Stem Cell Research - CLOSED

Message boards : Science (non-SETI) : Stem Cell Research - CLOSED
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 . . . 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · Next

AuthorMessage
Profile Es99
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 10874
Credit: 350,402
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 372167 - Posted: 20 Jul 2006, 8:32:46 UTC - in response to Message 372166.  

Jeffrey,

The main issue really is that the problem of what is a person has never been resolved in society at large. It's such a complex issue it's not likely to reach a meaningful resolution soon insofar as most of the public will be satisfied.

That being said, let's stir the pudding here and deal with this from a different point of view and use a different tact. I support stem cell research, but not this bill. How is it right to use taxpayer dollars to fund any medical research that doesn't directly affect the properly delineated functions of government? Why am I required to pay for research that I may or may not morally agree with? When, where, and how does the government acquire the right to decide which research projects get funded and which do not?

Now, as I said, I support the freedom of scientists to conduct stem cell research. G.W. Bush and I agree on this particular MORAL issue, in a fashion.

He rejects it on 'moral grounds'.....and so do I.
He rejects it because he believes an embryo is a person and it is immoral to destroy his definition of a 'person'. But, of course, only a person is a person. Not an embryo.

My moral grounds for dismissing it are much different and they center on the following simplified point.

To tax Americans forcibly to promote research into areas they take moral stands against are wrong.


Who would you propose fund the research then? If it is funded by private companies who do you think will benefit from that research? In other words would the benefits be accessible to all, or just those that can afford it?

If you are against people being forced to pay taxes to support things that they are morally against, does that mean you support the right for people to withhold the part of their taxes that fund illegal and immoral wars over oil?
Reality Internet Personality
ID: 372167 · Report as offensive
Profile Scary Capitalist
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 21 May 01
Posts: 7404
Credit: 97,085
RAC: 0
United States
Message 372173 - Posted: 20 Jul 2006, 8:51:47 UTC - in response to Message 372167.  
Last modified: 20 Jul 2006, 8:55:05 UTC



Who would you propose fund the research then? If it is funded by private companies who do you think will benefit from that research? In other words would the benefits be accessible to all, or just those that can afford it?


The same ones that are clamoring to fund it now. You seem to be operating under the statists' idealogy that believes (or demands) that it is only possible to fund research like this if governments are engaged in it. Obviously, given today's news......at least in this case, this is the opposite of the current state. Our government has endeavored to prohibit the PRIVATE sector from funding it. Why? Because the PRIVATE sector WANTS to fund it......That was the whole point of all of those special interests groups lobbying to force private research facilities from engaging in the research in the first place.

edit---Who would benefit? Everybody eventually. This is how everything works. The paradox is that the 'rich' people you seem to have a bias against end up funding more of their proportional share of any advance of humanity. Whether it is space exploration, television sets, laptops, sanitary napkins, or groundbreaking cures of diseases....
If you are against people being forced to pay taxes to support things that they are morally against, does that mean you support the right for people to withhold the part of their taxes that fund illegal and immoral wars over oil?

Trick question. What war over oil? Illegal? Huh? Who's law? (See the politics thread for this and specifically Octagon's extensive postings on the legality of war.)

Let's consider the 'right to abortion' (not looking for a debate on THIS issue, for sure). But should taxpayers be forced to pay for abortion free hospitals? How about 'pro abortion' hospitals?.

I contend your money would be yours from the start and therefore none of this argumentation would even be necessary. You get the freedom to go live YOUR life as you see fit without forcible intervention by every nut that comes down stumbling the street poking his nose in your damn business. This, ma'am, is called 'freedom'.

Let's stick to the bloody subject.



Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

ID: 372173 · Report as offensive
Profile Es99
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 10874
Credit: 350,402
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 372176 - Posted: 20 Jul 2006, 8:59:07 UTC - in response to Message 372173.  
Last modified: 20 Jul 2006, 9:05:08 UTC



Who would you propose fund the research then? If it is funded by private companies who do you think will benefit from that research? In other words would the benefits be accessible to all, or just those that can afford it?


