-20-2006, 05:56 PM   #99
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,430
Local Time: 08:47 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by WildHoneyAlways


Organ harvesting?
Forced organ harvesting, yes.
__________________
nathan1977 is offline  
Old 07-20-2006, 05:58 PM   #100
Refugee
 
Bluer White's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Maine
Posts: 1,886
Local Time: 03:47 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
if we are free to protest the federal funding of some issues that we find immoral (birth control, abortion, stem cell research) why are we not free to protest others (illegal wars)?
Aren't we free to protest all of these things?

"Free to protest" does not equate to "getting your way."
__________________
Bluer White is offline  
Old 07-20-2006, 06:00 PM   #101
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: 03:47 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511


so more government regulation will actually be worse than less government regulation? it doesn't make logical sense to me.
Nor me. But that is the argument being made, I believe. In makes sense if you believe the gov. jacks up everything it touches (don't ask me why that doesn't include wars. . .this is not my point of view).
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511

i also think we're working under the false assumption that the research will happen anyway and that people who disagree with the morality of it just shouldn't have to pay for it. the federal goverment is, by far, the major funder of basic science research. basic science (lab bench) research is too risky and not immediately profitable enough for the private sector.
Or maybe, just maybe there isn't that assumption at all. Maybe, just maybe opponents of stem cell research KNOW that federal gov is the major funder of research, and know that without such funding the stem cell research will likely die on the vine. Maybe all the talk about gov. oversight messing things up is just a cloak for the fact that opponents don't want this research to happen at all, and they know that stopping gov. funding is the surest way to see that it doesn't. It would certainly be more consistent since opponents base their opposition on moral/ethical concerns and thus could not logically support any kind of stem cell research, publically funded, or otherwise.


Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511

no, i'm drawing a parallel -- Nathan could feel that Iraq is immoral, and that doesn't change the question: if we are free to protest the federal funding of some issues that we find immoral (birth control, abortion, stem cell research) why are we not free to protest others (illegal wars)?

i totally want my money back when it comes to Iraq.
But that's just it. You can protest anything you want, but once a law is passed or appropriations are made, that's it. The money will be spent whether you want it to be or not. The same holds true for stem cell research. If federal funding is approved, that will be it, no matter how much nathan or anyone else dislikes the use of the money, that money will be spent anyway. The protests are no longer of any effect.
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 07-20-2006, 06:01 PM   #102
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 03:47 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nathan1977


Once you introduce federal money into any situation, you open the door to special-interests, to politicking, to corruption -- all of which the federal government either cannot or will not regulate.
Why is it that elsewhere in the world, there aren't these huge fears of the government stepping in and forcibly ripping out our livers only because there is some federal or public funding for stem cell research?

It's kind of like how the American society will apparently crumble taking all the families down with it if you permit gay marriage even though many other countries have legalized it and we haven't turned into Soddom and Gommorrah.

Why is it that all these completely far-reaching and unlikely scenarios are issues only in the US and not elsewhere in the world?
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 07-20-2006, 06:04 PM   #103
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 01:47 AM
Bush did the right thing.

dbs
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 07-20-2006, 06:12 PM   #104
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,430
Local Time: 08:47 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram


Why is it that elsewhere in the world, there aren't these huge fears of the government stepping in and forcibly ripping out our livers only because there is some federal or public funding for stem cell research?

...

Why is it that all these completely far-reaching and unlikely scenarios are issues only in the US and not elsewhere in the world?
I'll just hold to what seems to be pertinent from anitram's post, to avoid the thread getting hijacked...

The US' position in the world as a foremost leader in science and technology means that we must confront issues that no one else can yet.

In the 1970s, when the country took up the abortion debate, one of the big issues raised was euthanasia. At the time, this was pooh-poohed -- that will never happen, that's unlikely, etc. However, we are now sitting right in the middle of this debate. It is reasonable to presume that each generation advances the cause of the previous generation. So it is not out of hand to extend the conversation of how a culture defines, defends, and takes life just one step further. (As WildHoney pointed out, organ harvesting is a subject that's already out there.)
__________________
nathan1977 is offline  
Old 07-20-2006, 06:14 PM   #105
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 03:47 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nathan1977


It would be dangerous to make assumptions about my stance on the war in the Middle East.

In any event, the question you're raising is a bit of a non sequitor. The whole point of representative government is that we can protest however we'd like -- you're free to protest against issues that are important to you, and the same holds true for me.


well, i wasn't making any assumptions -- i was continuing the hypothetical.

my point is less of a non sequitor and more of an observation of how warped (imho) the thinking is -- we object to stem cell research or effective family planning on "moral" grounds, and this is given serious credibility in congress and in the media; but the morality of illegal invasions that have led to 50,000 dead Iraqis isn't a "moral" issue at all. this is also the line of resoning that is put forward by many Republicans when they vote against certain family planning programs in the Developing World, which was one of Bush's first acts when he took office -- he cut funding from groups that provided abortions. the rationale was that people shouldn't have to pay for something that they find immoral, whether or not it is legal. i think this applies here. i don't think that it's a legitimate argument (though it is of course it is one you are free to make) to say that your tax dollars shouldn't be funding something you disagree with on moral grounds (even though it is perfectly legal).

it relates well to the thread about how issues are framed.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 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 03:47 AM.


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