"I trust God speaks through me..." - Page 8 - 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, 06:15 PM   #106
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
WildHoneyAlways's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: In a glass case of emotion
Posts: 8,158
Local Time: 03:03 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nathan1977


Forced organ harvesting, yes.
I'm not sure what this would entail.
How is this different from the current organ harvesting/donation process?
__________________

__________________
WildHoneyAlways is offline  
Old 07-20-2006, 06:19 PM   #107
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 04:03 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nathan1977
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.)


and where is euthanasia legal?

it remains as much a debate today as it was in the 1970s, and i think it's rather disingenuous to think that the legality of abortion is somehow tied to the euthanasia issue. the euthanasia issue has surfaced entirely independent to abortion and mostly as a result of legitimate ethical quandries -- patients suffering from ALS and other rare but devastating issues. usually, it's an issue about the reduction of suffering. i've actually studied euthanasia quite a bit and i've never heard it linked to abortion.

i don't think the link is there.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-20-2006, 06:27 PM   #108
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 04:03 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nathan1977
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.)


and where is euthanasia legal?

it remains as much a debate today as it was in the 1970s, and i think it's rather disingenuous to think that the legality of abortion is somehow tied to the euthanasia issue. the euthanasia issue has surfaced entirely independent to abortion and mostly as a result of legitimate ethical quandries -- patients suffering from ALS and other rare but devastating issues. usually, it's an issue about the reduction of suffering. i've actually studied euthanasia quite a bit and i've never heard it linked to abortion.

i don't think the link is there.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-20-2006, 06:51 PM   #109
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 03:03 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nathan1977


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.
No, not at all. The moral stance makes zero sense to me, but that wasn't what I was misunderstanding.



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.
This is what I'm misunderstanding. Do you honestly think this will be better in the private sector?

__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 07-20-2006, 07:29 PM   #110
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 04:03 AM
sorry for the earlier double post -- my computer was freaking out, so i turned it off and went home ... erm, anyway ...
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-20-2006, 07:41 PM   #111
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,430
Local Time: 09:03 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


This is what I'm misunderstanding. Do you honestly think this will be better in the private sector?

Do you honestly think it will better in the federal one?

I'm not saying I know the answer. What I am saying is, I'm pretty sure the federal government isn't it.
__________________
nathan1977 is offline  
Old 07-20-2006, 08:04 PM   #112
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 03:03 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nathan1977


Do you honestly think it will better in the federal one?

I'm not saying I know the answer. What I am saying is, I'm pretty sure the federal government isn't it.
I'd think there would be more of a checks and balances with the issue, and voters would control the regulation rather than corporations.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 07-20-2006, 08:06 PM   #113
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 04:03 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nathan1977
I'm not saying I know the answer. What I am saying is, I'm pretty sure the federal government isn't it.


this seems rather unhelpful, especially with so many lives that could be improved or healed.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-21-2006, 12:54 AM   #114
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: 04:03 AM
nathan, what do you think of this perspective I mentioned in earlier post? Fair or not?

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.
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 07-21-2006, 01:51 AM   #115
ONE
love, blood, life
 
namkcuR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Kettering, Ohio
Posts: 10,290
Local Time: 04:03 AM
AIDs.

Cancer.

Alzheimer's.

Spinal Cord Injury.

Parkinson's Disease.

IMO, these are the biggest and most important five diseases/injuries for which a potential treatment and/or cure could be affected by stem cell research. If full federal funding were granted today, would there be cures tomorrow? Of course not. It could take years, it could take decade of research, but if there is a legitimate shot that this research could lead to eventual treatments and cures for the above mentioned diseases/injuries, then you have to fund it. You HAVE to. When you give a paralyzed person the chance to walk again, when you give a person with Alzheimer's the chance to use their mind again, when you give a person with Parkinson's the chance to control their own body again, when you give a person with cancer or AIDs the ability to live again, you are giving somebody their life back. For that, no amount of federal funding is too much.

A stem cell, that will likely be disposed of anyway, doesn't have a husband/wife/boyfriend/girlfriend or kids or parents or friends or any of that. A stem cell gets used, it's not leaving anything behind. Anyone with any of the above diseases/injuries will either leave all of those people behind if they die, or if they live, all of those peoples' lives will be affected by watching that person live with that disease/injury.

How you choose a stem cell's POTENTIAL life over a sick person's REAL life is totally beyond me.
__________________
namkcuR is offline  
Old 07-21-2006, 02:01 AM   #116
Refugee
 
dazzlingamy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: The city of blinding lights and amazing coffee - Melbourne.
Posts: 2,468
Local Time: 08:03 PM
I think any funding, whether it be from the government, private sector, mob money etc is good, and definately needed to give us the best chance of finding cures for debilitating and fatal diseases.

Some people were saying ealier that stem cells may not help at all so why bother, the point is, they may NOT but unless we test them over and over again, we'll never know. I honestly do NOT understand why ANYONE would be opposed to this? And then attaching issues like forced organ farming and the like to it is just silly. All it is is cells, that can be used to help us work out the building blocks to life and maybe therin find the key to ease or cure people who are suffering. Is that not a moral and enlightened thing to do?
__________________
dazzlingamy is offline  
Old 07-21-2006, 02:09 AM   #117
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 07:03 PM
A much better point to argue is that Federal funding of research that many are opposed to on moral grounds is not a valid use of their tax dollars, of course one may make the same argument about almost every example of government spending.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 07-21-2006, 08:33 PM   #118
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 01:03 AM
Quote:
At his first veto ceremony, Bush piously surrounded himself with children who were adopted while still embryos in fertility clinics. The kids were telegenic symbols of the potential embedded in each human embryo, but entirely disingenuous ones; the bill Bush rejected wouldn't have prevented a single one of them from being born.

Fertility clinics destroy thousands of embryos every year, byproducts of the in-vitro fertilization process. The bill would have allowed federal funding only for stem cell lines made from embryos that were destined for destruction, not adoption. No lives will be saved by the president's veto, but it's quite possible that many will be lost, victims of complications of diseases that embryonic stem cells could one day cure.
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedi...,3886474.story
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 07-21-2006, 10:22 PM   #119
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 09:03 AM
I guess we can forget about a cure for AIDS or Alzheimer's. A friend of mine recently lost a father to Alzheimer's, and it wasn't fun. This pisses me off.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 07-23-2006, 06:15 PM   #120
War Child
 
najeena's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: an island paradise
Posts: 995
Local Time: 09:03 AM
Another instance where the President did what HE wanted instead of 'we the people' wanted. Will he ever put public opinion above his own?
__________________

__________________
najeena 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 04:03 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