The same ones that are clamoring to fund it now. You seem to be operating under the statists' idealogy that believes (or demands) that it is only possible to fund research like this if governments are engaged in it. Obviously, given today's news......at least in this case, this is the opposite of the current state. Our government has endeavored to prohibit the PRIVATE sector from funding it. Why? Because the PRIVATE sector WANTS to fund it......That was the whole point of all of those special interests groups lobbying to force private research facilities from engaging in the research in the first place.

edit---Who would benefit? Everybody eventually. This is how everything works. The paradox is that the 'rich' people you seem to have a bias against end up funding more of their proportional share of any advance of humanity. Whether it is space exploration, television sets, laptops, sanitary napkins, or groundbreaking cures of diseases....
If you are against people being forced to pay taxes to support things that they are morally against, does that mean you support the right for people to withhold the part of their taxes that fund illegal and immoral wars over oil?

Trick question. What war over oil? Illegal? Huh? Who's law? (See the politics thread for this and specifically Octagon's extensive postings on the legality of war.)

Let's consider the 'right to abortion' (not looking for a debate on THIS issue, for sure). But should taxpayers be forced to pay for abortion free hospitals? How about 'pro abortion' hospitals?.

I contend your money would be yours from the start and therefore none of this argumentation would even be necessary. You get the freedom to go live YOUR life as you see fit without forcible intervention by every nut that comes down stumbling the street poking his nose in your damn business. This, ma'am, is called 'freedom'.

Let's stick to the bloody subject.




You can't have your cake and eat it. If you are against the government funding Stem Cell research because there are people who are morally against it, then you must also be against he government funding war because people are morally against it. I would much prefer my taxes went on medical research that saves lives, than on military research that takes lives. The question is, do you agree?

BTW: Octagon and other's may have said a lot, but they've proved nothing.
Reality Internet Personality
ID: 372176 · Report as offensive
Profile Scary Capitalist
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 21 May 01
Posts: 7404
Credit: 97,085
RAC: 0
United States
Message 372177 - Posted: 20 Jul 2006, 9:08:11 UTC - in response to Message 372176.  



Who would you propose fund the research then? If it is funded by private companies who do you think will benefit from that research? In other words would the benefits be accessible to all, or just those that can afford it?


The same ones that are clamoring to fund it now. You seem to be operating under the statists' idealogy that believes (or demands) that it is only possible to fund research like this if governments are engaged in it. Obviously, given today's news......at least in this case, this is the opposite of the current state. Our government has endeavored to prohibit the PRIVATE sector from funding it. Why? Because the PRIVATE sector WANTS to fund it......That was the whole point of all of those special interests groups lobbying to force private research facilities from engaging in the research in the first place.

edit---Who would benefit? Everybody eventually. This is how everything works. The paradox is that the 'rich' people you seem to have a bias against end up funding more of their proportional share of any advance of humanity. Whether it is space exploration, television sets, laptops, sanitary napkins, or groundbreaking cures of diseases....
If you are against people being forced to pay taxes to support things that they are morally against, does that mean you support the right for people to withhold the part of their taxes that fund illegal and immoral wars over oil?

Trick question. What war over oil? Illegal? Huh? Who's law? (See the politics thread for this and specifically Octagon's extensive postings on the legality of war.)

Let's consider the 'right to abortion' (not looking for a debate on THIS issue, for sure). But should taxpayers be forced to pay for abortion free hospitals? How about 'pro abortion' hospitals?.

I contend your money would be yours from the start and therefore none of this argumentation would even be necessary. You get the freedom to go live YOUR life as you see fit without forcible intervention by every nut that comes down stumbling the street poking his nose in your damn business. This, ma'am, is called 'freedom'.

Let's stick to the bloody subject.




You can't have your cake and eat it. If you are against the government funding Stem Cell research because there are people who are morally against it, then you must also be against he government funding war because people are morally against it. I would much prefer my taxes went on medical research that saves lives than military research that takes lives. The question is, do you agree?

I understand where the confusion is here.

Answer: No....I do not agree. Because the military actions of a free and therefore rationally founded government consist of certain justifiable realms of action. One of those is to protect its citizens. Going to war, under justifiable circumstances is in a whole different category than other endeavors. The proper role of government is to protect its citizens' rights and freedoms. Stem cell research (pro or con) or circumcision(pro or con) {I mention this because I know you're against it, how would you feel if your taxes paid for a procedure you were morally opposed to} ?

These are 2 different animals. As Rush has so well pointed out in the past, there is no excuse to use force on your neighbors because what it is you choose to force him into is something you happen to believe in. Force and mind are opposites. You're removing from the human interaction the ability for people to decide their own minds, conduct themselves in ways they seem fit, and destroying their freedoms in the process. Explain to me why I have to pay for someone else's research again?

