"I trust God speaks through me..."

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
nathan1977 said:
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 said:

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.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


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

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.
 
Irvine511 said:




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 said:
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.


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 said:

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.
 
Last edited:
Irvine511 said:
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."
 
Irvine511 said:


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).
Irvine511 said:

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.


Irvine511 said:

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.
 
nathan1977 said:


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 said:


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 said:


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.
 
nathan1977 said:
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.
 
nathan1977 said:
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.
 
nathan1977 said:


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.



nathan1977 said:


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?

:huh:
 
sorry for the earlier double post -- my computer was freaking out, so i turned it off and went home ... erm, anyway ...
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


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

:huh:

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 said:


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.
 
nathan1977 said:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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/printedition/opinion/la-ed-veto20jul20,1,3886474.story
 
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. :mad: :censored: :censored: :censored: :censored: :censored: :censored: :censored: :censored: :censored:
 
Back
Top Bottom