jakee 1,501 #76 June 22, 2007 QuoteThe difference being that all the examples you list there is a direct, tangible benefit to the populations they serve. And there is no benefit to the population from developing new cures for terminal diseases?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #77 June 22, 2007 QuoteQuoteThe difference being that all the examples you list there is a direct, tangible benefit to the populations they serve. And there is no benefit to the population from developing new cures for terminal diseases? Of course there is a benefit. What new cures have come through embryonic stemcell research? How much money is spent on medical research in your country? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,501 #78 June 22, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteThe difference being that all the examples you list there is a direct, tangible benefit to the populations they serve. And there is no benefit to the population from developing new cures for terminal diseases? Of course there is a benefit. What new cures have come through embryonic stemcell research? What percentage of researchers say it is an area of huge potential?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DSE 5 #79 June 22, 2007 QuoteQuoteI'd surely rather see my taxes go to freezing embryos than burying soldiers. you just want to let them lie there? rotting? close national cemetaries? .....reducing the military, completely eliminate support of arts and wierd stuff. Those are areas I'd like to see go. Twisted sense of humor, but I like it.... I'd submit that if we weren't funding a war, soldiers wouldn't be dying. If soldiers weren't dying, we wouldn't need to bury them, right? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #80 June 22, 2007 Quote Quote Quote Quote The difference being that all the examples you list there is a direct, tangible benefit to the populations they serve. And there is no benefit to the population from developing new cures for terminal diseases? Of course there is a benefit. What new cures have come through embryonic stemcell research? What percentage of researchers say it is an area of huge potential? I don't know. How about answering my questions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #81 June 22, 2007 People do die from natural causes ... but maybe we can cure natural causes with stem cells."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #82 June 22, 2007 QuoteTwisted sense of humor, but I like it.... I'd submit that if we weren't funding a war, soldiers wouldn't be dying. If soldiers weren't dying, we wouldn't need to bury them, right? everybody dies someday - gotta bury 'em or, dehydrate them to extract chemicals that can be used for our personal benefit ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #83 June 22, 2007 QuoteSo the CDC should be privatized? No. The CDC should stay open. There are exceptions to my rule. When there are issues of common use or resources, the government should step in. Roads, as I stated before, are governmental. Air and the environment are governmental issues. Disease "control" - prevention of pandemic, epidemic, vectors, and general virological analyis is a proper use of the government. But development of new medicines, etc. - those things that have a profit motive - should be left to private industry. There is a fine line that divides these things - I admit that. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freethefly 6 #84 June 22, 2007 Quote Quote Fact is that ESC have far more use and potential than ASC. Please elaborate. Your link, which is very informative (thanks ), did not say much about current uses for ESC. ESC's have a greater potential soley because they have not yet matured and can be used to creat any part of the body, including T-cells (something that I could badly use). http://www.hon.ch/News/HSN/533590.html There is research on ASC that can also potentialy regenerate certian body parts http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=58221. If one can compliment the other and help speed research along to arrive at the best means of treatment then why would anyone want to hinder the other? Everyone knows someone who may benefit from this research. Everyone should be in favor for it. You may need its outcome someday yourself."...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PLFXpert 0 #85 June 22, 2007 Quote I'd submit that if we weren't funding a war, soldiers wouldn't be dying. Interesting theory. Let's fund the military only when we feel like it. "What? We're on red alert? I better go fund the military today." Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DSE 5 #86 June 22, 2007 Quote Quote I'd submit that if we weren't funding a war, soldiers wouldn't be dying. Interesting theory. Let's fund the military only when we feel like it. "What? We're on red alert? I better go fund the military today." Funding the military and funding a war are the same thing....how? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PLFXpert 0 #87 June 22, 2007 I completely mispoke.My point is this thread is about whether or not stem cell research should be federally funded. When people compare that to federal funding of the war, it's not comparable. War SHOULD be federally funded. Let's continue to pressure Congress to decrease the funding if we are no longer in agreement with/never were in agreement with the war. (Edit: Obviously we need to fund it enough that our troops' gradual & safe return is not compromised.) What I'm hearing from some is "If stem cell research should be privately funded, then so should the war." or conversely, "If the war is federally funded, then stem cell research should be, too." That makes NO sense to me. Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DSE 5 #88 June 22, 2007 Quote I completely mispoke.My point is this thread is about whether or not stem cell research should be federally funded. When people compare that to federal funding of the war it's not comparable. War SHOULD be federally funded. Let's continue to pressure Congress to stop the funding if we are no longer in agreement with/never were in agreement with the war. What I'm hearing from some is "If stem cell research should be privately funded, then so should the war." That makes NO sense to me. I'm not hearing this, either. What I am hearing (and agree with), is that we should fund stem-cell research *instead* of the war. Coincidentally, the Salt Lake Tribune, Ultra-conservative newspaper owned by the Mormon Church, had a great cartoon today. When a Mormon newspaper does a cartoon in favor of embryonic stem cell research, you KNOW Bush is F@#$! up. Utah is Bush' biggest supporter, the reddest state in the Union. Even Utah recognizes how moronic his position is with regard to the 'why' he's opposed to funding it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PLFXpert 0 #89 June 22, 2007 QuoteWhat I am hearing (and agree with), is that we should fund stem-cell research *instead* of the war. But...but...but there's a difference in federally funding a war and federally funding stem cell research. When someone compares them, says "instead of" or whatever makes no sense. Once again, I support stem cell research including embryonic stem cell research--just not federal funding of it.Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #90 June 22, 2007 If the government funds stem cell research and stem cell research produces a cure for something I have will I get the cure for free, for the cost of the cure, or for the cost of the cure plus profit?"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #91 June 22, 2007 Embryonic stem cell research hasn't resulted in any cures. Of course, genetics didn't show great practical applications or anything in about 1860 when Gregor Mendel was doing experiments with peas and hybrids. The same thing could be said in 1980 about experiments with DNA recombinant technologies not producing a useful or approved medication. Well, by 1982 we had Humulin - a genetically engineered synthetic insulin resulting from the injection of human DNA into e. coli bacteria. And this stuff was good, man! It was purer than the stuff squeezed from a cow pancreas that was a previous form of insulin. Since then, we've got all kinds of genetically engineered and produced drugs. We haven't seen any results of embryonic stem cells yet, but "yet" is a pretty big word. It'll happen. We'll see medications for the treatments some time - heck, maybe we'll have replacement pancreases grown. There is a form of government funding of applied medical research that I actually do support. There are some diseases that have a low prevalence in the population. This means that there is little potential for profit for a company that would make medications to treat them. So the government should assist in funding these things so that better treatments are available for things like cystic fibrosis, sickle cell anemia or multiple myeloma that are of low enough prevalence to make assistance somewhat necessary. While it goes against my libertarian leanings, there are indeed some circumstances where government assistance is useful. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #92 June 22, 2007 QuoteWhat I am hearing (and agree with), is that we should fund stem-cell research *instead* of the war. That's like saying you should be writing this in a letter to the editor of your newspaper instead of writing this here. The two are mutually exclusive. The issue is simple - should the government fund stem cell research? The answer to this question is yes, no, or maybe. Whether the government funds something else you find abhorrent should have little to do with your answer, unless it tends to explain a general policy rule. I agree with PLF Expert. She's right - war should be federally funded. Privately funded wars are usually considered to be bad things, as they are best exemplified by terrorists and gang wars. The final scene in Scarface is an example of a privately funded war. The Constitution provides that Congress has the authority "to provide for the common defense and general welfare." Some may say, "See? The general welfare. This is a way that Congress can do this." I would respond that there's another part of Article 1, Section 8 that says Congress has the power "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." Ah! To me, that says that promotion of science means letting the scientists do the work and keep the reward for it. See, the military and science and arts and things are all separate things. You can do all of them. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PLFXpert 0 #93 June 22, 2007 Quote The issue is simple - should the government fund stem cell research? The answer to this question is yes, no, or maybe. Whether the government funds something else you find abhorrent should have little to do with your answer, unless it tends to explain a general policy rule. Exactly!Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DSE 5 #94 June 22, 2007 Quote Quote What I am hearing (and agree with), is that we should fund stem-cell research *instead* of the war. I agree with PLF Expert. She's right - war should be federally funded. Privately funded wars are usually considered to be bad things, as they are best exemplified by terrorists and gang wars. The final scene in Scarface is an example of a privately funded war. The Constitution provides that Congress has the authority "to provide for the common defense and general welfare." Some may say, "See? The general welfare. This is a way that Congress can do this." Dayum; you're right. I forgot it's OK for a federally funded war for the exclusive benefit of private citizens and corporations.Dayum 2; It's incredibly simple. Which is why the country is divided on the subject. Since I pay taxes, I think I've paid for the right to say "I would rather the government spend my tax $$ on finding a cure for AIDS, stupidity, homelessness than spending it on a war so Dick Cheney, George Bush, and their cronies can line their pockets." You have paid for the right to disagree. Quote military and science and arts and things are all separate things. You can do all of them. huh? I thing I don't understand that statement. As far as Article 1, Sec 8? It's about as useful as toilet paper today. Actually, toilet paper is worth more, because I can wipe my ass with it. As I said earlier, I'm on your side in terms of private industry researching this avenue vs government. The problem is that government won't allow it. It's not a question of funding. It's a question of law, and Bush bases his opposition on ridiculous notions of Christianity and fear of cloning. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #95 June 22, 2007 QuoteI forgot it's OK for a federally funded war for the exclusive benefit of private citizens and corporations. I thought that government's job was to do things for the benefit of private citizens and corporations. Who else should it benefit? Itself? It's what happens, but it shouldn't be that way. QuoteIt's incredibly simple. Which is why the country is divided on the subject. Yes. The country is divided on terms of feelings and policy. I could ask you the question, "Is lawrocket as arrogant as he is ugly?" Well, I'm an ugly SOB, and I am also arrogant, but it's pretty difficult to quantify this stuff. QuoteSince I pay taxes, I think I've paid for the right to say "I would rather the government spend my tax $$ on finding a cure for AIDS, stupidity, homelessness than spending it on a war so Dick Cheney, George Bush, and their cronies can line their pockets." Oh, absolutely! But the point really doesn't get anybody anywhere. When discussing whether money should be spent on stem-cell research, it really doesn't seem to do much good discussing the demerits of other things. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,009 #96 June 22, 2007 >When discussing whether money should be spent on stem-cell research, >it really doesn't seem to do much good discussing the demerits of other >things. Government funding does not exist in a vacuum. If we were proposing that the government cut all funding for nuclear safety in the US, it would be somewhat irrational to ignore the other safety issues that the government _does_ fund. The funding for safety programs that we have implemented so far sets important precedents when considering what to fund (or not fund) in the future. Same for scientific research, military funding, social programs etc. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PLFXpert 0 #97 June 22, 2007 QuoteGovernment funding does not exist in a vacuum. If we were proposing that the government cut all funding for nuclear safety in the US, it would be somewhat irrational to ignore the other safety issues that the government _does_ fund. The funding for safety programs that we have implemented so far sets important precedents when considering what to fund (or not fund) in the future. Same for scientific research, military funding, social programs etc. Right. But, how are military & war funding related to funding of stem cell research?Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #98 June 22, 2007 QuoteRight. But, how are military & war funding related to stem cell research? Priorities..... WAR GOOD Social programs BAD Every sperm is sacred, Every sperm is great. If a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate. Michael Palin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,009 #99 June 22, 2007 >But, how are military & war funding related to funding of stem cell research? A few ways. 1) Morality. If it's OK to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to kill people (including tens of thousands of innocent people) surely it is OK to spend millions in a pursuit that destroys potential life (that would be destroyed anyway) in order to save many other lives. 2) Funding. The government does not have unlimited funds, and any money that goes to one project is money that cannot go to another. The war has cost us half a trillion dollars so far - that's money we cannot spend on other things like stem cell research. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PLFXpert 0 #100 June 22, 2007 Confusion. Federal funding = one supports the cause. Private funding = one does not support the cause. Reality: I did NOT support us going to Iraq. I DO support federal funding of war. I DO support stem cell research. I do NOT support federal funding of it.Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