What happens when PETA demands the same? (yes, the answer should be the same). Unless it is serving a function of proper governmental sphere of influence preogatives it shouldn't be occuring.

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

ID: 372177 · Report as offensive
Profile Es99
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 10874
Credit: 350,402
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 372187 - Posted: 20 Jul 2006, 9:21:53 UTC - in response to Message 372177.  

I understand where the confusion is here.

Answer: No....I do not agree. Because the military actions of a free and therefore rationally founded government consist of certain justifiable realms of action. One of those is to protect its citizens. Going to war, under justifiable circumstances is in a whole different category than other endeavors. The proper role of government is to protect its citizens' rights and freedoms.

One of those is to protect its citizens. We can argue all day about whether the war in Iraq was necessary to protect it's citizens. I personally don't think it was and I resent my taxes being used to pay for it.
What about the role of a government to protect the well being of its citizens? Surely the benefits of Stem Cell research fall into that category? I can clearly see a justifiable reason for the government to fund research that will probably at some point help every person under the 'protection' of that government.

Stem cell research (pro or con) or circumcision(pro or con) {I mention this because I know you're against it, how would you feel if your taxes paid for a procedure you were morally opposed to} ?

Firstly, although there were claims to the contrary, there are no medical benefits to circumcision. Secondly, in my country my taxes do pay for this procedure.

These are 2 different animals. As Rush has so well pointed out in the past, there is no excuse to use force on your neighbors because what it is you choose to force him into is something you happen to believe in. Force and mind are opposites. You're removing from the human interaction the ability for people to decide their own minds, conduct themselves in ways they seem fit, and destroying their freedoms in the process. Explain to me why I have to pay for someone else's research again?

If it is ok to pay for someone else's war, then surely the research that would bring far more benefit, not only to the citizens of your country, but humanity as a whole should receive funding as part of a worldwide endeavour to end suffering.

What happens when PETA demands the same? (yes, the answer should be the same). Unless it is serving a function of proper governmental sphere of influence preogatives it shouldn't be occuring.

What are the proper governmental sphere of influence prerogatives? Why do we have governments? In most cases, the government becomes a self serving organisation that exists only to perpetuate itself and maintain the status quo. If we are to have governments then they should exist to make our lives better. Funding Stem Cell research will clearly improve the lives of most of the population and it should be funded by the people through taxes.
Reality Internet Personality
ID: 372187 · Report as offensive
Profile Scary Capitalist
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 21 May 01
Posts: 7404
Credit: 97,085
RAC: 0
United States
Message 372191 - Posted: 20 Jul 2006, 9:41:40 UTC - in response to Message 372187.  

One of those is to protect its citizens. We can argue all day about whether the war in Iraq was necessary to protect it's citizens. I personally don't think it was and I resent my taxes being used to pay for it.
What about the role of a government to protect the well being of its citizens? Surely the benefits of Stem Cell research fall into that category? I can clearly see a justifiable reason for the government to fund research that will probably at some point help every person under the 'protection' of that government.


I disagree, in a general sense, that a government's job is to 'protect its citizens'. From what? Only outside threats and from criminals and from abuses by its own governmental bodies. These are the only proper reasons for a government to intervene and protect its citizens.
------------------------
Stem cell research (pro or con) or circumcision(pro or con) {I mention this because I know you're against it, how would you feel if your taxes paid for a procedure you were morally opposed to} ?

Firstly, although there were claims to the contrary, there are no medical benefits to circumcision. Secondly, in my country my taxes do pay for this procedure.

And you should resent it per the perameters of the examples I listed a couple or three posts above....
-------------------------

If it is ok to pay for someone else's war, then surely the research that would bring far more benefit, not only to the citizens of your country, but humanity as a whole should receive funding as part of a worldwide endeavour to end suffering.


I'm not sure what this really means. I'm not talking about a war here. 'Humanity as a whole'...? There ultimately isn't such an entity. The only thing that exists are individuals with individual identitites. Your statement is a hallmark of collectivism. Collectivism and individual rights do not mix and cannot mix just as oil and water cannot somehow find common principle.
-------------------------
What are the proper governmental sphere of influence prerogatives? Why do we have governments? In most cases, the government becomes a self serving organisation that exists only to perpetuate itself and maintain the status quo. If we are to have governments then they should exist to make our lives better. Funding Stem Cell research will clearly improve the lives of most of the population and it should be funded by the people through taxes.


Yes, governments become 'self serving organizations' when they fail to fulfill their proper rational purpose. That purpose is protecting the individual rights (really a redundancy in the concept of rights as there is no such thing as 'collective rights) of its citizens. The rights, among others, of life, liberty, property. Those things, together, become a higher concept called 'liberty'.

You seem stuck in 2nd gear. That if no government funds stem cell research or any other project then nothing will get done. You're looking for Big Daddy Government and Nanny State to take care of us when in fact it is a hindrance to the men of the mind. Get out of the way and watch what happens. Even with space exploration (see the 'privatizing space exploration' thread in 'science' forums) the privates get it done soooo much better.

-----------------------------

If you TRULY cared about the benefits afforded to humanity then you'd support the above beliefs. When all of the collectivist strategies have been attempted in a modern form over the past 100 years and have resulted in the most mass graves, full of hundreds of millions of bodies, and you still cling to the notion that you somehow KNOW that that premise holds promise and hope for HUMANITY and still continue on with asserting it.......it makes me wonder.

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

ID: 372191 · Report as offensive
Profile Es99
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 10874
Credit: 350,402
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 372200 - Posted: 20 Jul 2006, 10:02:07 UTC - in response to Message 372191.  
Last modified: 20 Jul 2006, 10:02:30 UTC

One of those is to protect its citizens. We can argue all day about whether the war in Iraq was necessary to protect it's citizens. I personally don't think it was and I resent my taxes being used to pay for it.
What about the role of a government to protect the well being of its citizens? Surely the benefits of Stem Cell research fall into that category? I can clearly see a justifiable reason for the government to fund research that will probably at some point help every person under the 'protection' of that government.


I disagree, in a general sense, that a government's job is to 'protect its citizens'. From what? Only outside threats and from criminals and from abuses by its own governmental bodies. These are the only proper reasons for a government to intervene and protect its citizens.
------------------------
Stem cell research (pro or con) or circumcision(pro or con) {I mention this because I know you're against it, how would you feel if your taxes paid for a procedure you were morally opposed to} ?

Firstly, although there were claims to the contrary, there are no medical benefits to circumcision. Secondly, in my country my taxes do pay for this procedure.

And you should resent it per the perameters of the examples I listed a couple or three posts above....
-------------------------

If it is ok to pay for someone else's war, then surely the research that would bring far more benefit, not only to the citizens of your country, but humanity as a whole should receive funding as part of a worldwide endeavour to end suffering.


I'm not sure what this really means. I'm not talking about a war here. 'Humanity as a whole'...? There ultimately isn't such an entity. The only thing that exists are individuals with individual identitites. Your statement is a hallmark of collectivism. Collectivism and individual rights do not mix and cannot mix just as oil and water cannot somehow find common principle.
-------------------------
What are the proper governmental sphere of influence prerogatives? Why do we have governments? In most cases, the government becomes a self serving organisation that exists only to perpetuate itself and maintain the status quo. If we are to have governments then they should exist to make our lives better. Funding Stem Cell research will clearly improve the lives of most of the population and it should be funded by the people through taxes.


Yes, governments become 'self serving organizations' when they fail to fulfill their proper rational purpose. That purpose is protecting the individual rights (really a redundancy in the concept of rights as there is no such thing as 'collective rights) of its citizens. The rights, among others, of life, liberty, property. Those things, together, become a higher concept called 'liberty'.

You seem stuck in 2nd gear. That if no government funds stem cell research or any other project then nothing will get done. You're looking for Big Daddy Government and Nanny State to take care of us when in fact it is a hindrance to the men of the mind. Get out of the way and watch what happens. Even with space exploration (see the 'privatizing space exploration' thread in 'science' forums) the privates get it done soooo much better.

-----------------------------

If you TRULY cared about the benefits afforded to humanity then you'd support the above beliefs. When all of the collectivist strategies have been attempted in a modern form over the past 100 years and have resulted in the most mass graves, full of hundreds of millions of bodies, and you still cling to the notion that you somehow KNOW that that premise holds promise and hope for HUMANITY and still continue on with asserting it.......it makes me wonder.

It's funny that you are still subscribing to this outdated 80s individualism idea. People form collectives for a reason, because the individual cannot do everything on their own. Businesses aren't there to help the individual, they are entities that exist for their own benefits.

If we didn't have collectivism we wouldn't have the five day working week, women wouldn't have the vote, there wouldn't be a minimum wage the list goes on. These things didn't just happen on their own or arise naturally out of capitalism.

Your taxes fund schools, what if people with children didn't help fund them? I think that we can all agree that well educated people benefit the whole of society. I can't see how expecting the government to fund something of such obvious benefit to society is a bad thing at all. Governments fund universities, which exist for a minority of the population, yet they benefit everyone.

Collectivism is what helps protect the rights of the individual.
Reality Internet Personality
ID: 372200 · Report as offensive
Profile Scary Capitalist
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 21 May 01
Posts: 7404
Credit: 97,085
RAC: 0
United States
Message 372213 - Posted: 20 Jul 2006, 10:34:18 UTC

The notion of 'individual rights' is somehow an '80's idea? LOL....
I really don't know what that means...sounds like some set of stereotypes to me....but if you're in the mood put on DEVO and 'Men At Work' or whoever....

Now that we have gotten it settled that man only deserved individual rights miraculously during one decade then I'll just become a collectivist too. My only choice now is whether to go for the slow creeping socialism, the hard and fast fascism, the delusional yet philosophic Communism, or some drum pounding tribalism.....

Hmmmm.....I kind of like drums......but then again those fascists had their super cool uniforms....but then again, the commies had a secret police to rival none other. On the other hand the socialists allow you to keep up the pretenses of being 'for the common man' while living in relative luxury.

You've really given me something to think about here....I'll get back to you later.
Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

ID: 372213 · Report as offensive
Profile Es99
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 10874
Credit: 350,402
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 372219 - Posted: 20 Jul 2006, 10:45:45 UTC - in response to Message 372213.  

The notion of 'individual rights' is somehow an '80's idea? LOL....
I really don't know what that means...sounds like some set of stereotypes to me....but if you're in the mood put on DEVO and 'Men At Work' or whoever....

Now that we have gotten it settled that man only deserved individual rights miraculously during one decade then I'll just become a collectivist too. My only choice now is whether to go for the slow creeping socialism, the hard and fast fascism, the delusional yet philosophic Communism, or some drum pounding tribalism.....

Hmmmm.....I kind of like drums......but then again those fascists had their super cool uniforms....but then again, the commies had a secret police to rival none other. On the other hand the socialists allow you to keep up the pretenses of being 'for the common man' while living in relative luxury.

You've really given me something to think about here....I'll get back to you later.

..but you didn't answer my points so I guess you think I'm right. ;-)

I'll make an Anarchist out of you yet Robert Brooke. You're most of the way there already, you just haven't realised it yet.
Reality Internet Personality
ID: 372219 · Report as offensive
Profile Scary Capitalist
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 21 May 01
Posts: 7404
Credit: 97,085
RAC: 0
United States
Message 372223 - Posted: 20 Jul 2006, 10:51:03 UTC

Can't I let Rush takeover from here? You might as well be married to me as exhausting as you are....

I'm getting all of the pain and none of the benefits. But fine, I'll answer your misappropriation of terms if you prefer.
Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

ID: 372223 · Report as offensive
Profile Scary Capitalist
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 21 May 01
Posts: 7404
Credit: 97,085
RAC: 0
United States
Message 372228 - Posted: 20 Jul 2006, 10:55:05 UTC

From your Wikipedia:

Anarchism is the name for both a political philosophy and manner of organizing society, derived from the Greek αναρχία ("without archons" or "without rulers"). Thus "anarchism," in its most general semantic meaning, is the belief that all forms of rulership are undesirable and should be abolished. For many anarchists, this includes not only the state, but other institutions which they may consider authoritarian, such as capitalism and state socialism........

Like I've told you in days prior to now, anarchism isn't compatible with capitalism. It leads to more of your desired statism...
--------------------------------------

2ndly, Wikipedia is really useless when it comes to definitions of philosophy. Try looking up 'Objectivism' in your paper dictionary and see what it says. Even Oxford's philosophic dictionary mucks it up. Fascism alone is 3 or 4 fine print pages and still isn't resolute.
Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

ID: 372228 · Report as offensive
Profile Scary Capitalist
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 21 May 01
Posts: 7404
Credit: 97,085
RAC: 0
United States
Message 372233 - Posted: 20 Jul 2006, 11:19:07 UTC - in response to Message 372200.  
Last modified: 20 Jul 2006, 11:35:25 UTC

It's funny that you are still subscribing to this outdated 80s individualism idea. People form collectives for a reason, because the individual cannot do everything on their own. Businesses aren't there to help the individual, they are entities that exist for their own benefits.

You are describing here by implication 'businesses' that exist in non-capitalist nations. You're describing businesses owned by the state (socialist/communist) or controlled by the state (fascist/theocratic). This is typical ignorance of what Capitalism is. Both of these 'sides' use innappropriate designations of definition to what they both know they have to seek to destroy to achieve their dictatorships.
-----------------------

If we didn't have collectivism we wouldn't have the five day working week, women wouldn't have the vote, there wouldn't be a minimum wage the list goes on. These things didn't just happen on their own or arise naturally out of capitalism.

History tends towards more efficient/more more productive terms by which employees are able to command the conditions of their labor. We never lived with the phony realm of a Charles Dickens' novel. Trends show this over time. It's far beyond my ability to write a small book for us here. Utimately it is in the capitalist countries that children were finally able to be freed from the NECESSITY of working and for 'sweatshops' to turn themselves into 35$ an hour high paying jobs where the little whiners can still complain that owning 3 cars and 2 bass boats constitutes 'poverty'.
---------------------

Your taxes fund schools, what if people with[sic] children didn't help fund them? I think that we can all agree that well educated people benefit the whole of society. I can't see how expecting the government to fund something of such obvious benefit to society is a bad thing at all. Governments fund universities, which exist for a minority of the population, yet they benefit everyone.

I agree.....if someone chooses to not bear children she 'benefits' by not being in a society of ignoramouses. But the more involved government is in education NOW the worse the results are. Not to mention the fact that you have NOT established why your neighbor should be forced at gunpoint (ultimately, as that is the final recourse of any government since they own a monopoly on the legal use of force) to take money from the neighbor and spend it on YOU!!!!

2ndly, educated people aren't there to 'benefit society' although they do do that. This shows what you think of your fellow man. Apparently you love the morality of altruism, the ethical standard that pervades today and asserts that the only proper justification for a man's existence is to serve his neighbor's interest. His interest!? That's maligned as 'Selfish'...and indeed it is! And anyone brave enough to agree with what I say here has my heart.
ed-sp




Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

ID: 372233 · Report as offensive
Profile Scary Capitalist
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 21 May 01
Posts: 7404
Credit: 97,085
RAC: 0
United States
Message 372236 - Posted: 20 Jul 2006, 11:30:42 UTC

Collectivism is what helps protect the rights of the individual.


This is such a contradictory statement I almost don't know what to do with it. There logically can't be a 'collective' right except for a derivation of a rights inherent in an observable entity. In this case, that entity is the individual person. Mysticism (the hallmark of collectivism/ atheistic or theocratic or otherwise) is a prerequisite metaphysic for a belief here. There's no ghostly magical spirit that somehow performs miracles when 2 men get together as opposed to one man standing alone. Where do you derive the belief that somehow moral superiority is granted to 'society' (a non referential concept) as opposed to individual moral rights (an idea which is demonstrable by reference to reality) ?

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

ID: 372236 · Report as offensive
Profile Sleestak
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Jun 01
Posts: 779
Credit: 857,664
RAC: 0
United States
Message 372406 - Posted: 20 Jul 2006, 19:17:23 UTC
Last modified: 20 Jul 2006, 19:18:20 UTC

The embryo is not necessarily undifferentiated cells which is the point. At the fertility clinic, a women enters to be impregnated. They produce many embryos, let's say 20. They implant one at a time until it takes. They then throw away 19 embryos if the first one takes. These should be used to advance medicine, otherwise it's simply trash. It's not "butchering" babies.

I think Bush might be blocking federal funds to take sides with the religious sects possibly in light of the points that the Iranian President made in his awkard letter. The point remains that Bush's actions are politically based rather than logically based. As long as it's legal and can be done in the private sector, that's all that matters.

I disagree, in a general sense, that a government's job is to 'protect its citizens'. From what? Only outside threats and from criminals and from abuses by its own governmental bodies. These are the only proper reasons for a government to intervene and protect its citizens.

It is the Federal governments job to protect it's citizens but only when it comes to international issues. The federal government was established to be a collective representative in foreign policy. Since then, they have grossly overstepped their bounds and are quickly negating the idea of separate states.

TEAM
LL
ID: 372406 · Report as offensive
Profile Scary Capitalist
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 21 May 01
Posts: 7404
Credit: 97,085
RAC: 0
United States
Message 372408 - Posted: 20 Jul 2006, 19:25:37 UTC

Bush Vetoes Medical Progress
July 20, 2006


IRVINE, CA--"President Bush’s veto of a bill to remove restrictions on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research is immoral," said Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute.


"It is revealing that Bush has used his first veto to oppose potentially life-saving research in the name of the dogma that microscopic embryos are sacred. Clearly, Bush and other ‘compassionate conservatives’ are not concerned with the well-being of humans, but with sacrificing them to clumps of cells in the name of religion. Such opposition is rooted in the perverse worship of human suffering.

“Anyone who truly cares about human life must condemn this religious assault on medical progress.”


### ### ###

Dr. Yaron Brook
ID: 372408 · Report as offensive
Profile Scary Capitalist
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 21 May 01
Posts: 7404
Credit: 97,085
RAC: 0
United States
Message 372446 - Posted: 20 Jul 2006, 20:48:34 UTC

Fetus: The unborn young of a viviparous vertebrate; in humans, the unborn young from the end of the eighth week to the moment of birth as distinguished from the earlier embryo
----American Heritage Dictionary, 2nd College edition.
Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

ID: 372446 · Report as offensive
Profile Es99
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 10874
Credit: 350,402
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 372450 - Posted: 20 Jul 2006, 20:54:26 UTC - in response to Message 372446.  
Last modified: 20 Jul 2006, 20:57:33 UTC

Fetus: The unborn young of a viviparous vertebrate; in humans, the unborn young from the end of the eighth week to the moment of birth as distinguished from the earlier embryo
----American Heritage Dictionary, 2nd College edition.

I guess you've got a better dictionary than Brainsmasheur. It seems he'd rather believe a crappy American dictionary than a qualified English science teacher. What a moron.
An Embryo is not a baby. It is human cells sure, but my toe is human cells and I don't see anyone starting a college fund for it.
Reality Internet Personality
ID: 372450 · Report as offensive
Profile BrainSmashR
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 7 Apr 02
Posts: 1772
Credit: 384,573
RAC: 0
United States
Message 372453 - Posted: 20 Jul 2006, 20:56:49 UTC - in response to Message 372450.  
Last modified: 20 Jul 2006, 20:57:30 UTC

Fetus: The unborn young of a viviparous vertebrate; in humans, the unborn young from the end of the eighth week to the moment of birth as distinguished from the earlier embryo
----American Heritage Dictionary, 2nd College edition.

I guess you've got a better dictionary than Brainsmasheur. It seems he'd rather believe a crappy American dictionary than a qualified English science teacher. What a moron.


No, I'm just not a ghetto piece of trash that makes distinctions between what is and is not a living organisim just so I can bash the leader of a foreign nation.


ID: 372453 · Report as offensive
Profile Scary Capitalist
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 21 May 01
Posts: 7404
Credit: 97,085
RAC: 0
United States
Message 372458 - Posted: 20 Jul 2006, 21:03:35 UTC

Brainsmasher, noone her doubts the fact that embryos are alive. But 2 cells, or 100 don't make a person. That is what several of us were asserting throughout this thread.
Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

ID: 372458 · Report as offensive
Profile BrainSmashR
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 7 Apr 02
Posts: 1772
Credit: 384,573
RAC: 0
United States
Message 372464 - Posted: 20 Jul 2006, 21:09:12 UTC - in response to Message 372458.  
Last modified: 20 Jul 2006, 21:13:51 UTC

Brainsmasher, noone her doubts the fact that embryos are alive. But 2 cells, or 100 don't make a person. That is what several of us were asserting throughout this thread.



That opinion is one of the reasons you, and several others, are political minorities in this country.

...and ES, you're right, I really couldn't care less what you think, especially when you offer no proof to support your opinions.

You're not American, you don't vote in our elections, you don't pay our taxes. Your opinion is irrelavent when it comes to American politics.


ID: 372464 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 . . . 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · Next

Message boards : Science (non-SETI) : Stem Cell Research - CLOSED


 
©2024 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.